Broker Claims Prudential Interfered With Customer Relationship

in the parlance of the insurance industry, a 42% loss ratio indicates that an account is highly an antitrust violation, and havensure has not challenged that ruling. further, havensure quote through ulr than it did through havensure. granted, evidence in the record also indicates that prudential preferred to do - no. 09-3367 havensure, l.l.c. v. prudential insurance 4 summary judgment de novo. cincom sys., inc. v. novelis corp., 581 f.3d 431, 435 (6th has identified no federal or state law that prohibited prudential from offering a lower rate hoyt, inc. v. gordon & assocs., inc., 662 n.e.2d 1088, 1095 (ohio app. 1995) (finding no predicate tort remained to support havensure's civil conspiracy claim, the district on september 7, 2004, ulr sent an e-mail to prudential executives indicating company of america stand with the broker/consultant that brought us to the dance." accomplish its interference, based upon an e-mail composed by prudential senior vice not produce mutual gain and because ulr "brought [prudential] to the dance." yet of worldwide benefits specifically disclaimed any recollection of the e-mail. there is respond to havensure's rfp. in a written response to high's e-mail, prudential interests of the other with which the actor's conduct interferes, (d) the siegel co., 707 n.e.2d at 860 (citing the restatement), havensure has identified no three justifications for his position. first, he did not believe that incumbent carriers (like issue of material fact. white v. baxter healthcare corp., 533 f.3d 381, 389-90 (6th cir. this case is running a 42% loss ratio2 the parties dispute whether these fees were actually known to york. for the purpose of prudential nor prudential's concern with preserving its existing business relationships argued: robert r. sparks, parry, deering, futscher & sparks, psc, prudential) fared well when a client granted a letter of authorization to a new broker, trotting ass'n, 174 f.3d 733, 742 (6th cir. 1999) (citing kenty, 650 n.e.2d at 866). complaint against ulr filed in new york state court by the new york attorney general, as well as to an company of america another. a & b-abell elevator co. v. columbus/cent. ohio bldg. & constr. trades iii prudential's interference actually caused york to sever its relationship with havensure appeal from the united states district court quote. prudential responded by matching cigna's bid, but it made this lower bid able to meet the needs of . . . consolidated biscuit," so "consolidated biscuit had a - america, havensure's potential contract with york. if anything, the inflated price of the original evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party. of the other, (f) the proximity or remoteness of the actor's conduct to the its with a business relationship is not tortious if the interference is privileged.3 of an actor's conduct, see restatement (second) of torts � 767 cmt c.; see also fred asserts that the district court erred in two ways: first, it wrongly concluded that havensure try to prevent havensure from winning this account. 1979). the district court concluded that prudential's alleged conduct did not amount to no. 09-3367 havensure, l.l.c. v. prudential insurance bidding process in order to preserve prudential's existing relationship with york. identifies the removal of the hidden compensation as hurting its relationship with york. or denials of the opposing party's pleadings, but rather it must set forth specific facts page 2 opinion any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." fed. at 23-24. this argument has no legal basis. although violations of "recognized ethical defendant-appellee. havensure's rfp sparked discussion at prudential. on june 3, prudential executive daniel hettrich strongly supported the incumbent broker (i.e., ulr). he gave havensure does suggest that prudential used fraud or misrepresentation to claims. the court held that havensure had failed to provide evidence indicating that page 8 manufacturer switched brokers was privileged because the preferred broker "was better improper. accordingly, havensure has failed to show a genuine issue of material fact - 2004, prudential produced a quote for havensure. this bid was identical to the current company of america failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact with respect to the cause of its alleged injury; anderson v. liberty lobby, inc., 477 u.s. 242, 248 (1986). in determining whether a that both ulr's and prudential's positions were in jeopardy because of cigna's rate dealing with insurers through havensure. file name: 10a0040p.06 - consider seven factors: no. 09-3367 havensure, l.l.c. v. prudential insurance witwer addressed his e-mail only to ulr employees, and there is no evidence that york united states court of appeals insurance carriers, including prudential. no. 09-3367 havensure, l.l.c. v. prudential insurance properly granted summary judgment in favor of prudential on that basis. interests sought to be advanced by the actor, (e) the social interests in 2008) (citing celotex corp. v. cartrett, 477 u.s. 317, 323 (1986)). once the moving no. 09-3367 havensure, l.l.c. v. prudential insurance despite prudential's apparent reluctance to deal with havensure, on june 28, codes" or "established customs or practices" may be significant in evaluating the nature company of america v. plaintiff to show that the defendant's conduct was not privileged. see doyle v. fairfield criminal, tortious, or even wrongful. generally speaking, absent antitrust concerns, no. 09-3367 havensure, l.l.c. v. prudential insurance executive lori high e-mailed several colleagues and expressed uncertainty as to how to favorable to the nonmoving party. matsushita elec. indus. co. v. zenith radio corp., ungar, gregory james phillips, paula gallito shakelton, ulmer & berne, llp, intention that ulr would pursue negotiations with prudential based on that neither prudential's desire to avoid a broker who produced less profitable outcomes for believes that ohio should prohibit prudential's behavior, it remains free to urge the ohio attorney general 1 giampetro & scott v. soc'y nat'l bank, 729 n.e.2d 1259, 1267 (ohio app. 1999). the page 4 party has satisfied its burden, the nonmoving party may not rest upon its mere allegations indicating that the alleged hidden compensation was illegal under ohio law. havensure has cited to a after reviewing havensure's projections,yorkauthorizedhavensuretosendout insurance and disability insurance through a "group purchasing organization." at the time, _________________ constitute improper motives. rather, they were both valid business considerations. see "there exists no duty to deal." byars v. bluff city news co., 609 f.2d 843, 854 (6th cir. of identifying those parts of the record which demonstrate the absence of any genuine - timely appealed. (a) the nature of the actor's conduct, (b) the actor's motive, (c) the & hadden, 707 n.e.2d 853, 860 (ohio 1999). under that approach, a court must 2 or the ohio legislature to take action against such behavior. after receiving prudential's reduced bid through ulr, york decided to remain summary judgment, we will assume that the fees were hidden. wendy nafziger, shared both prudential and cigna's bids with ulr, "with the 3 organization), york issued havensure a letter of authorization that enabled havensure to _________________ available only through ulr. prudential executive frank corsi explained prudential's x inclusion in the original york-prudential benefit plan was not the means used to thwart _________________ authorization] is received." in light of havensure's receipt of a letter of authorization, decided not to accept any of the bids obtained by havensure. company of america we stress the qualified nature of this statement, as havensure has provided no authority mach. co., 697 n.e.2d 667, 683 (ohio app. 1997) (citing kenty v. transamerica explaining that prudential matchedcigna'sbidtoprevent havensure fromwinning the clear stake and economic interest in influencing [the manufacturer] to broker its fig paste r. civ. p. 56(c)(2). the party moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden company of america see reali, for the southern district of ohio at cincinnati. a request for proposals (rfp). on may 25, 2004, havensure sent an rfp to various thus no evidence that prudential used fraud or misrepresentation to dissuade york from not appealed that ruling. after discovery, the district court granted summary judgment covington, kentucky, for appellant. michael nathan ungar, ulmer & berne, llp, the profitability of the york account (stating that it ran a 42% loss ratio) before 1 futscher & sparks, psc, covington, kentucky, for appellant. michael nathan havensure also suggests that prudential used "illegal means" because it included york's broker of record was universal life resources (ulr), and its group life insurance page 9 president michael witwer. appellant's brief at 25. havensure asserts that this e-mail company of america second, hettrich noted that he did not understand havensure's business model, and per year than the lowest quote provided by prudential. york did not provide an inclusion of hidden compensation to ulr in the original york plan interfered with conspiracy, and had been unjustly enriched. the district court dismissed prudential's authority suggesting that a violation of internal policies has comparable significance. a matter of ohio law. upon de novo review, we agree with the district court that court's judgment, we do not examine the issue of causation. landed on making this concession was to support [ulr] and to be honest, and he believed that prudential would "most likely lose business when a [letter of protecting the freedom of action of the actor and the contractual interests hidden broker compensation in the plan that it originally provided to york. appellant's district court granted summary judgment in favor of prudential. on appeal, havensure pursuant to sixth circuit rule 206 if havensure became york's broker. consistent with this, frank corsi's e-mail stressed cleveland, ohio, for appellee. on brief: robert r. sparks, parry, deering, profitable. hettrich believed that it was critical to support the incumbent broker throughout the relationship arises when a person, without privilege to do so, induces or otherwise for appellee. ibid. (citing restatement (second) of torts � 767). ohio courts place the burden on the at the close of the bidding process, havensure presented its results to york. the upon reviewing this information, havensure projected that it could save york $125,000 per reviewing the district court's judgment under this standard, we hold that the york plan, except that it removed the $135,000 in hidden fees and added havensure's - yorkplanincreasedhavensure'schanceofwinningyork'sbusiness. infact,havensure prudential's interference was privileged as a matter of ohio law, and thus we affirm the lowest bidder was not prudential; rather, cigna submitted a bid that was $90,020 less ii antitrust and unjust enrichment theories for failure to state a claim, and havensure has obtain confidential information from prudential regarding york's group life insurance plan. and also held that prudential's interference was privileged as a matter of ohio law. as company of america - page 3 > ohio courts appear to use the terms "privileged," "justified," and "proper" interchangeably. see, page 7 - _________________ prudential insurance company of reply brief at 13. yet, even if such conduct was illegal, it has no bearing upon the for the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. through havensure in order to prevent havensure from winning york's business. the purposely causes a third person not to enter into or continue a business relation with and in the end the only reason i found that it failed to produce the results (mutually benefitting the client, the broker, and account. in fact, havensure itself concedes that "prudential understood its options to be applying ohio's seven-factor test to the present case, we conclude that the compensation was a means to protect the allegedly unlawful compensation scheme. in carrier was prudential. for the sixth circuit after meeting with havensure and corporate united (a group purchasing before: martin, boggs, and white, circuit judges. with havensure's business relationship with york international corp. (york). havensure 4% commission rate. plaintiff-appellant, with prudential and ulr. york informed havensure and corporate united that it had cleveland, ohio, jeffrey s. jacobson, debevoise & plimpton, new york, new york, havensure's efforts, and removing the compensation was not illegal. premium ins. co., 650 n.e.2d 863 (ohio 1995)); see also super sulky, inc. v. u.s. short, although the allegedly hidden broker compensation might have been illegal,4 i fairfield mach. co., 697 n.e.2d 667, 683 (ohio app. 1997). second, the district court erroneously found that prudential's interference was privileged as n employees ever received the e-mail or learned of its contents. in fact, york's manager tortiously interfered with havensure's business relationship with york, committed civil in early 2004, havensure approached york with a proposal for obtaining group life interference, and (g) the relations between the parties. opportunity . . . ." appellant's brief at 24. no rational jury could conclude that a desire 475 u.s. 574, 587 (1986). fashion with proper business motives, no rational jury could conclude, on the basis of decision to match cigna's bid: that this violation suffices to render prudential's conduct wrongful. appellant's brief page 5 on appeal, havensure challenges the grounds upon which the district court e.g., wauseon plaza l.p. v. wauseon hardware co., 807 n.e.2d 953, 963 (ohio app. 2004); doyle v. supplying ulr with a lower quote, prudential did nothing that was independently "assurance of discontinuance" that prudential submitted to the new york attorney general. yet the new information." boggs, circuit judge. havensure, l.l.c. (havensure), an insurance broker, sued page 6 district court was correct that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether no. 06-00721--sandra s. beckwith, district judge. that consolidated biscuit's refusal to buy fig paste from a manufacturer unless the year on group life insurance and $93,500 per year on long-term disability insurance. part recommended for full-text publication suggested that the remaining factors, on their own, render prudential's interference misrepresented the nature of the bid that prudential submitted to havensure. ibid. yet council, 651 n.e.2d 1283, 1294 (ohio 1995). as this definition suggests, interference no. 09-3367 havensure, l.l.c. v. prudential insurance havensure, l.l.c., to retain a profitable account was an improper motive. ohio supreme court has adopted the approach of the restatement (second) of torts in genuine issue of material fact exists, this court draws all inferences in the light most hettrich's e-mail) indicates that prudential believed that it would lose york's account argued: january 12, 2010 on october 26, 2006, havensure filed the present action against prudential in the turning from prudential's conduct to its motive, the record establishes that in favor of prudential on havensure's remaining tortious interference and conspiracy disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to with respect to whether prudential's interference was privileged, and the district court through [the preferred broker]."). york attorney general's efforts to enforce new york law have no bearing upon ohio law. if havensure counsel havensure were privileged. looking first to the nature of prudential's conduct in district court did not err when it granted summary judgment on havensure's tortious 1 determining whether an interference is privileged. see fred siegel co. v. arter given that all available evidence indicates that prudential acted in a permissible those factors, that prudential's actions were not privileged. further, havensure has not , claimedthatprudentialofferedyorkabetterratequotethroughhavensure'scompetitorthan granted summary judgment. this court reviews a district court's order granting decided and filed: february 12, 2010 prudential's desire to prevent havensure from becoming york's broker was coincident no. 09-3367 havensure, l.l.c. v. prudential insurance of this savings apparently arose from the elimination of $135,000 in hidden broker fees built united states district court for the southern district of ohio. in its second amended present inquiry. havensure does not explain, nor is it apparent, how prudential's cir. 2009). summary judgment is appropriate where "the pleadings, the discovery and complaint, havensure alleged that prudential violated the sherman antitrust act, prudential) that prudential preferred. finally, he asserted that prudential needed "to immediate response to these results. instead, york's manager of worldwide benefits, interference claim. under ohio law, a claim for tortious interference with a business prudential insurance company of america (prudential), an insurer, for tortious interference into york's existing plan. showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. moldowan v. city of warren, 578 f.3d (a) potentially lose york's business, or (b) interfere with havensure's business 351, 374 (6th cir. 2009). a genuine issue of material fact exists if there is sufficient finally, havensure alleges that prudential violated its own internal policies and prudential's actions in seeking to retain york's business through ulr rather than id. at 14. nor does havensure assert that prudential's removal of the hidden with prudential's desire to keep york's business. uncontradicted evidence (daniel district court's judgment. because privilege provides sufficient grounds to affirmthe district businesswithulrratherthanhavensure,both because havensure's business model did no. 09-3367 court also granted summary judgment against havensure on that claim. havensure