Benson v. SRT Communications, Inc.
Richard and Elaine Benson, Bill
and Mary Bliven, Don and Annette
Feist, Pat Lynch, and Lloyd and
Donna Tribitt, Plaintiffs and Appellants
SRT Communications, Inc., Defendant and Appellee
North Central Judicial District,
Judge Todd L. Cresap
|Nature of Action:||Contracts|
|Term:||11/2011  Argument: 11/29/2011|
|ND cite:||2012 ND 58|
813 N.W.2d 552
Listen to recording of oral argument in MP3 format
Appellant's Statement of the Issues:|
1: Whether a separate contractual relationship is created that binds the employer and its successors when an employee retires during the existence of the labor agreement with a specific agreement evidenced in writing and conduct for over fourteen years by the employer and employee that the health benefits will continue throughout that person's retirement.
2: Whether detrimental reliance applies when an employee reasonably relies on a specific agreement by the employer and employee that the health benefits will continue throughout that person's retirement, where the agreement is evidenced in writing and conduct for over fourteen years, and where that employer and its successor in interest continue fulfilling that agreement for over fourteen years.
3: Whether federal preemption applies when an employee retires during the existence of the labor agreement with a specific and separate agreement between the employer and the employee that the health benefits will continue throughout that person's retirement, thereby making the source of the right to benefits the subsequent agreement and not labor agreement itself.
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
This appeal from a summary judgment under Rule 56, N.D.Civ.P. presents two issues on appeal:
1. Whether the pleadings, discovery materials and affidavits show there is no genuine issue as to any material fact so that summary judgment was appropriate.
2. When there is no genuine issue of material fact, whether the district court's decision was correct as a matter of law. In this case, the matters of substantive law are matters of federal law.
"On appeal, we determine whether a genuine issue of fact exists and whether the law was applied correctly. Questions of law are fully reviewable on appeal." Steiner v. Ford Motor Co., 2000 ND 31, 6, 606 N.W.2d 881. Stanley v. Turtle Mtn. Gas & Oil, Inc., 1997 ND 169, 6, 567 N.W.2d 345.
|Add Docket 20110164 RSS|
|1||06/06/2011 NOTICE OF APPEAL: 05/27/2011|
|2||07/05/2011 MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLANT BRIEF|
|3||07/05/2011 E-FILED MOTION (MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLANT BRIEF)|
|4||07/05/2011 ACTION BY CLERK. Granted: 08/03/2011|
|5||06/28/2011 Electronic RECORD ON APPEAL (entry nos. 1 - 62)|
|6||07/12/2011 Amended Clerk's Electronic Certificate on Appeal (entry nos. 1 - 66)|
|7||08/03/2011 MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLANT BRIEF (e-mailed)|
|8||08/03/2011 E-FILED MOTION (Mot/Ext/ATB)|
|9||08/03/2011 ACTION BY ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SANDSTROM (Mot/Ext/ATB). Granted: 08/17/2011|
|10||08/17/2011 APPELLANT BRIEF|
|11||08/17/2011 E-FILED BRIEF - ATB|
|12||08/17/2011 APPELLANT APPENDIX|
|13||08/17/2011 E-FILED APPENDIX - ATA|
|14||08/19/2011 Rec'd $136 ATB & ATA e-file surcharge. (receipt no. 20624)|
|15||08/22/2011 Rec'd 7 copies of ATB from Central Duplicating.|
|16||08/22/2011 Rec'd 6 copies of ATA from Central Duplicating.|
|17||09/16/2011 APPELLEE BRIEF (e-filed)|
|18||09/16/2011 E-FILED BRIEF (AEB)|
|19||09/16/2011 APPELLEE APPENDIX (e-filed)|
|20||09/19/2011 Received $25 surcharge for AEB (Receipt #20665)|
|21||09/20/2011 Received $40 surcharge for AEA (Receipt #20670)|
|22||09/21/2011 Received 7 copies of AEB from CSD|
|23||09/21/2011 Received 6 copies of AEA from CSD|
|24||10/06/2011 NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT SENT|
|25||10/26/2011 Request for Radio/TV Coverage (Dale Wetzel from Associated Press) approved|
|26||11/29/2011 APPEARANCES: Lynn M. Boughey/David J. Hogue|
|27||11/29/2011 ARGUED: Boughey/Hogue|
|28||11/29/2011 ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST|
|29||03/15/2012 DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED|
|30||03/15/2012 UNANIMOUS OPINION: Sandstrom, Dale V.|
|31||03/15/2012 (Concur in the result): Crothers, Daniel John: CON/RES|
|32||03/16/2012 Judgment Sent to Parties|