Hilb, Rogal & Hamilton Co. of Atlanta Inc. v. Holley

The plaintiff could not recover the amount listed as consideration for its former employee's agreement not to compete with the plaintiff upon termination, since the covenant was an illegally broad restraint of trade.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

In Case No. A08A2156, following a jury trial in a suit brought by Hilb, Rogal & Hamilton Company of Atlanta HRH against Hugh Holley a former employee, HRH appeals the trial court’s grant of a directed verdict to Hugh Holley with respect to a claim for unjust enrichment. Because HRH seeks to recover money it paid pursuant to an illegal contract, we affirm in that case. In Case No. A08A2157, Holley cross-appeals the trial court’s denial of his motions for a directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict and challenges the damages awarded to HRH for its breach of fiduciary duty claim. Because the evidence supported the jury’s award, we affirm in that case also. These post-trial appeals arise from a dispute over an employment contract between Holley and HRH, and the cases share a procedural and factual background with an earlier, pre-trial appeal to this Court. In August 1997, HRH a large insurance brokerage bought Holley’s independent insurance brokerage, and Holley became a vice president of HRH. Pursuant to his employment agreement with HRH, Holley earned a salary and certain bonuses in exchange for selling professional liability insurance to clients needing specialized engineering or architecture policies. The employment agreement contained covenants not to compete with HRH in the event that Holley’s employment with HRH terminated.

In February 2003, Holley resigned from HRH and began working for another insurance brokerage the following business day. HRH sued Holley for, inter alia, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty. After Holley successfully moved for summary judgment on the ground that the restrictive covenant was overly broad and unenforceable, this Court in the prior appeal affirmed that ruling and held that HRH could not pursue its breach of contract claim based on Holley’s alleged breach of the restrictive covenants. See Hilb, Rogal & Hamilton Co. of Atlanta v. Holley .1

Hilb, Rogal & Hamilton Co. of Atlanta Inc. v. Holley

The plaintiff could not recover the amount listed as consideration for its former employee's agreement not to compete with the plaintiff upon termination, since the covenant was an illegally broad restraint of trade.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report