Court Opinion

ID: 9686092
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 15:27:24.936642+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:14.785890
License: Public Domain

White, J.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part). I do not agree with the majority’s conclusion that plaintiffs plan was a mere idea not subject to private ownership giving rise to a property interest capable of conversion, or with its characterization of plaintiff’s proposal as simply presenting “the idea of automated tum-on/disconnect policies.” Rather, as the trial court ruled on defendant’s motion for a directed verdict, plaintiff’s four-page typewritten proposal was'' detailed, specific, and concrete, and was not merely an idea. The proposal set forth in detail how the process of disconnects and tum-ons could be automated using the Customer Information System. Although defendant was investigating methods to reduce field service calls, plaintiff’s proposed methods were not included in the pilot projects, but were, in substantial measure, ultimately implemented by defendant. These proposed methods were reduced to writing, were the product of plaintiff’s labor, and were sufficiently specific to constitute a detailed plan subject to private ownership. Further, defendant’s employee suggestion plan did not provide that all suggestions submitted pursuant to the plan became the property of defendant, that defendant’s decisions under the plan were *591final, or that an employee’s sole remedy was to pursue rights under the plan.
The question what damages may appropriately be recovered under the circumstances of this case is a separate question that the majority’s disposition makes it unnecessary to reach.
Notwithstanding my conclusion that plaintiff’s suggestion was subject to private ownership, I agree that a new trial is warranted. The jury’s verdicts on the contract and conversion counts are inconsistent. As defendant correctly observes, the contract includes a provision under the heading “Company Action Duplicating Rejected Proposals” that states that an award should be considered if the company’s action is influenced in any way by the proposal, and a provision under the heading “Matters Under Study By The Company” that states that proposals regarding problems under study may be reviewed for an award if they benefit the action being considered.1 Given these aspects of the contract, the jury could not consistently find conversion but no breach of contract.

 I recognize that the inconsistent verdicts may in large measure be due to the manner in which the case was tried. These provisions of the contract were not highlighted to the jury. The provisions tended to support plaintiffs breach of contract claim; but plaintiff may have chosen to highlight her conversion claim. Defendant, on the other hand, sought to defeat both claims.