INSURANCE SPECIALISTS INC v LON
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 82-94 I N THE SUPREBE COURT OF THE STATE O F M N A A OTN i982 INSURANCE SPECIALISTS, I N C . , P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, VS . DALE LONGFELLOW, Defendant and A p p e l l a n t . Appeal from: District Court of t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n a n d f o r t h e County o f Y e l l o w s t o n e H o n o r a b l e Diane G. B a r z , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . C o u n s e l o f Record : For P l a i n t i f f : Law O f f i c e s o f R u s s e l l K. B i i l i n g s , Montana F i l l n e r ; R u s s e l l R. Fillner, For Defendant: Towe, B a l l , E n r i g h t & Mackey; N e i l D. Montana Enright, Billings, Submitted on b r i e f s : Decided : Filed: d !Jp[ d 7 '!%i! J u l y 29, 1982 OCT 7 1982 L o n g f e l l o w s t i l l owes $ 1 , 7 0 9 . 6 3 on the note. L o n g f e l l o w coun- t e r c l a i m e d t h a t 762 s e r v i c e c o n t r a c t s s h o u l d h a v e b e e n c r e d i t e d According to Longfellow, to h i s account. n o t o n l y is t h e p r o - m i s s o r y n o t e f u l l y p a i d , b u t I S 1 owes him $ 1 , 8 1 0 i n c o m m i s s i o n s . The Court District found that the evidence did not support Long f e l l o w ' s c o u n t e r c l a i m . raises Longfellow appeal. two seemingly contradictory issues on F i r s t , he claims t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d b y a p p a r e n t l y n o t c o n s t r u i n g t h e p r o m i s s o r y n o t e and t h e u n d e r l y i n g a g r e e m e n t ( l e t t e r ) as one instrument. T h e n , i n t h e s e c o n d i s s u e , h e claims the by Court District erred misinterpreting the underlying agreement. to s u p p o r t a p p e l l a n t ' s f i r s t T h e r e is n o t h i n g i n t h e r e c o r d c o n t e n t i o n t h a t the District Court f a i l e d to c o n s t r u e m i s s o r y n o t e and t h e u n d e r l y i n g a g r e e m e n t t o g e t h e r . of the evidence at trial went to the t h e pro- Nearly a l l construction of the u n d e r l y i n g c o n t r a c t , and d e t e r m i n i n g who had r e f e r r e d w h i c h c a r dealers to ISI. W e need n o t c o n s i d e r t h i s i s s u e s i n c e i t is n o t based on t h e r e c o r d . In his second issue, Longfellow b a s i c a l l y District Court m i s i n t e r p r e t e d in the underlying uncontroverted to ISI, and t h e word agreement. claims "referred" Long f e l l o w that the as it is used contends that his t e s t i m o n y showed he r e f e r r e d c e r t a i n c a r d e a l e r s therefore he should c o n t r a c t s s o l d by t h o s e d e a l e r s . be credited with the service A c c o r d i n g to Long f e l l o w , e v i - d e n c e t h a t a n o t h e r a g e n t f o r I S 1 a l s o r e f e r r e d c a r d e a l e r s to I S 1 is irrelevant Longfellow be Longfellow's because the sole the contract person c o n t e n t i o n must f a i l does making not require the simply because that referrals. it is n o t s u p p o r t e d by t h e r e c o r d . It i s e l e m e n t a r y t h a t e a c h p a r t y m u s t p r o v e h i s own a f f i r - mative allegations. MCA. The claim o f S e c t i o n 26-1-401, satisfaction on MCA, and sect i o n 26-1-402, a promissory note is an a f f i r m a t i v e a l l e g a t i o n and m u s t be p r o v e d by a p r e p o n d e r a n c e of the evidence. B a k e r N a t i o n a l Bank v . 4 5 , 4 5 3 P.2d 7 7 4 ; E . H . 448, 5 1 9 P.2d Coltharp 885. Here, & ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 1 5 3 Mont. Lestar C o . v . T a y l o r ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 3 0 Utah2d a p p e l l a n t Longfellow simply d i d not meet t h i s b u r d e n . A t trial, mony and case c o n s i s t e d o f h i s own v a g u e t e s t i - appellant's the noncommittal testimony of car one dealer. L o n g f e l l o w t e s t i f i e d t h a t p r i o r t o May 1 9 7 8 h e had worked f o r Gamut Insurance Billings area Company were and his most of car the customers. dealers Specifically, in the Long f e l l o w t e s t i f i e d t h a t p r i o r t o May 1 9 7 8 h e r e f e r r e d A r n l u n d A u t o P l a z a , Ryan O l d s m o b i l e , M i d l a n d Dodge, D - J and C a p i t a l F o r d i n H e l e n a , GMC, 1978, when Longfellow made V o l k s w a g e n , Town and C o u n t r y to Gamut I n s u r a n c e . the loan agreement A f t e r May with ISI, L o n g f e l l o w b e g a n t o make r e f e r r a l s f o r I S 1 t h r o u g h t h e l o c a l c a r dealers. He testified that he had nearly daily contact with e v e r y car d e a l e r i n B i l l i n g s and had r e p e a t e d l y r e f e r r e d them t o ISI. He g a v e no s p e c i f i c s place and introduced contracts resulted t h e broad no c o n c e r n i n g when evidence from t h e s e the referrals showing referrals. s t a t e m e n t t h a t he r e f e r r e d how many took service Long f e l l o w j u s t made a l l of h i s p r e v i o u s Gamut c u s t o m e r s t o I S 1 , i n c l u d i n g A r n l u n d A u t o P l a z a , Ryan O l d s m o b i l e , Bob S m i t h A u t o s and M i d l a n d Dodge. The only testimony of following other evidence submitted David P i e r c e , m a n a g e r of testimony by Mr. by Longfellow was A r n l u n d Auto P l a z a . pierce is very "Q. Did Mr. Longfellow refer Plaintiff, I n s u r a n c e S p e c i a l i s t s I n c o r p o r a t e d , and AWC t o you? A. C l i f f Tophem -- W e had b e e n d e a l i n g b a c k and f o r t h w i t h Dale and C l i f f , and a t t h e t i m e I would s a y were c o m p e t i t o r s . And i n d e a l i n g w i t h Dale, w e had s i g n e d w i t h some o f h i s c o m p a n i e s . And h e had t h e Ming C e n t e r and Dale worked w i t h cars t h e r e . And i t was a convenient l o c a t i o n f o r us. And w e d i d d o b u s i n e s s w i t h him a t t h e Ming C e n t e r , a l s o . C l i f f c a l l e d o n u s numerous t i m e s . H e w a s w i t h o n e and t h e n s w i t c h e d t o a n o t h e r . And Dale w a s w o r k i n g a t t h e Ming C e n t e r . And I d i d t a l k t o him. I c a l l e d him and a s k e d him a b o u t C l i f f , b e c a u s e w e were t h i n k i n g o f d r o p p i n g t h e o t h e r t w o companies e n t i r e l y . And he d i d s a y t h a t C l i f f would s e r v i c e t h e a c c o u n t and d o a good j o b f o r u s . And I k i n d o f f e l t t h a t the The telling: J u s t i c e Gene B. D a l y d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of t h e C o u r t . Mr. Longfellow, Dale f a v o r of Insurance t h e maker o f Specialists, a $2,000 promissory n o t e Inc., appeals from a in judgment i s s u e d by t h e D i s t r i c t Court of t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Yellowstone County. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o u n d t h a t Long f e l l o w ' s c o u n t e r c l a i m o f s a t i s f a c t i o n on t h e n o t e was n o t s u p p o r t e d by t h e e v i d e n c e and g r a n t e d judgment f o r Insurance Specialists, Inc. in type of t h e amount o f $ 2 , 2 6 2 . 8 4 . Appellant Longfellow is an insurance agent. One i n s u r a n c e c o n t r a c t h e h e l p s t o s e l l is t h e e x t e n d e d w a r r a n t y service contract issued by Insurance through automobile d e a l e r s . Specialists, Inc. (ISI) Insurance S p e c i a l i s t s issues these c o n t r a c t s u n d e r t h e name, A u t o m o b i l e W a r r a n t y C o r p o r a t i o n (AWC) Longfellow "referring" participates the in car d e a l e r the selling to t h e of these contracts i n s u r a n c e company h e . by repre- s e n t s , i n t h i s case, I S I . IS1 lent L o n g f e l l o w $ 2 , 0 0 0 f o r a p r o m i s s o r y On May 1, 1 9 7 8 , n o t e d u e on May 1, 1 9 8 0 . to Longfellow .by agreement. The the Both p a r t i e s admit t h a t a l e t t e r s e n t president letter contains of IS1 is part the following of the relevant loan provi- si o n s : "1. I t i s a g r e e d t h a t w e w i l l c r e d i t y o u r promissory note a t t h e rate of $5 p e r Automobile Warranty Corporation service contract issued and paid to Automobile W a r r a n t y C o r p o r a t i o n from y o u r Montana d e a l e r s t h a t are r e f e r r e d to u s by y o u r s e l f d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d of 5/1/78 t h r o u g h 5/1/80. I f t h e t o t a l s e r v i c e c o n t r a c t s a r e 400 o r t h e n t h e n o t e is p a i d o f f i n f u l l . A n y t h i n g less t h a n 400 w i l l l e a v e a b a l a n c e I f the total d u e and p a y a b l e as of 5/1/80. number of s e r v i c e c o n t r a c t s e x c e e d s 4 0 0 , y o u r p r o m i s s o r y n o t e w i l l be p a i d o f f and you w i l l r e c e i v e a n a d d i t i o n a l $5 f o r e v e r y c o n t r a c t o v e r t h a t amount d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d o f t i m e indicated " "2. rnore, . The c o n t r o v e r s y h e r e c e n t e r s upon how many s e r v i c e w a r r a n t y c o n t r a c t s should have been c r e d i t e d on the found, promissory that note. after to t h e d e b t L o n g f e l l o w owed IS1 c l a i m s , deducting all and the possible District Court commissions, C l i f f would. H e would h a v e b e e n v e r y p e r s i s t e n t i n t r y i n g to o b t a i n o u r b u s i n e s s upon t h a t r e c o m m e n d a t i o n and t a l k i n g w i t h B u r t w e d i d go w i t h AWC." On r e b u t t a l , I S 1 p r e s e n t e d t h e k e y t e s t i m o n y of C l i f f Tophem. Tophem t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e t o o b e g a n w o r k i n g f o r I S 1 i n May or J u n e af t e r 1978, having Tophem c o u n t e r e d represented a Longfellow's different claims by insurance stating that L o n g f e l l o w , had s o l i c i t e d t h e c a r d e a l e r s i n B i l l i n g s . company. he, not Tophem's t e s t i m o n y was b u t t r e s s e d by t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n i n t o e v i d e n c e of s i x " D e a l e r Agreement" c o n t r a c t s . In these dealer agreements, is a u t h o r i z e d a car dealer to i s s u e I S 1 ( a / k / a AWC) s e r v i c e c o n t r a c t s and r e c e i v e a c o m m i s s i o n . Tophem stated that he had i n the s p e c i f i c terms. negotiated the agreements, writing t h e a g r e e m e n t s were s i g n e d F o u r of Tophem as a n a p p r o v e d s p e c i a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e for ISI. by In a l l , Tophem had n e g o t i a t e d d e a l e r a g r e e m e n t s w i t h Arnlund A u t o P l a z a , Ryan O l d s m o b i l e , Town and C o u n t r y GMC, C a r M a r k e t , Giv-Way Auto S a l e s , and Bob S m i t h L i n c o l n Mercury. Dave P i e r c e ' s t e s t i m o n y and t h e Tophem's s p e c i f i c t e s t i m o n y , documentation introduced a t trial support the District Court's is w i t h o u t m e r i t . finding t h a t Longfellowqs counterclaim This e v i d e n c e a l s o s u p p o r t s t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e c a r d e a l e r s used I S 1 c o n t r a c t s m a i n l y b e c a u s e of T o p h e m q s e f f o r t s . evidence implicitly Long f e l l o w were contracts, and supports competing that the the for conclusion the that commissions commissions properly Lastly, Tophem on the went this and service to Tophem. I n c o n t r a s t , L o n g f e l l o w ' s c a s e was s u p p o r t e d o n l y by h i s own vague testimony. No e v i d e n c e was introduced when Long f e l l o w made h i s r e f e r r a l s and which a t trial showing service contracts r e s u l t e d from t h e s e r e f e r r a l s . The District Court had no evidence at trial to d e t e r m i n e s p e c i f i c a l l y how much Long f e l l o w s h o u l d r e c e i v e i n c o m m i s s i o n s . No specific documentation in the trial records supports a p p e l l a n t ' s c o u n t e r c l a i m t h a t 7 6 2 s e r v i c e c o n t r a c t s m u s t be cred i t e d a g a i n s t the promissory note. A s s t a t e d previously, t h e burden w a s on L o n g f e l l o w t o p r o v e h i s c o u n t e r c l a i m by a p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f t h e e v i d e n c e , a n d h e h a s n o t done s o . Therefore, t h e District Court properly denied h i s c o u n t e r c l a i m and p r o p e r l y g r a n t e d judgment t o I S I . I S 1 a d m i t s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t imposed a n i m p r o p e r a n n u a l i n t e r e s t r a t e o f 10 p e r c e n t , s i n c e t h e p r o m i s s o r y n o t e r e q u i r e s a n 8 p e r c e n t p e r annum i n t e r e s t r a t e . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s d i r e c t e d t o amend i t s judgment t o conform t o t h i s O p i n i o n . W e concur: 3 4 &i4e *f %J & s t i c e Ch u Jus t m
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
