The BUSKLAW Newsletter

  Are you a party to a Michigan employment contract that includes non-competition, non-solicitation, and confidentiality provisions? Have you wondered whether these restrictive covenants have teeth, i.e., are they enforceable via a preliminary injunction? That's a great question, and we have the answer from Michigan Business Court Judge Christopher Yates in his recent decision:  Aaron Symonds v Lighthouse Insurance Group, Inc. Let's start with the facts. Mr. Symonds was a shareholder (i.e., not a mail clerk) in the Lighthouse Insurance Group . He signed an employment agreement that included non-competition, non-solicitation, and confidentiality obligations. He then voluntarily left Lighthouse to work for a Lighthouse competitor,  Collins & Associates , as their Vice-President of Commercial Lines. In that capacity, he began to solicit several Lighthouse clients to move their property and casualty insurance over to Collins. Symonds conceded under oath that his work fo...

When it comes to business contracts, some provisions are more important than others. And it's true that some of these critical clauses are buried deep within a contract, so by the time you get to them, your eyes are glazed over, and you gloss over them. But that could be unfortunate.  One such provision is what lawyers call the c hoice o f l aw   and  f orum s election clause (for convenience, "COLFS"). That clause typically reads as follows: The validity, interpretation, and construction of this agreement are governed by the laws of the State of [INSERT STATE], and any and all claims hereunder shall be brought in [SPECIFY NAME OF COURT AND COUNTY]. A recent decision by Kent County Circuit Court Judge Christopher Yates underscores the importance of a COLFS provision in an employment contract between OtterBase, a Grand Rapids, MI-based staffing firm, and two of their former employees, Carrie Rogers and Emily Reed. Rogers and Reed had experience in the staffing ...