Linn v. Employers Reinsurance Corporation
Pennsylvania Supreme Court
392 Pa. 58, 139 A.2d 638 (1958)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
Walter Linn was president of Walter Linn and Company (Linn) (plaintiff), an independent insurance-brokerage business. Linn met with William Ehmann, an agent of Employers Reinsurance Corporation (ERC) (defendant), in New York City to negotiate an agreement. Linn offered to place certain reinsurance contracts with ERC in exchange for a 5 percent commission on all premiums ERC collected on the policies. Ehmann told Linn that he had to speak with ERC executives before the offer could be accepted. After the meeting, Linn returned to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Later, Ehmann telephoned Linn from New York and accepted the offer. The parties had carried out the terms of the agreement for nearly 28 years when ERC suddenly stopped paying commissions to Linn. Linn filed suit against ERC in Pennsylvania state court for breach of contract. At the close of the evidence, the trial court dismissed Linn’s suit. The court reasoned that New York law applied to the matter, and that the agreement was unenforceable pursuant to New York’s statute of frauds. Linn appealed. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed, holding that because there was no evidence presented regarding Ehmann’s physical location when he made his telephonic acceptance, the matter had to be remanded to the trial court for determination of Ehmann’s location. ERC appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Cohen, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
