Getting Away With Murder
by Peter S. Saucier

Successful insurance agents may be the Platonic paragon of charm. There is no means other than enchantment to explain some of the policies that people purchase willingly. I am not saying that insurance is not necessary, and I like my insurance agents. They are, after all, charming.

Apparently a prince among charmers is an agent named Brian Olander. In 1996, Olander was arrested and charged with murder after his neighbor died during a violent "altercation" with Olander, an independent agent for State Farm. Knowing that Olander had been in the fight that resulted in the death of his neighbor, and that he had been charged with murder, State Farm offered Olander a leave of absence until the murder business could be resolved. Olander refused, so State Farm ended the relationship with Olander.

Olander was tried for murder twice. The first trial resulted in a jury finding of manslaughter, but not guilty of murder. After convincing an appellate court to give him another chance, Olander was found not guilty of manslaughter. Apparently Olander was able to persuade the jury that he acted in self defense.

Now, Olander turned his attention to getting his agency back. The contract between State Farm and Olander contained a termination provision that read, "You [Olander] or State Farm have the right to terminate this Agreement by written notice delivered to the other or mailed to the other's last known address." The Agreement also entitled the agent to request a review of any termination decision. After beguiling his way through the criminal proceedings, Olander sued State Farm, claiming that his termination breached the Agreement because it only could be ended for cause.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit accepted Olander's proposition; namely, that being charged with murder, and once convicted for manslaughter, may not be sufficient reason to terminate a relationship that, by its terms, was terminable by giving notice. Remarkably, they reached that conclusion in large part by reasoning that if State Farm was willing to permit review of the termination decision, the Agreement may be one that implicitly requires good cause for termination to be proved by the employer. I am prepared to wager that the author of the review provision did not contemplate it being used against State Farm that way.

To answer the question that still may be lingering in the reader's head, the court did not address how the circumstances of Olander's termination could be anything other than just cause for termination anyway. I suspect that Olander may have a charming idea on that score.

March 2002

Kollman & Saucier, P.A., The Business Law Building, 1823 York Road, Timonium, MD 21093   Phone: 410-727-4300
Fax: 410-727-4391   © 2008 Kollman & Saucier, P.A. All rights reserved.
Website maintained by Armistead Technologies, Llc.^tm