Opinion ID: 2137180
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: denial of directed verdict and judgment n.o.v.

Text: Referring to Pugh's second cause of action, which is based on the ALCO transaction, Great Plains argues that ALCO's payment of $60,000 was a cancellation fee and, therefore, outside operation of the agreement with Pugh for a commission concerning ALCO's warranty coverage. If Great Plains' argument is correct, the district court should have directed a verdict against Pugh and dismissed his second cause of action or entered a judgment notwithstanding the verdict for Pugh on that cause of action. Pugh was entitled to a 5-percent commission on payments which Great Plains received from ALCO if the payments were based on extended warranty coverage sold by ALCO to its customers. Thus, the crucial question is whether ALCO's payments were based on warranty coverage issued to ALCO's customers or whether the payments from ALCO were a cancellation fee, which, as far as we can ascertain, resembles ALCO's buying its way out of the Great Plains contract in the face of assertions that ALCO had breached the contract. Nothing in the record indicates that cancellation fee constitutes words of art or some type of technical jargon or that the phrase has any particular meaning supplied by any contract related to the litigation. Placed in the context of the course of dealings between ALCO and Great Plains, the $60,000 was paid by ALCO after ALCO's delivery of a $193,213 check for premiums collected on extended warranty coverage. However, the check, according to ALCO, would not be honored if deposited by Great Plains. In view of the problem concerning the check for premiums from ALCO's warranty coverage, Great Plains' demands for payment from ALCO contain specific reference to the first dollar of premium to be remitted to Great Plains for the extended warranty coverage and ALCO's retention of insurance premiums due and owing to Great Plains for that coverage. Therefore, the evidence was susceptible to a finding that Great Plains' claim against ALCO was based on premiums which ALCO had collected for its warranty coverage, but initially failed to remit to Great Plains. In that setting, the evidence presented a submissible issue for the jury, namely, whether payments of ALCO were actually payments relative to premiums due for warranty coverage on ALCO's products. Consequently, the district court properly denied Great Plains' directed verdict motion and request for judgment n.o.v.