Illinois Appellate Courts

Attorney Fees Not Available When Failure to Provide Home Repair Pamphlet Was Unintentional

January 27, 2010 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

Our Chicago consumer fraud attorneys were interested to see a split decision from earlier this year in a case involving a dispute over faulty home repairs. In Kunkel v. P.K. Dependable Construction, No. 5-07-0684 (Ill. 5th Feb. 13, 2009), Herbert and Jeral Dean Kunkel sued P.K. Dependable Construction for failing to adequately replace their roof and adding new leaks. They also alleged that P.K. failed to provide the consumer rights pamphlet required under the Illinois Home Repair and Remodeling Act. Their lawsuit alleged breach of contract and warranty and violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.

The Kunkels hired P.K. in July of 2003 to replace their roof, which had been leaking over their porch but nowhere else. The contract included a five-year warranty for defects and said P.K. would check for sheeting damage after tearing off shingles and make any repairs necessary for an additional fee. Mrs. Kunkel testified that during the work, she witnessed P.K. employees knocking loose the home’s stucco siding. When she complained, they patched the areas with cement. Aside from some sheeting damage, the work proceeded without incident and the Kunkels paid in full. Unfortunately, it rained a few days later and the Kunkels discovered leaks inside their home. They estimate that P.K. made 20 to 25 attempts over the next three years to fix the leaks, but not all were successful. They entered into evidence an estimate of $1,475 to repair the water damage to their kitchen ceiling.

At a bench trial, a roofing contractor hired by the Kunkels testified that the best way to fix the problem was to remove and replace the roof for an estimate of $5,250. A P.K. employee, Tim Utley, testified that damage he had seen to the sheeting suggested that there were leaks before his company did its work. He also contradicted Mrs. Kunkel’s testimony on the stucco siding, saying he did not tear it up and that it would be impossible to do what their roofing expert suggested because the condition of the stucco was so poor. Utley said he told Mr. Kunkel that he should replace the stucco siding because that was the source of the leaks, testimony that the Kunkels dispute. In the end, the court found for the Kunkels, awarding them $6,725 in compensatory damages (the amount of the kitchen ceiling and roof replacement estimates) and $6,151.50 in attorney fees and court costs. After a motion to reconsider was denied, P.K. appealed.

The Fifth District started with P.K.’s contention that the trial court’s decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial judge had to resolve conflicts in the evidence, the court wrote, but there was plenty of evidence to support the way the judge resolved it. Thus, the Fifth declined to disturb that ruling. It next turned to the question of whether damages were correctly set. The damages were based on estimates submitted by the Kunkel’s expert and another contractor. This follows Illinois law requiring damages for defective workmanship to reflect the cost of correcting the defects, the court said. Again, witnesses for P.K. testified otherwise, but the Fifth District declined to second-guess the trial judge. And attacks on the sufficiency of the estimate came late, the court said, because P.K. did not challenge its admission into evidence at the time or cross-examine the expert about it. Thus, the damages stand.

Next, the Fifth examined P.K.’s challenge to the Kunkel’s attorney fees award. The Consumer Fraud Act allows plaintiffs to recover attorney fees, the court wrote, but they must prove actual damages. In this case, that finding was based on the trial court’s determination that P.K. violated the section of the Home Repair and Remodeling Act requiring it to provide a consumer rights pamphlet. It’s true that undisputed evidence shows that P.K. did not provide the pamphlet, the court wrote, but the Act requires that violations be knowing to be actionable. No evidence is in the record showing knowledge or state of mind, the court wrote, so there was no violation of the Act. The court also noted that there was no evidence showing that P.K.’s failure to provide the pamphlet caused actual damages. Finally, it disagreed with the trial court’s finding that P.K. failed to complete its work, which would also violate the Act, because it did not believe the Legislature intended to equate defective performance with no performance at all. Thus, it vacated the attorney fee award.

Appeals Court Upholds Verdict in Case Over Storage Company Incorrectly Selling Property

December 29, 2009 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

Our Chicago consumer protection attorneys were pleased to see a pro-consumer decision from the First District Court of Appeal recently. In Dubey v. Public Storage Inc., Ill. 1st No. 1-09-0094 (Oct. 23. 2009), the appeals court upheld a decision in favor of a woman who lost everything in her storage unit due to a record-keeping error. Varitka Dubey made all of her payments for a rented storage unit on time, but Metropublic Storage Fund repossessed all of the property in her unit and sold it at auction for “nonpayment.” The problem that turned out to apply to a different unit. This decision upholds a jury’s award in Dubey’s favor, but reduces the amount to conform to her agreement to store no more than $5,000 worth of property.

Dubey entered the storage unit rental agreement in September of 2002. At that time, she signed an agreement that the property she would store would be worth no more than $5,000 and that Metropublic wouldn’t be responsible for losses of more than that amount. The agreement also said that Metropublic could pursue all legal remedies if Dubey failed to meet her obligations under the agreement. Dubey testified in court that she did not notice the unit listed on her rental agreement, nor was it emphasized by the Metropublic employee who helped her. She then moved personal property into the unit that she claimed was worth $150,000. She visited the unit several more times through the end of 2002. Her rent was automatically charged to a credit card and always paid on time.

In February of 2003, Dubey returned to her unit and discovered that her key didn’t work. A Metropublic employee told her that the unit was not hers. The employee opened the unit and Dubey discovered that nearly all of her property was gone except for some broken toys belonging to her daughters. Further investigation showed that records showed someone else was listed as the owner of the unit Dubey had used, and that Dubey’s rental agreement listed a different unit. At trial, testimony showed that the unit had already been rented to someone else. The employee told Dubey her property had been auctioned off in January for non-payment of the rent, for total proceeds of $99,145. Dubey asked about personal items like family photos and was told that they were probably thrown out, but denied permission to search the garbage.

Dubey sued Metropublic for breach of contract, conversion and violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. Metropublic countersued for breach of contract because Dubey stored property worth more than $5,000 in her unit. At trial, the jury found for Dubey on all counts, awarding her
$755,000 in compensatory and punitive damages on the common-law claims and $276,580 in compensatory and punitive damages for the Consumer Fraud Act claims. She was also awarded attorney fees. Both parties appealed, with Dubey asking for more compensatory damages to reflect the true value of the lost property, and Metropublic arguing that Dubey shouldn’t have been awarded three different recoveries for the same injury and that she shouldn’t have been awarded more than the $5,000 listed in the contract. It also disputed the decision, the punitive damages and the attorney fees.

The First’s analysis started by agreeing that, under Illinois law, Dubey may recover only once for the breach of contract and conversion claims. Thus, it reduced the compensatory damages for those claims to $5,000 from $10,000. However, its analysis did not extend to the Consumer Fraud Act, and it let the $69,145 awarded under that count stand. The court then addressed the claim that the Consumer Fraud Act award should not have been larger than $5,000. The court found that Metropublic had waived that issue by ignoring chances to bring it up before and during trial. But even if it were not waived, the court declined to reconsider the trial court’s finding that the clause was an exculpatory clause invalid under the Landlord and Tenant Act. In addition to dismissing Metropublic’s arguments, the court found the contract unconscionable because Dubey had no time to read it closely and Metropublic didn’t stress the $5,000 limit.

The court then dispensed with every argument Metropublic made except its argument that the punitive damages award is unconstitutional. Among the tests for whether a punitive award is unconstitutionally excessive is the ratio of punitive to compensatory damages. The U.S. Supreme Court said in State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408, 425, 155 L. Ed. 2d 585, 605-06, 123 S. Ct. 1513, 1524 (2003) that very few ratios significantly exceeding single digits will satisfy due process. The ratio for the conversion award was 149 to 1, a disparity the First found disturbing. It also found that Dubey may be entitled to more compensatory damages for her losses, since the it had found the rental contract invalid. Thus, it vacated those two damages awards and sent them back to trial court for reconsideration.

Improperly Canceled Auto Insurance Policy Means Insurer Has Duty to Defend Driver in Accident, Appeals Court Rules

November 16, 2009 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

In an unusual Illinois insurance fraud lawsuit, the First District Court of Appeal has ruled that two insureds are entitled to attorney fees, sanctions and other relief under section 155 of the Illinois Insurance Code. Siwek v. White, No. 1-07-2600 (Ill. 1st Feb. 27, 2009) pits drivers Christine Siweck and Jerrold Erickson against their former auto insurer, which the court found improperly canceled their insurance policy.

Siwek was in an auto accident while using Erickson’s vehicle in the summer of 2003. Erickson was insured by American Access Casualty Company, with Siweck on the policy as a co-operator. They notified the state of Illinois of the accident and named American as their insurer, but American told the state in September of that year that the policy had been canceled in May of that year. This led IDOT to certify both Siweck and Erickson as drivers who had been involved in an accident without auto insurance. At a hearing, Erickson successfully defended his license. Siweck testified at the same hearing that she had no notice of cancellation and presented paperwork showing that American had issued her a new declaration of coverage on the day after the supposed cancellation.

The state suspended Siweck’s driver’s license nonetheless. Siweck and Erickson sued for administrative review of the decision to suspend Siweck’s license and declaratory judgments against American. They sought a declaration that their policy was improperly canceled, meaning Siweck was insured at the time of the accident.

Scope of Injunctions Enforcing Restrictive Employment Covenants Must Be Clear, Fourth District Decides

November 13, 2009 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

Our Illinois noncompete clause attorneys recently noted an important case addressing the standards for a preliminary injunction in Illinois lawsuits over covenants not to compete. In Lifetec, Inc. v. Edwards, No. 4-07-0300 (Ill. 4th Nov. 6, 2007), Lifetec sued former salesman Peter Edwards for breach of three restrictive covenants in his employment contract. It also sued his wife, Carol Edwards, and new employer, Patterson Medical Supply Inc., for tortious interference with the contract. Trial court granted Lifetec a preliminary injunction, and Edwards filed the instant appeal.

Lifetec sells medical devices and products. When Edwards began working there as a salesman, he signed a contract agreeing not to:

Compete with Lifetec, or sell or lease the products he had been assigned during the last 18 months of his employment, or competing products, within the territory assigned to him in the last 18 months of his employment.
Directly or indirectly solicit purchase or lease of the product or competing products within the same territory.
Work as a distributor or sales representative for any manufacturer that was a client of Lifetec, or for a competitor that also handles the client’s products, within the last 12 months.

The restrictive covenant applied for 24 months after the employment agreement was terminated.

Edwards left Lifetec for Patterson, a larger competitor, after 10 years. According to the opinion, he knew the move could cause Lifetec to sue and gave Patterson a copy of the agreement, but Patterson said it would take care of him in any lawsuit. Several months later, he admitted to a former colleague that he was working for Patterson. Months later, Lifetec sued him for breach of contract and requested a preliminary injunction. At an evidentiary hearing, evidence was introduced that Edwards had solicited Lifetec customers, but he said all Lifetec customers were also Patterson customers because the bulk of Patterson’s business was from national contracts. On the basis of the evidence at this hearing, the trial court granted a preliminary injunction stopping Edwards from violating the contract.

Edwards appealed, asking only for a decision on whether there was enough evidence to support the granting of the injunction. The appeals court said there was. The question, the court wrote, was whether Edwards had used protectable confidential information gained at Lifetec for his own gain. Lifetec contended that its “open quotes” to buyers constituted protectable information, although not all open quotes necessarily resulted in sales. The court took it one step further, saying the way those quotes were calculated was the real confidential information, as the quotes themselves were not secret once submitted to customers. Edwards’ knowledge of the reasoning behind the bids could give Patterson an advantage in the competitive medical supply industry. The defendants’ arguments that Lifetec should have alleged that Edwards misappropriated its trade secrets also fail, the court wrote, since Lifetec is making no such claim. All of this is sufficient to raise fair questions of fact, the court said, so an injunction was proper until the merits of the case could be decided.

A special concurrence filed by Presiding Justice Robert Steigmann agreed with the outcome, but said the court was incorrect to use the “legitimate business interests” test. This test is three decades old, the justice wrote, but the Illinois Supreme Court had never embraced it and in fact failed to use it at all in its 2006 decision in Mohanty v. St. John Heart Clinic, S.C., 225 Ill. 2d 52, 866 N.E.2d 85 (2006). Because of this, he wrote, the court should have stopped its analysis after finding that the time and territory restraints in the covenant were reasonable. The majority noted, however, that the parties made no argument on this basis.

First District Rules Plaintiff Not Entitled to Punitives in Noncompete Clause Lawsuit

November 6, 2009 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

An interesting case involving enforcement of an employment contract’s restrictive covenant was recently noted by our Illinois covenant not to compete attorneys. Cambridge Engineering Inc. v. Mercury Partners 90 BI, Inc., No. 1-06-0798 (Ill. 1st Dec. 7, 2007). The suit stems from an earlier lawsuit concluded in Missouri in 2001, in which Cambridge Engineering Inc. successfully sued former employee Gregory Degar and his new employer, Brucker Company (legally Mercury Partners 90 BI), to enforce a covenant not to compete signed by Degar. Cambridge then filed this suit against Brucker to recover punitive damages and attorney fees. Cambridge and Brucker compete in the residential and business heating market in the Midwest.

Degar worked at Cambridge as a sales representative starting in 1996, and signed a contract including noncompete and nonsolicitation covenants. The contract restricted him from competing in any way with Cambridge, or soliciting its employees or customers, anywhere in the United States or Canada, for 24 months after leaving. He was terminated in 2001 and was hired by Brucker about a month later as an inside support person rather than a salesperson. Nonetheless, he admitted to using customer contacts developed at Cambridge. Cambridge sued Deger, but not Brucker, in St. Louis and was granted a permanent injunction enforcing the noncompete clause. (At that time, Brucker fired Degar.)

Cambridge then sued Brucker in Illinois for compensatory and punitive damages, for tortious interference with contract. The parties stipulated to limit compensatory damages to attorney fees but said nothing about the punitive damages. The trial court directed a verdict against Cambridge on punitive damages, saying Cambridge hadn’t proven that Brucker’s actions were so outrageous that punitive damages were appropriate. At trial, the president of Cambridge testified that the company believed the contract would prevent Degar from holding any job, even a janitorial position, with any competitor, including in areas where Cambridge does not do business. The jury found for Cambridge on compensatory damages in the amount of $50,000, but Brucker successfully moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the basis that the noncompetition clause was overly broad and unenforceable. Cambridge appealed both judgments against it.

The analysis by the First started by noting that the dispute centered around whether the covenant not to compete was unenforceable under Illinois law. Cambridge argued that the covenant was reasonable on both geographic and activity (despite testimony disputing this), and that the trial court improperly excluded testimony that would show this reasonableness. The court disagreed on all counts. The geographic scope was unreasonable, the court wrote, because it restricted Degar from taking a job with a competitor anywhere in Canada even though Cambridge only had a small amount of business in Canada. This restriction did nothing to protect Cambridge from competitors gaining unfair advantage at its expense, the court wrote. And the evidence Cambridge said was incorrectly excluded would not have changed the court’s decision. Thus, the scope of the covenant was indeed unreasonable.

It next examined the question of the activities prohibited by the noncompete clause, which turned on the interpretation of the contract. However, the court found that the plain language of the contract supports Brucker’s assertion that the contract was overly broad: that Degar may not “engage in any activity for or on behalf of Employer’s competitors,” a phrase that could theoretically bar Degar from taking a job filing papers for a competitor. Furthermore, testimony from Cambridge’s president at trial confirmed this interpretation; he “agreed with counsel’s contention that the St. Louis action was brought to prevent Degar from working for a competitor in any capacity.” Thus, the clause was overly broad and not reasonable, and the trial court’s decision on that issue was also correct.

Hardship to Former Employee Should Be Considered Outside Motion to Dismiss, First District Rules

October 30, 2009 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

A First District Court of Appeal ruling had an interesting lesson for our Chicago noncompete clause attorneys. In Baird and Warner Residential Sales Inc. v. Mazzone, No. 1-07-2179 (Aug. 15, 2008), the First ruled that a trial court needed more evidence in a dispute about a covenant not to compete before it could correctly grant a motion to dismiss. The case arose when Baird & Warner Residential Sales sued former employee Patricia Mazzone and her new employer, Midwest Realty Ventures (doing business as Prudential Preferred Properties). Both real estate companies have multiple branches and more than 1,000 employees in the Chicagoland area.

Mazzone was office manager for B&W’s Lincoln Park office for about 11 years before leaving for Prudential. During that time, she signed a contract that included a covenant not to solicit services from any B&W employees or independent contractors, or people who had left those jobs within the last six months, for up to a year after leaving. This contract contained a severability clause, and the “preface” to the contract specified that it applied “regarding the Lincoln Park office,” although the restrictive covenant referred to “Company.” In 2007, Mazzone resigned from her job and took another running Prudential’s Michigan Avenue office. About a month later, B&W sued for a temporary restraining order and injunction seeking to enforce the covenant and keep Mazzone and Prudential from soliciting B&W employees, alleging breach of contract by Mazzone, tortious interference with contract by Prudential, and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage by both parties.

After an injunction and expedited discovery, defendants moved to dismiss because the covenant was overly broad, alleging that it would keep any Prudential employee from soliciting any B&W employee or contractor from any office. B&W contended that the preface restricted the covenant to the Lincoln Park office and affirmatively stated that it did not seek to enforce it beyond that office. In the alternative, they argued that the severability clause should allow that portion to be separated from the rest of the agreement. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss, saying the contract’s plain language related to all of B&W’s offices. Plaintiffs appealed this ruling.

The appeals court started its opinion by considering B&W’s claim that the nonsolicitation contract was not improper under the law. It noted that motions to dismiss are not necessarily appropriate in fact-intensive situations like this one, since the rules limit courts to consideration of facts in the complaint. It then turned to the controversy over whether the contract applied to all offices or just the Lincoln Park office and found that there was insufficient evidence. The record does not show enough evidence to determine whether the contract, as written, is overly broad and poses an undue hardship on Mazzone, the court wrote, or negative effects on the public from the restraint of trade. It also disagreed that enforcing the contract would “render Mazzone unemployable,” since she would be free to solicit employees of non-B&W brokers, even within the limited one-year period specified. Thus, the trial court should not have dismissed it without hearing more evidence, the court wrote. It reversed and remanded the case for more proceedings.

Illinois Trade Secrets Act Does Not Preempt Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claims, First District Rules

October 23, 2009 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

Our Chicago trade secrets litigation lawyers were interested to see a recent case pitting a school bus company in Cook County against competitors and former employees. Alpha School Bus Company, Inc. v. Wagner, No. 1-06-3427 (Ill. 1st May 15, 2009). Alpha is owned by Cook-Illinois Corporation (collectively “Alpha”), which contracts to provide busing to school districts for special education students. Defendant Michael Wagner was an officer of Alpha and non-appealing defendant Leroy Meister was a managing employee. Barbara Ann Hackel owned Southwest Transit and Wagner owned Southwest Transit Leasing LLC, which leased buses to Southwest. Wagner and Meister left Alpha to join Southwest in 2003.

Alpha alleges that defendants, while employed at Alpha, conspired to secure a contract for Southwest by using their positions to make sure Southwest had a lower bid. Alpha also alleges that in forming Southwest, defendants conspired to drive Alpha out of business, sabotaged it, stole trade secrets and lured away employees. They allegedly hid their involvement in Southwest, solicited Alpha’s customers, falsified time sheets for Meister and other employees and had employees of Alpha stay to sabotage the company. Alpha sued for misappropriation of trade secrets, civil conspiracy, breach of fiduciary duty, antitrust violations and an injunction.

After Alpha filed several amended complaints, defendants moved to dismiss all of these claims, which the trial court granted with prejudice on all counts except the claim for misappropriation of trade secrets. The trial court found that all of the counts were based on the alleged theft of trade secrets and were therefore preempted by the Illinois Trade Secrets Act. Similarly, several other counts alleging conspiracy were preempted by the Antitrust Act. The remaining count was the claim for misappropriation of trade secrets, which the court dismissed without prejudice because it did not have enough information to state a cause of action. After an amended complaint that didn’t meet legal standards, the court dismissed that count with prejudice as well. The instant appeal followed.

The appeals court started by noting that Alpha did not submit a record of the trial, as required, so it could only consider the issues of law. It then took up the issue of whether the Antitrust and Trade Secrets Act preempt Alpha’s breach of fiduciary duty, conspiracy, trade secrets and antitrust claims. Alpha claims that Wagner used his position to prepare a lower bid for Southwest, which indeed would be a breach of fiduciary duty under caselaw. The court wrote that this would have involved the misappropriation of trade secrets, but does not depend on it. Thus, the Trade Secrets Act doesn’t preempt the breach of fiduciary duty claim and the trial court erred.

Similarly, the claim that Hackel induced Wagner to breach his fiduciary duty should not have been dismissed, the court wrote, because most of the allegations supporting it did not depend on misappropriation of trade secrets. And Cook-Illinois may sue Wagner for breach of fiduciary duty because Alpha properly asserted that Wagner was an officer of Cook-Illinois when he allegedly converted some of its trade secrets for use by Southwest. The First reversed the trial court on those three claims.

However, it upheld the trial court on all of the other claims. In many cases, the court wrote that the claims failed as a matter of law because of confusions between defendants as individuals and the corporations for whom they were acting as agents, or because of procedural errors. Furthermore, most of the trade secrets Alpha alleged were misappropriated failed to meet the definition of a trade secret under Illinois law: “Plaintiffs’ attempt to claim as a trade secret their “customer list,” i.e., the names of the school districts, is patently false because this information is glaringly nonsecret.” Finally, the court affirmed on the dismissal of the final complaint with prejudice, noting that the record shows no attempt by Alpha to amend its complaint again before the dismissal and appeal. Thus, the trial court was mostly affirmed and partly reversed.

Appeals Court Upholds Injunction Enforcing Salesman’s Covenant Not to Compete

October 16, 2009 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

A recent decision by the Fourth District Court of Appeal caught the eyes of our Illinois non-compete agreement attorneys because it created a split with other Courts of Appeal that only the Illinois Supreme Court can resolve. In September, the Fourth ruled that a trial court was correct to grant a preliminary injunction to a company suing over a covenant not to compete. Sunbelt Rentals Inc. v. Neil N. Ehlers III and Midwest Aerials & Equipment, Inc., No. 4-09-0290 (Ill. 4th Sept. 23, 2009). Sunbelt sued former sales employee Neil Ehlers and his new employer, Midwest, alleging Ehlers violated restrictive covenants when he took the new job, and Midwest tortiously interfered with the agreement when it hired him.

Sunbelt sells and rents industrial equipment for business and individual use. Ehlers was a salesman there responsible for maintaining a customer base and relationships. When he took the job in 2003, he signed a contract agreeing that he would not, for a year after leaving the job, provide services or solicit business from customers that had used Sunbelt in the preceding 12 months, or customers with whom he had had “contact, responsibility or access to confidential information.” It also forbade him from joining or starting a business “substantially similar” to Sunbelt’s. Both clauses were restricted to designated geographic areas. The contract specifically said Sunbelt would be entitled to an injunction against any breach or threatened breach of the restrictive covenants.

Ehlers quit at Sunbelt in January of 2009 to join Midwest, which rents and sells aerial platforms to construction and industry. Four days after Ehlers left, Sunbelt sent him and Midwest a “cease and desist” letter alleging that Ehlers had breached his agreement. The next month, Sunbelt sued for breach of the covenant and tortuous interference and asked for a preliminary injunction to keep Ehlers from working for Midwest. Finding that the time and geographic scope of the agreement was reasonable, the trial court granted the injunction. Ehlers and Midwest appealed, arguing that Sunbelt had not shown that it had a legitimate business interest test first set forth in Nationwide Advertising Service, Inc. v. Kolar, 28 Ill. App. 3d 671, 673, 329 N.E.2d 300, 301-02 (1975), and thus failed to follow precedent.

The Fourth District disagreed. It started by examining the question of whether the “legitimate business interests” test was valid under Illinois Supreme Court precedent, particularly the recent Mohanty v. St. John Heart Clinic, S.C., 225 Ill. 2d 52, 866 N.E.2d 85 (2006). Although every Illinois appellate court has embraced the test, the Fourth District wrote, its analysis was flawed and the Illinois Supreme Court had never embraced it. In fact, in Mohanty and several other decisions, that court never actually used the test. Instead, the Fourth said, precedent says the validity of a covenant not to compete should be based only on time and territory restrictions in the contract.

The court next took up the argument by Ehlers that the restrictive covenant should be declared invalid because it is overly broad. Ehlers argued that the restrictions were so broad that he is precluded from working for any competitor in a Midwestern city, causing him undue hardship. The court interpreted the language of the contract differently; it said the restriction meant Ehlers could not work for a competitor within 50 miles of a branch of Sunbelt where Ehlers had worked, for a year after leaving. This is consistent with previous time-and-territory decisions on restrictive covenants, the court said. Thus, the contract was valid, meaning that the trial court’s decision to issue an injunction was not unreasonable.

Appeals Court Decides Client May Sue Insurance Broker for Taking Kickbacks From Insurers

October 5, 2009 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

In a proposed class action insurance fraud lawsuit, the Illinois First District Court of Appeal has ruled that a former client may sue an insurance broker for inflating the cost of its insurance policies with “kickbacks.” DOD Technologies v. Mesirow Insurance Services Inc., No. 1-06-3300 (Ill. 1st Feb. 14, 2008). Plaintiff DOD Technologies sued Mesirow Insurance Services Inc., its insurance broker, after learning that Mesirow took contingency fees from insurance companies for steering clients toward those companies.

In its complaint, DOD said it provided confidential information to Mesirow, expecting the broker to get DOD the best price it could for insurance. But in addition to its commission from DOD, Mesirow also received “contingent commissions” from insurance companies, which were payments based on the amount of business it directed to the insurer, the number of renewals and how many losses the insurer had suffered from those clients. The payments were not disclosed to customers, DOD alleged, and created a conflict of interests for Mesirow. They also violated a part of the Illinois Insurance Code that require insurance brokers to disclose fees not directly related to premiums.

DOD sued Mesirow for breach of fiduciary duty, consumer fraud, fraudulent concealment, unjust enrichment and accounting. The complaint alleged that Mesirow steered customers to insurers who paid kickbacks, regardless of whether those insurers offered the best price, inflating the cost of insurance. The trial court dismissed three of DOD’s counts because the Insurance Code precludes breach of fiduciary duty claims and two others because it found no proof that DOD suffered damages or relied on the fraudulent concealment. DOD appealed.

Financial Consultant Did Not Breach Fiduciary Duty to Bank Takeover Candidate, Appeals Court Rules

September 14, 2009 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

A trial court was correct to find for defendants in a breach of fiduciary duty and constructive fraud lawsuit, the First District Court of Appeal ruled March 20. In Prodromos v. Everin Securities Inc., No. 1-06-3685 (1st. Dist. March 20, 2009), plaintiff John Prodromos sued Everin Securities, Inc., its predecessor company, Daniel Westrope and Dennis Klaeser over an allegedly stolen opportunity.

Prodromos was a former president and CEO of Howard Savings Bank, a family business. He was fired by his sister in 1994 after he was fined by the FDIC for failing to waive a fee and for violations of state law. In 1998, he wanted to purchase Home Federal Bank, which was looking for an investor, but needed help. He approached his broker at Everin, who connected him to Westrope, an investment banker there. After a meeting attended by all three, Westrope agreed to contact shareholders at Home Federal about voting for Prodromos in a proxy vote, but no agreement was signed and no fees were paid.At the time, Westrope had already been hired away from Everin by State Financial Services Corporation, something he did not disclose to Prodromos.

After Prodromos submitted some follow-up information to Westrope, the latter man was not responsive to messages from Prodromos. About a month after the meeting, Westrope moved to State Financial. His replacement at Everin, Klaeser, told Prodromos that Everin would not support his purchase attempt because it would be bad for the firm’s investment banking business. Prodromos met with several other banks and an attorney, but did not follow up with most. He did strike a deal for financing through Success Bank, but that deal fell through when one of the Success officials involved died suddenly. His efforts ended. A few months later, State Financial acquired Home Federal and installed Westrope as CEO and president of the bank.