Shore

Shore v. Commercial Bankers Life Insurance

Good Law
100 Cal. Rptr. 802·1972 Cal. App. LEXIS 1131·24 Cal. App. 3d 226
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 21, 1972Civ. No. 38180California1,975 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Kaus, J.

Plaintiff Michael Shore appeals from a judgment in favor of the defendant Commercial Bankers Life Insurance Company (“Commercial”). The appeal has merit and the judgment must be reversed.

Facts

This is a most refreshing case in that, on sharply conflicting evidence, the trial court found all the relevant facts in plaintiff’s favor, but held against him solely on a point of law. We shall therefore only relate that aspect of the evidence which supports the findings of fact.

In 1965 plaintiff had discussions with officers of Commercial concerning the possibility that Coastal Union, an agent, would place health and accident insurance which it was then writing through another carrier, with Commercial. Plaintiff was assured that if he was successful in his efforts he would be “adequately compensated.” He brought the principals together *228 and eventually Coastal Union placed business with Commercial which resulted in premiums of about four million dollars. Plaintiff then broached the subject of his compensation. He was first offered a vice presidency with Commercial, with a salary and stock options. He declined. 1 2 Eventually the negotiations culminated in an agreement…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.