• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

North Carolina Personal Injury & Workers Compensation Attorneys

  • facebook
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • linkedin

Call Us 919-240-4054

Main navigation

  • Camp Lejeune
  • Workers’ Comp
    • Durham, NC
      • Burns and Explosions
      • Durham back injury lawyers
      • Brain Injury
      • Chemical Exposure
      • Construction Accidents
      • Healthcare Workers and COVID-19
      • Occupational Disease
      • Union Members
      • Workplace Violence
  • Personal Injury
    • Durham, NC
      • Burn Injury
      • College Campus Injuries
      • Car Accidents
      • Catastrophic Injuries
      • Premises Liability
      • Product Liability
      • Trucking Accidents
      • Traumatic Brain Injury
    • Charlotte, NC
      • Trucking Accidents
      • Brain Injury Lawyer
      • Burn Injury Lawyer
      • Premises Liability Lawyer
      • Product Liability Lawyer
      • Car Accident Lawyer
      • Catastrophic Injury Lawyer
  • Wrongful Death
    • Durham, NC
    • Charlotte, NC
  • Bicycle Crash
    • Charlotte, NC
  • Our Lawyers
    • Ann E. Groninger
    • Valerie Johnson
    • Helen S. Baddour
    • Drew Culler
    • Jennifer Segnere
    • Speaking Engagements
  • Resources
    • Law Blog
    • Our Community
  • Contact Us
  • Español

August 22, 2010 By nicole

NC Court of Appeals voids as overbroad a non-compete and non-solicitation agreement

In a recent unpublished opinion, MGM Investigations Inc. v. Sjostedt, the North Carolina Court of Appeals declared a particular non-compete and non-solicitation agreement to be unenforceable because it was overly broad and too vague. In the opinion, the Court reviewed many of the core principles in determining whether non-compete agreements are enforceable.

To be enforceable, a non-compete or non-solicitation agreement must meet five requirements: it must be (1) in writing; (2) made a part of the employment contract; (3) based on valuable consideration; (4) reasonable as to time and territory; and (5) designed to protect a legitimate business interest of the employer. Restrictions on time and territory are considered together. “Although either the time or the territory restriction, standing alone, may be reasonable, the combined effect of the two may be unreasonable. A longer period of time is acceptable where the geographic restriction is relatively small, and vice versa. … The protection of customer relations against misappropriation by a departing employee is well recognized as a legitimate interest of an employer.”

In this case, MGM Investigations had hired the defendants to perform insurance-related investigations regarding federal contracting work overseas. The non-compete agreement that had been signed restricted defendants from competing “either directly or indirectly, with MJM in its present line(s) of business or in future line(s) of business” for a period of two years. The trial court held that this provision was unreasonable because it contained no geographic restriction. The employer did not appeal this conclusion.

The non-solicitation provision stated that defendants could not “solicit any current or prospect client of MJM for the purposes of providing” insurance-investigation-related services. The trial court had approved this provision specifically with regard to a list of 800 purported “clients” that had been provided by the employer during the case. The Court of Appeals reversed this conclusion.

The Court found that the terms “current client” and “prospect client” were both too vague without further definition. No time period or other restriction determined when a company was a current or prospective client. Especially problematic was that the restriction would cover clients or prospects that defendants never had any contact with. Nor could the trial court save the agreement by specifically listing 800 particular “clients” when it had not verified that these companies were indeed clients and the provision did not have a time limit. Accordingly, the Court declared the non-solicitation agreement to be invalid.

Judge Steelman concurred in the result, but was more sympathetic to the employer’s position, and would have upheld the non-solicitation provision if the trial court had interpreted it more narrowly.

Filed Under: In the News Tagged With: Case Commentary, NC Court of Appeals, Non-Compete Agreements, Non-Solicitation Agreements, Restrictions on Competition, Time and Territory Restrictions

Primary Sidebar

Primary Sidebar

Occupation

  • Bus Drivers
  • Construction Workers
  • First Responders
  • Police Officers
  • Truck Drivers
  • State Employees
  • Union Members

Injury

  • Asbestos Exposure
  • Durham back injury lawyers
  • Brain Injury
  • Burns and explosions
  • Chemical Exposure
  • COVID-19 and Healthcare Workers
  • Occupational Diseases
  • Workplace Violence

Free Legal Resources

  • Workers’ Compensation 101
  • 8 Questions to Answer Before You Are Ever in a Wreck
  • Essentials for Workers’ Comp Success
  • Help for Families of North Carolina Burn Victims

Locations

Durham Office

300 Blackwell St S#101, Durham, NC 27701

Phone: (919) 240-4054

Fax: (888) 412-0421

Charlotte Office

1018 East Blvd., Ste 6 Charlotte, NC 28203

Phone: (704) 200-2009

Fax : (888) 412-0421

Read Our Google Reviews

Get more stuff

Subscribe to our mailing list and get interesting stuff and updates to your email inbox.

Thank you for subscribing.

Something went wrong.

We respect your privacy and take protecting it seriously.

Copyright Johnson & Groninger PLLC Law Firm SEO by EverSpark Interactive