Bisbano, Sr. v. Strine Printing Company, Inc.
737 F.3d 104
1st Cir.2013Background
- Bisbano (plaintiff) is a long-time CVS printing sales rep who moved among printers (Winthrop, Allied, SPC) and used a broker, Vanco, to secure CVS work.
- While at Allied, Bisbano helped conceal a CVS car-lease payment for a CVS employee.
- After moving to SPC, Bisbano and SPC cut ties with Vanco and forged a direct CVS relationship.
- CVS later learned of Bisbano’s role in the apparent kickback, and in April 2010 Bisbano confessed; CVS decided to end business with him and SPC terminated him at the end of June 2010.
- Bisbano sued in Rhode Island state court for contract, quasi-contract, and tort claims; defendants removed to federal court and the district court granted summary judgment for defendants; the First Circuit affirmed.
- The court analyzes unjust enrichment, intentional interference, contract, and misrepresentation claims under Rhode Island law and assesses at-will employment status and related reliance issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unjust enrichment viability in light of compensation | Bisbano contends SPC benefited from his CVS work and seeks unjust enrichment | SPC argues Bisbano was fully compensated for CVS work; no unjust enrichment | No; fully compensated benefits cannot support unjust enrichment |
| Intentional interference with prospective relations | Bisbano asserts CVS would have continued a relationship but SPC induced its end | No existing/prospective CVS-SPC relationship when interference occurred | No; insufficient relationship at time of alleged interference under Rhode Island law |
| Contract claim based on at-will employment | SPC promised long-term employment beyond at-will status | Employee handbook plus at-will language control; no contract exists | No triable issue; at-will employment governs and no enforceable contract existed |
| Covenant of good faith and fair dealing | Covenant implied by contract to sustain Bisbano’s reliance | No contract, thus no implied covenant | Rejected; no binding contract to support a covenant implied-in-law |
| Misrepresentation (intentional/negligent) | Emails and assurances induced reliance | No false statements; reliance not reasonably justifiable; losses stem from CVS decision | Fail; no misrepresentation or detrimental reliance |
Key Cases Cited
- Narragansett Elec. Co. v. Carbone, 898 A.2d 87 (R.I. 2006) (unjust enrichment elements; benefit and unfairness require proof of uncharged value)
- R & B Elec. Co. v. Amco Constr. Co., 471 A.2d 1351 (R.I. 1984) (unjust enrichment doctrine; benefit without payment not actionable)
- Roy v. Woonsocket Inst. for Sav., 525 A.2d 915 (R.I. 1987) (at-will personal services contracts; indefinite term contracts terminable by either party)
- Galloway v. Roger Williams Univ., 777 A.2d 148 (R.I. 2001) (reliance on written notice of at-will status not reasonable when later oral assurances are inconsistent)
- Filippi v. Filippi, 818 A.2d 608 (R.I. 2003) (reliance on oral promises against written notice of at-will status is unreasonable)
- DelSignore v. Providence Journal Co., 691 A.2d 1050 (R.I. 1997) (unilateral belief of job security insufficient to create triable issue)
- Sparks v. Fid. Nat’l Title Ins. Co., 294 F.3d 259 (1st Cir. 2002) (reliance and causation in misrepresentation context; at-will employment implications)
- Griggs-Ryan v. Smith, 904 F.2d 112 (1st Cir. 1990) (familiarity with Rhode Island law and summary judgment standards)