This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Employment Law
Breach of Contract
Interference with Economic Advantage

Goldie C. Prinz v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, et al.

Published: Nov. 9, 1996 | Result Date: Aug. 9, 1996 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: V00842533 –  $0

Judge

Dean A. Beaupre

Court

Alameda Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Paul N. "Pete" McCloskey
(Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy LLP)

Trudy L. Martin


Defendant

Nancy J. Casale

James S. Greenan


Experts

Plaintiff

Paige K. Proctor
(technical)

Defendant

Thomas K. MacDonald
(technical)

Facts

Plaintiff Goldie Prinz, a 54-year-old woman, became a full time agent with defendant Farmer's Insurance Exchange in 1983. Pursuant to the agent appointment agreement, she was required to follow underwriting rules and procedures, promptly remit funds, comply with normal good business practices and conform to all state and federal laws relevant to the sale of insurance policies. The defendants claimed the plaintiff failed to comply with her administrative duties, provoking complaints from defendant Farmer's customers and the Department of Insurance. Farmers claimed that in spite of multiple warnings over a period of several years and numerous attempts to help the plaintiff improve her agency, the plaintiff refused to acknowledge any deficiencies in her performance and ultimately resigned rather than agree to bring her performance in line with what was expected of Farmer's agents. The plaintiff's complaint originally included 11 separate causes of action, including discrimination and sexual harassment. The court granted summary adjudication for the defendants as to all claims except breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and interference with prospective economic advantage.

Settlement Discussions

The plaintiff made no settlement demand, but indicated she would accept a settlement in the range of $300,000. The defendants made a C.C.P. º998 offer of compromise for $10,000.

Specials in Evidence

$300,000 $1.5 million

Damages

The plaintiff claimed in excess of $1.5 million in damages.

Other Information

The verdict was reached approximately two years and two months after the case was filed. A settlement conference was held on July 23, 1996 before Judge Mark Eaton. It did not resolve the matter.

Deliberation

9 hours

Poll

11-0-1

Length

22 days


#78907

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390