An insurance agent cannot rely upon information obtained from his previous employment to induce or solicit clients to switch to a new insurer

02. March 2008 0

An insurance agent was terminated by his employer.  He began soliciting his former clients and persuaded a number of clients to switch to a new policy.  The insurer brought an application to stop their prior employee from contacting their customers.  The court determined that although there was no direct evidence that the agent was inducing former customers to switch policies, there was ample indirect evidence.  The insurer received an injunction to prohibit the former agent from utilizing his knowledge of who the policy holders were and when their policies might expire.

PennCorp Life Insurnace Co. v. Oswald, [2008] O.J. No. 77.  Ontario Superior Court of Justice.  D.K. Gray J.   January 11, 2008.

The former agent had been employed under a contract with the Insurer from 1999 to March 2006. The contract prohibited disclosure of any confidential information obtained in the course of the employment relationship and stated that, upon termination of the contract, the agent would return the original and all copies of any “confidential information” received during the course of his employment. The contract further provided that the agent would not make use of or disclose the confidential information or cause or permit it to be used by any person. Clause 12 of the contract restricted the agent’s ability for two years following his termination to either directly or indirectly induce any existing policyholder to switch insurers.

The Insurer claimed that, after the agent’s termination on March 15, 2006, he had started soliciting the Insurer’s policyholders, persuading a number of them to switch carriers. The evidence showed that as of March 15, 2006, the agent had been responsible for 330 of Insurer’s policies of insurance. As of November 30, 2007, 93 of those policies had been cancelled, lapsed, terminated or replaced. The Court found that while there was no direct evidence that the agent had solicited or induced policyholders to switch insurers, it was a reasonable inference from the evidence filed that he had engaged in solicitation or inducement of at least some of the policyholders who had switched insurers or cancelled their policies.

The Insurer sought an injunction to restrain the agent from inducing existing policyholders to cancel or switch policies and to require the agent to deliver up any confidential information and to restrain him from using or disclosing such information. The agent argued that his contracts with the Insurer were invalid, but assuming that the contracts were valid, there was insufficient information to show that he violated the terms of the contract.

Justice D.K. Gray reviewed the criteria for granting interlocutory injunctions as set out in the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in R.J.R. MacDonald Inc. v. Canada, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311, noting also that an injunction is an extraordinary remedy and is not to be granted lightly. He took into account the fact that there had been an element of delay on the part of the Insurer in requesting the return of all confidential information and that the Insurer had made no effort to pursue this issue until bringing its claim in December 2007 and applying for an injunction shortly thereafter. The Court also found that the Insurer could, by due diligence, have discovered the agent’s activities in soliciting policyholders and inducing them to switch insurance carriers well before August 2007.

Despite these facts, the Court found that the Insurer had made out its case for an injunction and ordered that the agent be restrained from soliciting and inducing the Insurer’s policyholders, but only for the balance of the two-year period prescribed by the terms in the contract. The Court limited the injunctive relief concerning return of confidential information to the return of the physical manifestations of the confidential information in the agent’s possession. The injunction did not prohibit the agent from utilizing his own knowledge of who the policyholders were and when their policies might expire.

This case was originally summarized by Shanti Davies and edited by David W. Pilley.

To stay current with the new case law and emerging legal issues in this area, subscribe here.