Hamrick v. Horace Mann

Filed 4/25/06 Hamrick v. Horace Mann CA2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Irving S. Feffer, Judge. Affirmed.

Cheong, Denove, Rowell & Bennett and John D. Rowell for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal, Donna D. Melby and Cynthia J. Emry for Defendant and Respondent.

______________________

Robert Hamrick appeals from summary judgment entered against him in this action for breach of employment contract. We find no error and affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY

Robert Hamrick was a partner in a law firm in California, and Horace Mann Insurance Company was one of his clients. In January 1997, Hamrick completed, signed and submitted an application for employment with Horace Mann. He discussed the benefits of working for Horace Mann with Horace Mann's vice president of claims, George Lambert. Hamrick made two trips to Horace Mann's home office in Springfield, Illinois to interview for an employment position.

By letter dated February 24, 1997, Horace Mann offered Hamrick employment as secretary-claims litigation. The letter indicated a monthly starting salary of $7,084 and provided that Hamrick would receive moving expenses and mortgage assistance as part of his relocation package. Hamrick signed the letter indicating his acceptance of employment. He sold his California home, withdrew from his law practice, and moved with his family to Illinois.

Hamrick started work at Horace Mann's home office in Springfield, Illinois on April 16, 1997. Approximately 18 months later, he was promoted to assistant vice president of claims litigation.

In August 2002, Horace Mann began restructuring the claims department under the direction of Dennis Bianchi, vice president of casualty claims. In September 2002, Bianchi conducted a meeting of the Springfield home office and claims office to discuss the restructuring. He explained that some of the claims offices would be closed and new claims offices would be opened. Hamrick attended the meeting.

On October 31, 2002, Bianchi wrote Hamrick a letter terminating his employment, effective December 31, 2002. The letter stated that restructuring of the claims department would result in the closing of the home office where Hamrick worked, and that the position of assistant vice president of claims litigation would be eliminated as of December 31, 2002. The letter also stated that Hamrick had indicated an inability to relocate.

Hamrick worked until December 31, 2002. On October 31, 2003, he brought this action for wrongful discharge. He alleged three causes of action: breach of written contract, breach of implied contract, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Horace Mann moved for summary judgment or summary adjudication, asserting in part that Hamrick was an at-will employee and could not rebut the at-will presumption by an oral agreement. The court granted summary judgment, and Hamrick filed this timely appeal from the judgment.

DISCUSSION

I

Plaintiff claims the trial court erred in applying Illinois law, rather than California law. We find it unnecessary to decide this question because the court also found, and we agree, that under the law of either state, plaintiff has not shown there is a triable issue of material fact as to his at-will employment relationship.

In his complaint, plaintiff alleged that, â€