Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
October 4, 1993
No. 93-1114
GARY A. COOPRIDER,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant, Appellee.
____________________
ERRATA SHEET
The opinion of this
amended as follows:
of second
full paragraph,
1993, is
replace
Gary A.
diversity
Mutual
Life
Insurance
former employer,
Company ("John
John Hancock
Hancock"),
claiming
with contractual
and deceptive
relations, fraud,
and unfair
Mass. Gen. L.
had
been
associated
Cooprider
vice
association.
John
Hancock's
in
J.
Paul McDonnell,
Boston,
about
In
John
renewing
that
Woolley, John
1989,
with
We affirm.
spoke to
president
ch. 93A.
Cooprider and
Woolley
met in
In January
Germany and
discussed
and
document,
Charles
Woolley
drafted
Woolley
Cooprider's
initialed
by
Cooprider,
with
GA
nickname).
Coop
one-page
entitled
Cooprider"
This document
agrees to groom
says,
handwritten
"Agreement
by
("Coop"
is
among
other
GA Coop Cooprider
to
take over the agency for John Hancock in Europe" when Woolley
stepped
down
no
later
than
-2-2-
June
6,
1992.
Cooprider
subsequently returned
to his
home in Germany
retaining the
to draft a
a letter
Cooprider,1
The letter of
dated
was sent
in Boston.
March 7,
1989,
by Woolley
Cooprider complied,
purportedly signed
to McDonnell
on
March 8.
handwritten agreement.
by
the
agency or
Cooprider wrote:
____________________
1Cooprider claims to have signed a different version of
this letter dated March 6, 1989. However, he admits that the
signature on the March 7 version appears to be his and has
presented no evidence that John Hancock received the earlier
draft. The two drafts differ in one particular. The March 6
version states that Cooprider will have "earned the right" to
lead John Hancock operations in Europe. The March 7 version
provides that he will receive "first consideration" for the
right to lead based on his "successful accomplishments".
-3-3-
Cooprider
acknowledges
receiving
the day it
copy
of
went out to
McDonnell.
On
March 14,
agreement
1989,
McDonnell advised
Woolley of
had received.
he was
unaware of
the agreement.
his
He made
he later said
However,
he asked
with
the five
insurance
companies
that he
had
in Massachusetts, approved a
Cooprider's first
another John
year
An attachment
monthly compensation
and
On
action ensued.
Limited discovery,
allowed.
directed
to
-4-4-
judgement.
Hancock; her
this opinion.
Summary
On December
29, 1992,
Judge
judgment in favor
later in
appropriate
when
"there
is
no
genuine issue
as to any material
party is entitled to
Civ. P. 56 (c).
fact and . .
judgment as a
favor
of
R.
nonmoving party
On
. the moving
the party
summary
are resolved in
judgment.
FDIC
____
v.
second
amended
complaint
defines
contract,"
agreement signed
by Cooprider
plaintiff
was to
marketing
and manpower
years after
which
arising
out
"long term
the
handwritten
be engaged
as John Hancock's
development
he was
of
to
for a
which the
director of
period of
succeed Woolley
the
as
three
European
on
district
the
contract
Cooprider had
enter
claim,
the
failed to show
into such
a contract
court
the John
-5-5-
found
that
authority to
Hancock home
The
record
conclusion
jury.
amply
supports
the
district
was no factual
court's
issue for a
lacked authority
on behalf
of John Hancock.
Cooprider
proffered
statements
of
handwritten
no
office nor
As to approval
evidence to
McDonnell,
agreement was
Horack
not sent
or ratification,
contradict
and
the
Woolley
to John
sworn
that
the
Hancock's home
ever communicated to
the home
an attempt
to create
a factual
as
credibility.
These alleged
to
to
raise
be largely manufactured.
those
at
the
home
office
serious
dispute, Cooprider
regarding
his
consistent
the evidence of
with
Woolley's
We
provide more
that
"conclusory
allegations,
improper
Medina-Munoz v. R.
____________
__
on the issue of
fraudulently induced
Hancock
based on
to enter into a
terms of
-6-6-
his employment.
misrepresentation,
a party must
Cir. 1986).
of Woolley's lack of
handwritten
agreement
authority.
was,
therefore,
Any
reliance on the
unreasonable
as
matter of law.
On appeal, Cooprider argues that even if the handwritten
agreement did not bind
Woolley's
successor, at
least he
with John
Hancock which
him after
five months.
second amended
was
had a
as
one-year agreement
by discharging
not appear
in the
indication that it
City of
_____
Somerville, 735 F.2d
__________
here for
Cooprider seems
_______
to have
very little
basis
for this
newly
developed claim.2
____________________
2The premise of the claim appears to be the letter that
Cooprider drafted, dated March 6 or March 7, to be forwarded
to John Hancock's headquarters. The letter in the record
does nothing more than specify monthly compensation for
Cooprider during his first 12 months.
It would be quite a
stretch to
convert what appears to
be an employment
relationship of indefinite
duration, which is normally
terminable at will, into a commitment by John Hancock to
retain Cooprider for one year.
-7-7-
terminated
requirements imposed
Europe.
Massachusetts
termination
where
an
on
allows
at-will
John Hancock
claims
employment
recruits
for
bad
contract
in
faith
is
DeRose v.
______
Putnam Management Co.,
_____________________
The
claim of retaliation
to the district
decline to
district
consider
court
that
it.
the
Cooprider
alleged
did argue
illegal
to
practices
the
were
with
contractual
explained that
intentionally
relationships.
The district
Cooprider
base a
cause of
insurance companies.
could not
On appeal,
court failed
to discuss
Cooprider says
he complains that
his claim
that John
do not
that Cooprider
Hancock.
Once
has preserved
this
claim.
It is true that the complaint contains a brief reference
to
Cooprider's
severed relationships
-8-8-
not
only with
other
insurance
companies but
companies.
But his
with other
agents who
only Cooprider's
the resurrection
on appeal of a
agents
served such
We add that
11,
person who
which provides
is engaged in
result of an unfair
business."
end of
business and
(1977).
to a
suffers a loss
as a
See Nader v.
___ _____
referred to
were the
subject of
Citron, 372
______
chapter 93A,
judgment
by another
of action
no hint
Cooprider's
the allegedly
alleged in
of chapter 93A.
opposition to
illegal
In
summary
practices that
It
then
court dismissed
claim on
was
therefore
outside
chapter
93A's
jurisdictional
-9-9-
requirements.
Cooprider ignores
claim falls
court
in
his
ch. 93A,
prior suggestion
11.
that
On appeal,
the
contract
in this
Massachusetts.
court's
It
remarks were
is
quite likely
directed,
quite
that
the
district
appositely, only
to
the
district
alternative chapter
practices.
was
As
making its
agents,
court's
evaluation
agents
as their residences.
Cooprider's
of
register as
Massachusetts
complaint, opposition to
to how
affected
Cooprider.
Finally, Cooprider argues that the district court denied
him
the
opportunity
to
conduct
adequate
The
the
day
timetable for
discovery
discovery.
on the
agreed to a 60-
dispositive issues
of
-10-10-
authority
effort
and
ratification.
during that
McDonnell,
period
Horack and
necessary information.
Cooprider apparently
to depose
Woolley, most
The
the three
likely to
made no
witnesses,
possess the
for
Nothing in the
-11-11-