AssuredPartners (AP) filed a lawsuit in December 2024 against EPIC Insurance Brokers & Consultants and three former employees — Rick Frechmann, Joleen Mayfield, and Brad Snitzer — alleging breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets, tortious interference, unjust enrichment, and breach of the duty of loyalty. The lawsuit claims that after leaving AP, the defendants improperly solicited AP clients and took confidential information.
Court Denies AP’s Request for Temporary Restraining Order
As part of its lawsuit, AP sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) to prevent the former employees from conducting business with AP’s clients. The company argued that their actions had caused financial losses and irreparable harm to its goodwill. However, US District Judge Sarah E. Pitlyk denied AP’s TRO request, citing a lack of evidence proving that an injunction was necessary.
In her ruling, Judge Pitlyk emphasized that:
- AP’s primary alleged harm—the loss of six clients and 21 insurance policies—was a financial loss that could be addressed through monetary damages, rather than requiring injunctive relief.
- The company did not provide sufficient evidence that its reputation or goodwill had suffered beyond measurable financial losses.
- The court was not convinced that AP would continue to lose clients at a rate that justified emergency legal intervention.
While the ruling does not dismiss AP’s broader claims, it allows EPIC and its newly hired employees to continue their business operations without court-imposed restrictions.
Legal Issues at the Center of the Case
The lawsuit centers on the enforcement of Restrictive Covenant Agreements (RCAs) that the former employees signed while at AP. These agreements include:
- Non-solicitation clause: Prevents former employees from soliciting, selling, quoting, placing, or servicing insurance products for AP clients for two years after leaving the company. It also prohibits them from influencing AP’s business partners to diminish or end their relationships with AP.
- Confidential information clause: Prohibits former employees from using or disclosing non-public information related to AP’s clients, contracts, pricing, business strategies, and insurance markets.
- Restricted clients clause: Identifies AP’s clients from the past two years as “restricted clients,” meaning former employees cannot conduct business with them during the restricted period.
Frechmann, Mayfield, and Snitzer have denied soliciting former AP clients but stated that some clients reached out to them after seeing public announcements about their new employment.
Next Steps in Litigation
The court has ordered both parties to establish a schedule for limited discovery and briefing on a potential preliminary injunction. This schedule, due by March 14, 2025, will set the timeline for the next phase of litigation.
The case raises broader legal questions about the enforceability of restrictive covenants in the insurance industry and the extent to which former employees can engage with previous clients. As the lawsuit moves forward, further rulings will determine the validity of AP’s claims.
For now, EPIC and the former AP employees can continue working without legal restrictions imposed by the court.