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.
Wetterhan v. Vesta Insurance Group, Inc.
Citations: 844 So. 2d 568; 2002 Ala. LEXIS 273; 2002 WL 31002884Docket: 1010780
Court: Supreme Court of Alabama; September 6, 2002; Alabama; State Supreme Court
The court reversed a summary judgment in favor of Vesta Insurance Group, determining that the evidence raised a dispute over whether Wetterhan was terminated without cause, which is essential for him to exercise his stock options. On remand, the trial court conducted a four-day trial focused on witness testimony. During a charge conference, Wetterhan did not object to a special interrogatory that addressed the termination issue, affirming the court's phrasing of the issue. However, after the jury received instructions, Wetterhan's counsel objected to the requirement that the jury find termination without cause for recovery, asserting a specific objection to the special interrogatory. The court noted that no prior objection was raised during the charge conference, implying a waiver of the right to contest it. The court submitted the special interrogatory to the jury, which directly addressed the critical issue of Wetterhan's termination status relative to his stock options. The interrogatory required the jury to determine whether Wetterhan was "terminated without cause" and thus eligible to exercise his unvested stock options. Rule 49(d), Ala. R. Civ. P., mandates that written questions or interrogatories for the jury must be provided to all parties' attorneys a reasonable time before closing arguments. In this case, Wetterhan's attorney received the special interrogatory only the day before closing arguments. The court ruled that Wetterhan waived any objection to this timing. The jury concluded that Wetterhan was not terminated without cause, which precluded him from exercising stock options; this finding was supported by substantial evidence and aligned with the weight of the evidence. Other issues raised by Wetterhan were deemed outside the Court's mandate, except for a challenge under Batson v. Kentucky regarding peremptory strikes. Both parties provided race-neutral reasons for their strikes, and the trial court found Vesta's reasons valid, emphasizing concerns about potential juror sympathy for a plaintiff with a serious illness. The Court affirmed the trial court's decision. Notably, Pierre Gramlich, another appellant, had settled his claims prior to this appeal.