ILNews

Employee defection sparks battle between brokerages

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A legal battle has broken out between two insurance brokerages, with Hylant Group alleging Huntington Insurance hired one of its former employees who then lured away two of its clients.

Toledo,Ohio-based Hylant, which has offices in Carmel, alleges former employee Nicholas Iaonnacci, of Indianapolis, violated a two-year non-compete clause of his employment agreement by going to work for Huntington’s Indianapolis office last summer.

Before resigning from Hylant on June 24, Iaonnacci allegedly emailed confidential Hylant information to his personal email account, Hylant alleges in a lawsuit filed last month in Hamilton Superior Court. The email included passwords to databases and a database of prospective clients, the brokerage alleges.

But attorneys for Huntington and Iaonnacci this month filed to transfer the case to U.S. District Court in Indianapolis. They argued federal court was the appropriate venue, given Hylant’s allegations that Iaonnacci violated the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

According to Hylant’s complaint, a month after Iaonnacci left for Huntington it received notice from the Indiana University Research and Technology Corp. that it was discontinuing its relationship with Hylant.

In March of this year, Hylant lost another client, IDI Fabrication in Noblesville.

“After thoughtful consideration — and three months of trying to track him down — we are going to continue our relationship with Nick Iaonnacci at Huntington,” states a letter IDI’s chief financial officer wrote to Hylant, according to its suit.

Hylant contends it placed a two-year non-compete clause in its employment contract with Iaonnacci because the insurance industry relies heavily upon relationships between brokers and customers that are developed over time.

“In the insurance industry, once a customer is obtained, the reasonable anticipation is that the customer will remain with the broker, continuing to renew policies on an annual basis and earning additional revenue for the broker,” Hylant said in its complaint.

The dollar value of the lost contracts is not quantified in the complaint.

Hylant accuses Huntington of tortuous interference, unjust enrichment and violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. It wants the court to enforce Iaonnacci’s employment agreement and seeks an unspecified amount of damages for the lost value of business.

Brent Wilder, spokesman for the Columbus, Ohio-based parent of Huntington Insurance, Huntington Bancshares, said it typically doesn’t comment on pending litigation.

Huntington Insurance ranks in the 50 largest agent/brokerage agencies in the U.S. Its Indianapolis office is at 45 N. Pennsylvania St. Hylant has metro area offices at 301 Pennsylvania Parkway in Carmel, where it counts about 60 employees.

Hylant has more than $135 million in premiums written in Indiana and was the 11th largest Indianapolis-area independent insurance agency/brokerage in 2013, according to IBJ research.

 

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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT