Court Opinion

ID: 9605942
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:43:31.960421+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:31.130672
License: Public Domain

TONGUE, J.,
specially concurring.
I concur in the result reached by the majority, but not in all of the reasoning adopted by it.
If there had been evidence that defendant had been responsible not only for the issuance of the booklet, but also for its delivery to plaintiff “in the normal course of his employment,” as alleged in plaintiff’s complaint, and that plaintiff was covered by the plan according to statements appearing in the booklet, I would not be as certain as the majority appears to be that the plaintiff would have no remedy, either in an action at law or in a suit in equity, upon a theory of either promissory or equitable estoppel.
In this case, however, it appears from the evidence that this booklet was not delivered by defendant to plaintiff “in the normal course of his employment,” but that he learned of the booklet from a neighbor who was also an employe. It also appears, as previously stated, that on June 1, 1960, plaintiff was a salaried employe—a road superintendent or road foreman— and it does not appear whether or not he was a union member as of June 1,1960. Under these circumstances, plaintiff cannot properly charge defendant with responsibility for statements in the booklet that may have been inaccurate and misleading to him, but which were accurate and not misleading to the nonsalaried union members covered by provisions of the plan.
For these reasons I concur in the result of the opinion by the majority.