263 P.3d 847
Kan. Ct. App.2011Background
- Daggett was BPU's general manager for 10 years and was terminated on December 21, 2005.
- On March 22, 2006, the BPU drafted a settlement and release agreeing to pay Daggett's salary, deferred compensation, and pension contributions through June 30, 2008.
- On July 1, 2008, Daggett discovered pension contributions were not deposited into his pension account; amounts were deducted from his pay and returned.
- The pension contributions made by the BPU were rejected by the pension plan, resulting in Daggett receiving about $1,000 less per month.
- Daggett sued the BPU for breach of contract; the trial court denied summary judgment for Daggett, finding no breach since contributions were made.
- The court ultimately held jurisdiction proper and reversed to grant summary judgment for Daggett on breach and to determine damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to review merits | Daggett argues appellate jurisdiction exists despite delay | BPU contends appeal untimely | Jurisdiction exists; judgment not final until attorney fees ruling |
| BPU breach of settlement | Contributions were made for Daggett's benefit but not accepted | Contributions were made; benefit after acceptance not guaranteed | Yes, breach; failure to ensure contributions benefited Daggett |
| Interpretation of 'for the benefit of Mr. Daggett' | Contract intended to increase Daggett's pension benefit | BPU fulfilled its payment obligation regardless of plan acceptance | Contract interpreted to require actual benefit to Daggett; breach proven |
Key Cases Cited
- Malone v. University of Kansas Medical Center, 220 Kan. 371 (1976) (breach requires material failure of performance under contract)
- City of Topeka v. Watertower Place Dev. Group, 265 Kan. 148 (1998) (summary judgment review de novo when no material facts in dispute)
- Katzenmeier v. Oppenlander, 39 Kan. App. 2d 259 (2008) (de novo review of contract interpretation on appeal)
- Wichita Clinic v. Louis, 39 Kan. App. 2d 848 (2008) (contract terms interpreted to favor reasonable result; avoid absurdity)
- Dearborn Motors Credit Corp. v. Neel, 184 Kan. 437 (1959) (contract construed against drafter, liberally toward other party)
- Mastrobuono v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc., 514 U.S. 52 (1995) (rule of contra proferentem; protect non-drafter from unfair result)
- Carrothers Constr. Co. v. City of South Hutchinson, 288 Kan. 743 (2009) (interpret terms to give effect to all provisions; four-corners view)
- City of Arkansas v. Bruton, 284 Kan. 815 (2007) (interpret contract by four-corners and reasonable interpretation)