KBD & Associates, Inc. v. Great Lakes Foam Technologies, Inc.
295 Mich. App. 666
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Lyons, a sales representative, seeks posttermination commissions from defendant for Isringhausen sales.
- The 2005 Isringhausen project followed an earlier 1997 armrest agreement with Lyons; both were unwritten and paid 5% commissions.
- Lyons’s role allegedly included significant account servicing and pricing involvement, which defendant contends was not solely procuring.
- Isringhausen cancelled Lyons’s representation in 2009, but defendant continued selling to Isringhausen through March 2010.
- Trial court initially granted summary disposition for defendant, then granted reconsideration, and the bench trial ultimately favored defendant.
- Court affirms defense judgment, holding that Lyons’s servicing obligations affected posttermination commissions and that the evidence supported the trial court’s findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procuring-cause doctrine applicability posttermination | Lyons procured Isringhausen sales; posttermination commissions due | Doctrine inapplicable due to Lyons’s servicing duties and first breach | Doctrine inapplicable; defendant prevails on this issue |
| Admissibility of posttermination emails (Packer testimony) | Emails not produced in discovery; improper to admit | No discovery order; testimony harmless error | Harmless error; no reversal |
| Great weight of the evidence / law-of-the-case concerns | Trial court misapplied law of the case; decision contra procuring-cause ruling | Court properly weighed evidence; no law-of-the-case violation | Findings not against the great weight; law-of-the-case inapplicable |
| Summary disposition on evidence of servicing obligations | Defendant failed to show significant posttermination servicing | Evidence supported significant servicing obligations | Summary disposition inappropriate; trial court correct on merits |
| Breach and termination timing impact on commissions | Banning Lyons from Isringhausen premises was not a material breach | Breach significant due to servicing obligations; may terminate commissions | Breach found; servicing obligations significant; defense preserved |
Key Cases Cited
- Reed v Kurdziel, 352 Mich 287 (1958) (procuring-cause doctrine premise for posttermination commissions)
- Butterfield v. Metal Flow Corp, 185 Mich App 630 (1990) (first substantial breach affects posttermination commissions)
- Stubl v. T A Sys, Inc., 984 F Supp 1075 (1997 (ED Mich)) (posttermination commissions where substantial servicing required)
- Roberts Assoc, Inc v Blazer Int’l Corp, 741 F Supp 650 (1990 (ED Mich)) (nonbinding authority cited on autopilot servicing)
- Klapp v United Ins Group Agency, Inc (On Remand), 259 Mich App 467 (2003) (discovery and evidentiary rulings; preservation of objections)
- Reed v. Kurdziel, 352 Mich 287 (1958) (procuring-cause doctrine scope and fair dealing)