emphasizing its holding in Gram I, 384 Mass. at 672, 429 N.E.2d 21, that “the obligation of good faith and fair dealing imposed on an employer requires that the employer be liable for the loss of compensation that is so clearly related to an employee[ at willj’s past service, when the employee is discharged without good cause”
How later courts described this case
- emphasizing its holding in Gram I, 384 Mass. at 672, 429 N.E.2d 21, that “the obligation of good faith and fair dealing imposed on an employer requires that the employer be liable for the loss of compensation that is so clearly related to an employee[ at willj’s past service, when the employee is discharged without good cause”
- explaining that although future renewal commissions tied to insurance salesman’s past services were recoverable, salesman was not entitled to “speculative” commissions on anticipated policy changes that might affect policy costs
- damages should be awarded to insurance agent for renewal commissions so as to "deny [the insurance company] any readily definable, financial windfall resulting from the denial to [the agent] of compensation for past services ... Attrition in the block of business produced by [the agent] should be determined for each future year of his future employment ..."
- denying a plaintiff recovery for lost "career credits," which were bonus payments "based upon the length of Gram's service as a sales representative"
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Nolan, J.
(dissenting). I am constrained (unhappily) to file this separate dissent because the trial judge followed the teaching of Gram I and that is the only issue in this case. However, I cannot resist adding that my worst fears of a jury’s “extravagant speculation” (Gram I, supra at 674-675) have materialized in the new judgment, which exceeds the first judgment by $225,000. And now for round No. 3. Iterum, pro dolor.