Brian Olander v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
19 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 922, 317 F.3d 807, 60 Fed. R. Serv. 447 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under North Dakota law, a personal services contract of indefinite duration that is silent as to the grounds for termination is unambiguously terminable at will by either party. The existence of a termination review procedure or aspirational preamble language does not create an ambiguity regarding the at-will nature of the agreement.
Facts:
- In 1981, Brian Olander entered into a State Farm Agent's Agreement to work as an independent contractor agent for State Farm in North Dakota.
- The agreement was for an indefinite duration and contained a termination clause stating either party had the 'right to terminate this Agreement by written notice'.
- The agreement did not specify whether termination had to be for cause.
- In August 1996, Olander was charged with murder following an altercation with a neighbor.
- State Farm requested that Olander take an unpaid leave of absence until the criminal charges were resolved.
- Olander refused to take the leave of absence.
- As a result of his refusal, State Farm terminated his agency agreement.
Procedural Posture:
- Brian Olander filed a diversity action against State Farm in the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota, alleging wrongful termination.
- State Farm moved for summary judgment, arguing the agency agreement was terminable at will.
- The district court granted State Farm's motion for summary judgment, concluding the contract was unambiguously terminable at will.
- Olander, as appellant, appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
- A divided three-judge panel of the Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment.
- State Farm, as appellee, petitioned for a rehearing en banc, which the Eighth Circuit granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is the State Farm Agent's Agreement, which is silent on whether termination must be for cause, ambiguous as to whether it is terminable at will under North Dakota law?
Opinions:
Majority - Loken, Circuit Judge
No. The State Farm Agent’s Agreement is unambiguously terminable at will. Under North Dakota law, a personal services contract of indefinite duration is terminable at will by either party unless stated otherwise. The contract's silence on the grounds for termination is not an ambiguity; it is a clear expression of an at-will relationship, consistent with the long-standing general rule. The provision allowing for a termination review and the preamble's aspirational language about a 'mutually satisfactory relationship' do not create an ambiguity in the otherwise clear termination provision. Therefore, extrinsic evidence regarding the parties' intent is inadmissible.
Dissenting - Heaney, Circuit Judge
Yes. The State Farm Agent's Agreement is ambiguous because rational arguments can be made for different positions about its meaning. Under North Dakota law, a contract must be read as a whole. The termination clause, which is silent on the requirement of cause, must be read alongside the provision granting a terminated agent a right to review and the preamble's expectation of a maintained 'mutually satisfactory relationship.' These other provisions provide textual support for the argument that termination could only be for good cause, creating an ambiguity that should be resolved by a finder of fact using extrinsic evidence. The majority improperly isolates the termination clause instead of interpreting the contract as a whole.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the strong legal presumption of at-will relationships in personal services and employment contracts of indefinite duration. It establishes that, for a contract to be considered terminable only 'for cause,' such a requirement must be clearly specified. The court's refusal to find ambiguity from a termination review clause or general preamble language sets a high bar for parties arguing against an at-will interpretation. This ruling aligns with the majority of jurisdictions that have interpreted the standard State Farm agreement, promoting uniformity in its application across different states.
Unlock the full brief for Brian Olander v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company