Warrington v. Great Falls Clinic, LLP
443 P.3d 369
Mont.2019Background
- Lisa Warrington, an experienced nurse manager, accepted a Clinic offer in October 2014, signed a written employment contract for an indefinite term, and resigned her prior job to start October 27. The Clinic revoked the offer on October 24 and refused to give a reason.
- Warrington could not be rehired at her former employer, obtained short-term work quickly, and later moved to Helena for full-time employment. She sued the Clinic for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and promissory estoppel.
- The District Court (and this Court on supervisory review) previously held the Clinic breached the executory employment contract and that the Wrongful Discharge from Employment Act did not apply. The case was remanded for further proceedings.
- On remand, the District Court granted summary judgment for the Clinic on Warrington’s tort claim for breach of the covenant (finding no “special relationship”), denied leave to add other tort claims, and limited the trial to contract expectancy damages. The jury awarded $220,000 for contract damages.
- The Clinic challenged evidentiary rulings (admission of liability/context evidence and evidence of Warrington’s emotional distress), the denial of its JMOL motion on damages, and the court’s refusal to instruct the jury that the contract was a one-year contract under § 39-2-602(1), MCA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a “special relationship” existed to permit tort damages for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing | Warrington: her long healthcare career, reliance, reputational harm, and limited local employers created a special relationship warranting tort damages | Clinic: Warrington was not in an unequal bargaining position, sought a higher‑paying job voluntarily, and had alternative employability; no non‑profit/peace‑of‑mind purpose | Court: No error in summary judgment for Clinic; Warrington failed to show unequal bargaining power and non‑profit motivation, so no special relationship and no tort damages |
| Whether the court erred by refusing to instruct on additional tort claims (negligence, emotional distress, wrongful failure to employ, punitive damages) | Warrington: she should have been allowed to pursue and instruct on additional torts arising from the breach | Clinic: trial limited to contract damages after summary rulings; emotional distress/punitive damages not recoverable in contract action | Court: No error — denial of leave and exclusion of tort instructions proper; statute bars emotional distress damages in contract actions; only contract expectancy damages were tried |
| Whether admission of contextual evidence about liability and emotional distress prejudiced the Clinic | Warrington: such evidence was relevant to expectancy damages and mitigation; necessary to explain consequences and lost expectations | Clinic: evidence went beyond the issues tried and improperly inflamed the jury about liability and emotional distress | Held: District Court did not abuse discretion; contextual evidence was relevant to expectancy damages, admonitions and instructions limited recovery to contract damages, and any overreach was not prejudicial |
| Whether the court should have instructed that the contract term was one year under § 39‑2‑602(1) | Clinic: annual salary presumes a one‑year hiring term, so the jury should have been instructed accordingly | Warrington: disputed facts about likely duration and probationary terms made that presumption inappropriate to resolve as a matter of law | Held: No error — the statute creates a rebuttable presumption; genuine factual disputes made a one‑year instruction improper as a legal determination |
Key Cases Cited
- Story v. Bozeman, 242 Mont. 436, 791 P.2d 767 (Mont. 1990) (establishes five‑element test for a “special relationship” permitting tort damages for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing)
- Wallis v. Superior Court, 160 Cal. App. 3d 1109, 207 Cal. Rptr. 123 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984) (used in Story to illustrate special‑relationship factors such as age, lack of skills, and unequal bargaining power)
- Great Falls Clinic LLP v. Mont. Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct., 385 Mont. 95, 381 P.3d 550 (Mont. 2016) (this Court’s prior supervisory review affirming breach finding and remanding for further proceedings)
- McEwen v. MCR, LLC, 368 Mont. 38, 291 P.3d 1253 (Mont. 2012) (discusses contract damages principles and limits on tort recovery for contract breaches)