Hennighan

Hennighan v. Insphere Insurance Solutions

Good Law
38 F. Supp. 3d 1083·2014 WL 1600034·2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55969
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaApril 21, 2014Case No. 13-cv-00638-WHOCalifornia10,092 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Orrick, J.

Re: Dkt. Nos. 59;

ORDER ON CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

Determining whether an individual is an independent contractor or employee requires a fact-intensive analysis that is not often susceptible to resolution on summary judgment. Plaintiff Thomas Hennighan is an insurance sales agent who signed an independent contractor agreement with defendant Insphere Insurance Solutions, Inc., and each party has asked me to determine his classification as a matter of law. Hennighan was paid only commissions, had his own clients, kept his own hours (more than 50 percent of which were spent out of the office), and paid his own taxes and expenses. While Insphere had certain expectations about his sales results, it did not exercise sufficient control over the means and methods that Hennighan used to do his job to make him an employee. No jury could reasonably find differently, so I will GRANT Insphere’s motion for summary judgment and DENY Hennighan’s motion for partial summary judgment.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Insphere is in the business of selling insurance policies. Hennighan used to sell policies for it. His relationship with In-sphere began on April 23, 2010, when he…

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.