Barnhart

Barnhart v. New York Life Insurance

Good Law
141 F.3d 1310·98 Daily Journal DAR 3793·21 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 2953·1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 7417·98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2754
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 15, 1998No. 96-36148California2,424 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Alarcon, J.

Plaintiffs, Thomas A. Barnhart (“Barn-hart”) and Nancy J. Barnhart, appeal from the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant, New York Life Insurance Company (“New York Life”), and the dismissal of this action. Barnhart acted as an insurance agent for New York Life until New York Life terminated Barnhart’s contract. Barn-hart claims that New York Life 1) violated Barnhart’s rights under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) and the Age Discrimination Employment Act (“ADEA”), and 2) breached its contract with Barnhart. We affirm because the record shows that Barnhart was an independent contractor and New York Life terminated Barnhart’s contract in accordance with its express termination provision.

I

In 1978, Barnhart entered into a “Field Underwriter’s Contract” (the “Contract”) with New York Life, which authorized Barn-hart to sell insurance policies on behalf of New York Life and provided the terms of commission he would receive for these sales. The Contract provided no termination date but instead contained a provision allowing either party to terminate the Contract with or without cause with thirty days written notice.

In 1993, Paul Colgan…

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.