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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT