Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Kentner v. TIMOTHY R. DOWNEY INS., INC.
Citations: 425 F. Supp. 2d 941; 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22915; 2006 WL 839477Docket: 1:03 CV 435 RLY WTL
Court: District Court, S.D. Indiana; March 29, 2006; Federal District Court
Robert S. Kentner filed a motion for partial summary judgment regarding unpaid commissions from his employment with Timothy R. Downey Insurance, Inc. and the Indiana Public Employers' Plan, Inc. (IPEP). In response, Downey and the Downey Retirement Trust also sought summary judgment on this claim. Kentner was employed by Downey, which served as the attorney-in-fact for IPEP, a risk-sharing pool for Indiana government entities providing worker's compensation coverage. Kentner's compensation included a salary of $35,000 and a 10% commission on amounts recovered from IPEP subrogation files, subject to a $5,000 cap per recovery and cessation of additional income post-termination. Kentner alleges an oral agreement in 1996 altered his compensation structure by increasing his salary, removing the $5,000 cap on recoveries, and allowing continued income post-termination. In 2000, further modifications were proposed, resulting in a salary increase and an adjustment of his commission percentage from 10% to 15%. Despite the increase in his commission percentage, the original terms regarding commission mechanics remained unchanged. The court is considering the validity of these agreements and whether Kentner is entitled to the claimed unpaid commissions. Plaintiff is entitled to compensation for recoveries on subrogation files only if secured during his employment, as established by the original agreement and confirmed by a third written agreement that did not supersede all prior terms. Plaintiff's claim that sending lien letters entitled him to a commission is flawed; these letters merely informed third parties of IPEP's lien and did not guarantee recovery. Plaintiff admitted that sending a lien letter did not ensure that any recovery would occur, and he often faced disputes regarding the lien's amount and had to negotiate with injured employees. Commissions were only earned after actual collection of recoveries on behalf of IPEP, and Plaintiff did not secure any recoveries on the files for which he claims commissions. Consequently, his claim for post-termination commissions fails as a matter of law. As a result, Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment regarding his wage claim is denied, and Downey's Motion for Summary Judgment concerning Plaintiff's unpaid commissions is granted. Other aspects of Downey's Motion remain under advisement.