ILNews

COA divided on noncompete agreement, injunction

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Even though Indiana courts strongly disfavor noncompete clauses in employment contracts as restraints of trade, the majority of Indiana Court of Appeals judges affirmed the grant of a preliminary injunction against a Porter County man. They found the company had a legitimately protectable interest in the man’s knowledge of its customers and market.

In Steven E. Coates v. Heat Wagons, Inc., et al., No. 64A03-1004-PL-232, Steven Coates, a former employee of Heat Wagons Inc. and Manufacturers Products, appealed the preliminary injunction granted against him to prevent him from operating a side business, Second Source, which was also involved in the sale of portable heater parts. Manufacturers Products (MPI) had a portable heater parts division, Portable Heater Parts (PHP), that Coates was also involved in.

When Coates’ father died and the company was sold, the new owners retained Coates as an employee and he signed an employment agreement, which contained a noncompete clause. Just before he was retained by the new owners, Coates changed the name of Second Source to S&S and concealed his involvement with the company. S&S often sold parts to MPI.

After Coates was fired in 2009, the company discovered his involvement with S&S and filed the complaint to enjoin him from continued operation of S&S. It later filed a petition for preliminary and permanent injunction. The trial court granted the preliminary injunction against Coates.

Judges L. Mark Bailey and Patricia Riley upheld the injunction and affirmed the trial court in all respects except with regard to the part of the injunction that prevented any use by Coates of heatersandparts.com and a red “H&P” mark on its website and printed materials. PHP used a red “PHP” mark and its website is portableheaterparts.com. There was no evidence that Coates’ use of the website or mark created any confusion among its current or potential customers, wrote Judge Bailey. The judges also found the relief to be overly broad, because by restricting the use of the web address and mark, the trial court effectively restricted Coats from using these means of advertising in the U.S. and globally.

The majority found the trial court didn’t err in determining MPI faced a risk of irreparable harm and lacked adequate remedy at law as a result of any breach by Coates of the agreement not to compete. They also held the trial court didn’t err by determining that MPI has a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of its case.

Judge James Kirsch dissented because he believed the covenant to not compete failed to be reasonable in terms of both activity and geographic area. He found the purpose of the covenant at issue is solely to prevent competition by restricting Coates from engaging in competition with the employer “in any capacity whatsoever” and prevent Coates from competing in any way.

He also found the geographic scope of the restriction, which applied to all the states in which MPI had done business, was without regard to whether Coates actually had any involvement in such states. Judge Kirsch also questioned the trial court’s re-writing of the contract as a matter of policy. The trial court “blue penciled” the contract, including the scope of the provisions of the covenant to strike out the 13 states which Coates had no contact, and made other changes.

“Here, as a result of re-writing the employer’s contract by the trial court, a contract that is unreasonable in its scope and unenforceable as over-broad becomes enforceable against the employee,” he wrote. “I believe that the restrictive covenant is unenforceable in its entirety.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. YES I WENT THROUGH THIS BEFORE IN A DIFFERENT SITUATION WITH MY YOUNGEST SON PEOPLE NEED TO LEAVE US ALONE WITH DCS IF WE ARE NOT HURTING OR NEGLECT OUR CHILDREN WHY ARE THEY EVEN CALLED OUT AND THE PEOPLE MAKING FALSE REPORTS NEED TO GO TO JAIL AND HAVE A CLASS D FELONY ON THERE RECORD TO SEE HOW IT FEELS. I WENT THREW ALOT WHEN HE WAS TAKEN WHAT ELSE DOES THESE SCHOOL WANT ME TO SERVE 25 YEARS TO LIFE ON LIES THERE TELLING OR EVEN LE SAME THING LIED TO THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR JUST SO I WOULD GET ARRESTED AND GET TIME HE THOUGHT AND IT TURNED OUT I DID WHAT I HAD TO DO NOT PROUD OF WHAT HAPPEN AND SHOULD KNOW ABOUT SEEKING MEDICAL ATTENTION FOR MY CHILD I AM DISABLED AND SICK OF GETTING TREATED BADLY HOW WOULD THEY LIKE IT IF I CALLED APS ON THEM FOR A CHANGE THEN THEY CAN COME AND ARREST THEM RIGHT OUT OF THE SCHOOL. NOW WE ARE HOMELESS AND THE CHILDREN ARE STAYING WITH A RELATIVE AND GUARDIAN AND THE SCHOOL WON'T LET THEM GO TO SCHOOL THERE BUT WANT THEM TO GO TO SCHOOL WHERE BULLYING IS ALLOWED REAL SMART THINKING ON A SCHOOL STAFF.

  2. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  3. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  4. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  5. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

ADVERTISEMENT