Hilb Rogal & Hobbs of Florida, Inc. v. Grimmel
48 So. 3d 957
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- HRH hired Grimmel as a producer with a non-piracy covenant restricting post-termination activity.
- Grimmel resigned after ~4 years to form Egis Insurance Advisors and compete with HRH.
- HRH sued for injunctive relief and damages for alleged non-piracy covenant violations and misappropriation.
- HRH procured an ex parte temporary injunction and posted a $160,000 bond.
- A magistrate recommended dissolution; on remand the trial court denied HRH's exceptions and dissolved the injunction; the appellate court reversed and remanded for proper consideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether HRH had a legitimate business interest in protecting customer relationships. | HRH contends substantial relationships with customers justify enforceable restraints. | Grimmel contends no legitimate business interest is shown to warrant the injunction. | Yes, HRH showed legitimate business interests in customer relationships. |
| Whether the non-piracy covenant was reasonable in time, scope, and line of business. | HRH maintains the covenant is reasonably tailored to protect legitimate interests. | Grimmel argues the covenant is overbroad and unnecessary. | The covenant was reasonably necessary to protect legitimate business interests. |
| Whether the evidence supported continued injunctive relief to prevent solicitation and service of HRH’s customers. | HRH demonstrated likelihood of irreparable harm and continued damage absent injunction. | Grimmel argues no irreparable harm and that public interests may not favor enforcement. | Injunction properly warranted to protect HRH’s interests. |
| Whether the public interest supports enforcing post-employment restraints in this context. | Public policy favors upholding enforceable restrictive covenants. | Public interest requires balancing, potentially favoring competition. | Public interest supports enforcement of the restraint. |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in dissolving the injunction. | HRH asserts the court applied incorrect law and misweighed evidence. | Grimmel contends the court acted within discretion given the evidence. | Yes, the trial court abused its discretion; injunction should not have been dissolved. |
Key Cases Cited
- E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Bassett, 947 So.2d 1195 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (hybrid standard: factual findings reviewed for abuse of discretion; legal conclusions de novo)
- Colucci v. Kar Kare Auto. Grp., Inc., 918 So.2d 431 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (temporary injunction standards; reasonable likelihood of success and irreparable harm)
- Environmental Services, Inc. v. Carter, 9 So.3d 1258 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (post-employment restrictive covenants analysis under Florida statute §542.335)
- Atomic Tattoos, LLC v. Morgan, 45 So.3d 63 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (recognizes right to prohibit solicitation of existing customers as legitimate business interest)
- Scarbrough v. Liberty National Life Insurance Co., 872 So.2d 283 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (solicitation can occur even if initiated by client; restrictive covenant protects ongoing business interests)