Colonial Life & Accident Insurance Company v. Byrd

179 S.E.2d 746, 227 Ga. 198, 1971 Ga. LEXIS 637
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJanuary 8, 1971
Docket26209, 26210
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 179 S.E.2d 746 (Colonial Life & Accident Insurance Company v. Byrd) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Colonial Life & Accident Insurance Company v. Byrd, 179 S.E.2d 746, 227 Ga. 198, 1971 Ga. LEXIS 637 (Ga. 1971).

Opinion

Mobley, Presiding Justice.

The question for decision presented by this appeal and cross appeal is whether a restrictive covenant in an employment contract is valid and binding upon the employee, an insurance agent. The trial judge granted the insurance company an injunction against the agent.

The pertinent provisions of the covenant are as follows: ". . . the soliciting agent, . . . hereby expressly covenants and agrees that after termination of this agreement, for any reason, he shall not for a period of two years thereafter, do nor shall he aid or abet others to do, any of the following things: (1) sell, or attempt to sell, any form of accident or health insurance to or on any of the company’s insureds under group or franchise policies in the territory covered by this agreement, (2) induce, or attempt to induce, any of the company’s insureds under group policies or franchise policyholders to cancel, lapse or fail to renew their policies with the company in the territory covered by this agreement, . . .” (Emphasis supplied.)

The contract contains no provision specifying the territory in which the agent is forbidden to sell, or attempt to sell, insurance of the kind sold for the insurance company. The "territory covered by this agreement” is not set out in the contract. By amendment to its complaint, the company alleges that at or about the time the agreement was given and accepted, the agent was given a manual which provided that: "An agent is permitted to sell anywhere within his regional manager’s territory, provided he is licensed in the State in which he sells. An agent is permitted to sell anywhere within the State in which he lives, and is licensed, regardless of regional territory boundaries.”

In the recent case of Edwin K. Williams & Co.-East v. Padgett, 226 Ga. 613 (176 SE2d 800), this court held that an employment contract which contained a provision that the employee would not, *200 for a period of two years, go into competition with his employer by "soliciting for himself or others the accounts served by Edwin K. Williams & Co. (Va.)” was void because not limited as to territory.

In the instant case the agent is restricted by the contract from soliciting policyholders of the insurance company in "the territory covered by this agreement,” which territory, as in Edwin K. Williams & Co.-East v. Padgett, 226 Ga. 613, supra, is not set out in the contract. Accordingly, the restrictive covenant in the contract is void.

The trial judge erred in enjoining the agent from selling, or attempting to sell, described insurance to customers of the insurance company "in the territory covered by his contract,” and the judgment granting the injunction is reversed on the cross appeal of the agent.

The main appeal by the insurance company, which complains of certain provisions in the injunctive order, is rendered moot by the ruling on the cross appeal.

Judgment reversed on the cross appeal. Main appeal dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

American Family Life Assurance Co. v. Tazelaar
482 N.E.2d 1072 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1985)
Barnes Group, Inc. v. James W. Harper
653 F.2d 175 (Fifth Circuit, 1981)
Guffey v. Shelnut & Associates, Inc.
278 S.E.2d 371 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1981)
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith v. Stidham
506 F. Supp. 1182 (M.D. Georgia, 1981)
Woodbury Business Forms & Systems v. Coleman
372 So. 2d 346 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 1979)
Heller v. Magaro
252 S.E.2d 11 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1978)
Fuller v. Kolb
234 S.E.2d 517 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1977)
Preferred Risk Mutual Insurance v. Jones
211 S.E.2d 720 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1975)
Colonial Life & Accident Insurance Co. v. Kappers
488 P.2d 96 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 1971)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
179 S.E.2d 746, 227 Ga. 198, 1971 Ga. LEXIS 637, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/colonial-life-accident-insurance-company-v-byrd-ga-1971.