St. Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. v. Wier 12/27/04 CA1/1

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » California » Court of Appeal » 2005 » St. Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. v. Wier 12/27/04 CA1/1

State: California

Court: 1st District Court of Appeal 1st District Court of Appeal

Docket No: A101791

Case Date: 03/23/2005

Preview:Filed 12/27/04 State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. v. Wier CA1/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. JOHN W. WIER et al., Defendants and Appellants. JOHN W. WIER et al. Defendants, Cross-complainants and Appellants, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY et al. Plaintiffs, Cross-defendants and Appellants. Plaintiff insurance companies sued defendants, two insurance agents, for misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of contract. Defendants filed a crosscomplaint alleging breach of contract and intentional interference with contract. The jury rendered a verdict for defendants on both pleadings and awarded substantial compensatory and punitive damages to defendants on their claims for intentional interference with contract. The trial judge thereafter granted plaintiffs a new trial on all claims. A101791 (Mendocino County Super. Ct. No. SCUKCVG 00-82819)

Defendants challenge this grant of a new trial as untimely and contest the trial court's grant of a nonsuit on their claims for breach of contract. Plaintiffs cross-appeal from the trial court's denial of their motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), as well as from the underlying jury determinations. We affirm the trial court's grant of a new trial and its dismissal of defendants' contract claims, reverse the denial of plaintiffs' motion for JNOV, and remand with instructions. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs and cross-defendants State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, State Farm Life Insurance Company, and State Farm General Insurance Company (collectively State Farm) are a related group of insurance companies. State Farm sells insurance written by these companies through a network of exclusive agents. Defendants and cross-complainants John Wier and Richard Pyorre (defendants) were, at one time, State Farm agents based in northern California. Pyorre first became an agent in 1972, while Wier became an agent in 1989. Both continued as State Farm agents until early 1999, when State Farm terminated them. State Farm's agents are required to execute a written "Agent's Agreement," a standard printed form drafted by the companies. Both defendants had signed a version of the Agent's Agreement. In pertinent part, the termination provisions of their Agent's Agreements read as follows: "You or State Farm have the right to terminate this Agreement by written notice delivered to the other or mailed to the other's last known address. . . . [

Download St. Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. v. Wier 12/27/04 CA1/1.pdf