BI’s Article search uses Boolean search capabilities. If you are not familiar with these principles, here are some quick tips.
To search specifically for more than one word, put the search term in quotation marks. For example, “workers compensation”. This will limit your search to that combination of words.
To search for a combination of terms, use quotations and the & symbol. For example, “hurricane” & “loss”.
A federal district court has refused to issue a temporary restraining order sought by AssuredPartners Inc. against a former employee who allegedly left to work for a competing firm in violation of a noncompete agreement.
Shane Larson was a shareholder of Madison, Wisconsin-based brokerage Avid Risk Solutions Inc., which was purchased by Lake Mary, Florida-based AssuredPartners in August, according to court papers in AssuredPartners Great Plains LLC v. Shane Larson.
AssuredPartners bought the rights to Avid’s contracts as well as written promises from Mr. Larson and other Avid shareholders not to compete within 100 miles of various towns in Wisconsin or in Fort Myers, Florida, according to the complaint in the case.
The complaint charges that Mr. Larson began stealing AssuredPartners’ trade secret and confidential information, including by using three thumb drives on his AssuredPartners computer. He was terminated by AP in November 2022.
It states that AssuredPartners has confirmed that Mr. Larson is going to work for Monticello, Wisconsin-based Tri-Insure LLC, with the likely ultimate intent of purchasing the brokerage, and charges him with breach of the asset purchase agreement, violation of the Defend Trade Secrets Act and misappropriation of trade secrets.
AssuredPartners filed a separate motion seeking a temporary restraining order, an evidence preservation order and a preliminary injunction against Mr. Larson.
The U.S. District Court in Orlando denied the motion in its Dec. 22 ruling.
A “review of the docket indicates Defendant has not been served with the Complaint or the instant Motion,” the ruling said. “The court is similarly unconvinced that the issuance of an Order directing Defendant to preserve” documents and other data “is proper or necessary,” it said.
Attorneys in the case had no comment or did not respond to a request for comment.