128 So. 3d 1034
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- Ledet, a dental hygienist, worked for Drs. Campo and Mathews under a shared practice structure.
- Mathews and Campo changed hygienists’ compensation from commission to salary; Mathews discussed the changes with Ledet.
- Both doctors terminated Ledet’s employment the day after her meeting with Mathews, with their testimony about the meeting contested.
- Ledet sued for tortious interference, defamation, emotional distress, misrepresentation, breach of contract, and other actions; she later narrowed claims.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for Mathews and SAFECO; Ledet appealed asserting privity, intent, and insurance coverage issues.
- Ledet acknowledges at-will employment; the contracts between the doctors and Ledet’s employment are alleged to govern duties, if any, arising from the termination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Privity requirement for breach of contract claim against Mathews | Ledet argues duty arises from misrepresentation affecting Campo contract | Mathews contends no privity and Ledet has no contractual damages | No genuine issue; no privity supports breach claim against Mathews |
| Whether summary judgment on intent/malice issues was proper | Ledet contends issues of motive and good faith should be factual | Mathews asserts no material fact on intent available for trial | Summary judgment proper; no material factual dispute on intent |
| Insurance coverage under SAFECO policy for alleged actions | Policy should cover personal injuries arising from employment actions | Exclusions for business pursuits and personal offenses apply | SAFECO entitled to judgment; no coverage for business-pursuit related claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Favrot v. Favrot, 68 So.3d 1099 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2011) (duty of good faith attaches only after breach; no breach shown without obligation)
- 9 to 5 Fashions, Inc. v. Spumey, 538 So.2d 228 (La.1989) (officer immunity when acting within corporate authority for contract-related conduct)
- Collins v. Farris, 897 So.2d 634 (La.App. 1st Cir. 2004) (summary judgment allowed where policy interpretation unambiguous)
- Jones v. Estate of Santiago, 870 So.2d 1002 (La.2004) (summary judgment on subjective intent issues permitted when no material fact on pertinent intent)
- Sears v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 943 So.2d 1219 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2006) (mere speculation not sufficient for genuine issue of material fact)
- Trudell v. Crowder, 747 So.2d 142 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1999) (principles on proving material facts and intent in claims)
- Reynolds v. Select Properties, Ltd., 634 So.2d 1180 (La.1994) (policy interpretation when coverage is at issue)
- Dyess v. American Nat. Prop. & Cas. Co., 886 So.2d 448 (La.App. 1st Cir. 2004) (interpretation of insurance contracts; ambiguities resolved in insured's favor)