 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Halsell v. NGC County Mutual Indurance Company4/30/1997
Delivered and Filed: April 30, 1997
AFFIRMED
This is an appeal from a summary judgement in favor of NGC County Mutual Insurance Co., Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co., Nationwide Life Insurance Co., Nationwide Indemnity Insurance Co., Nationwide Property and Casualty Insurance Co., and Financial Horizons Life Insurance Co. (jointly and severally referred to as Nationwide), against James Halsell in an alleged wrongful termination action.
Nationwide and Halsell entered into an employment agreement wherein Halsell would operate an insurance agency on behalf of Nationwide. Three documents were signed by the parties at or about the same time, and, for the purpose of this summary judgment, constitute the entire contract in dispute in this case. They are designated and state, in part:
a. A letter from Nationwide's Personal Lines Agency manager, signed by Nationwide's manager and Halsell setting forth the company's expectations for the success of the venture. National agreed to provide staff to assist in the operation of the business, pay Halsell's salary for a period of three years and provide for a majority of the office expenses during the "three year employee period ".
b. A Precontract Declaration of Understanding, and
c. An Employee Agent-Texas Agent Employment Agreement, which provides, "Agent's employment hereunder shall terminate upon the death of the Agent and said employment may be terminated at will by the Companies or by the Agent by mailing or delivering to the other written notice of termination."
A dispute arose between the parties and Halsell was fired. Halsell contends his employment contract was for a period of three years, and that he could not be terminated except for just cause. Nationwide contends the contract could be terminated at the will of either party.
Halsell asserts the trial court erred in:
1. finding there was no genuine issue of material fact ;
2. finding there was no ambiguity in the employment contract;
3. finding that the contract was for "employment at will";
4. considering evidence outside the pleading on file; and
5. granting summary judgement on Halsell's negligence cause of action on the grounds that the Texas Workers' Compensation Act precluded Halsell's claims.
The standard for reviewing a summary judgement are the following:
"a. The party moving for a summary judgement has the burden of showing that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that it is entitled judgement as a matter of law;
"b. in deciding whether there is a disputed material fact issue precluding summary judgment, evidence favorable to the non-movant will be taken as true, and
"c. every reasonable inference must be indulged in favor of the non-movant and any doubt resolved in its favor." Nixon v. Mr. Property Management Co., 690 S.W.2d 546, 548-49 (Tex. 1985).
Summary judgement is proper when the evidence establishes there is no genuine issue of material fact concerning one or more of the essential elements of plaintiff's cause of action, or when each element of an affirmative defense to plaintiff's cause of action is established as a matter of law. Black v. Victoria Lloyds Ins. Co., 797 S.W.2d 20, 27 (Tex. 1990).
Texas is an employment at will state. When the time of employment is indefinite or uncertain, either the employer or employee may terminate the employment relationship at the pleasure of either party without notice or reason. See Hussong v Schwan's Sales Enter., Inc., 896 S.W.2d 320, 324 (Tex. App
Page 1 2 3 Texas Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|