Mutual Service Casualty Ins. Co. v. Brass

20 Citing cases

  1. Techworks v. Wille

    2009 WI App. 101 (Wis. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 43 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting that a covenant with no geographic limitation is substantially narrowed and rendered reasonable by requirement that employee actually served customers

    ¶ 16. Streiff and Mutual Service Casualty Insurance Co. v. Brass, 2001 WI App 92, 242 Wis. 2d 733, 625 N.W.2d 648, dealt with clauses in insurance agents' agreements with their respective insurance-company employers that conditioned receipt of post-termination income on the agents not attempting to take customers from their employers and compete with them once they left their employment. Streiff, 118 Wis. 2d at 605-607, 348 N.W.2d at 507-508; Mutual Service, 2001 WI App 92, ¶¶ 7-8, 242 Wis. 2d at 738-740, 625 N.W.2d at 652-653.

  2. Manitowoc Co. v. Lanning

    2018 WI 6 (Wis. 2018)   Cited 23 times   8 Legal Analyses
    In Lanning, the contract said the employee couldn't "solicit, induce or encourage any employee(s) to terminate their employment with [the employer]."

    ¶ 20 We first address the standard of review. This court applies the same method of analysis to a motion for summary judgment as does a circuit court. Summary judgment is appropriate where, based on the pleadings, depositions, interrogatories, and affidavits on file, there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact, and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Wis. Stat. § 802.08(2) ; Star Direct, 319 Wis. 2d 274, ¶ 18, 767 N.W.2d 898 ; Belding v. Demoulin, 2014 WI 8, ¶ 13, 352 Wis. 2d 359, 843 N.W.2d 373 ; Green Spring Farms v. Kersten, 136 Wis. 2d 304, 315–17, 401 N.W.2d 816 (1987) ; Mut. Serv. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Brass, 2001 WI App 92, ¶ 4, 242 Wis. 2d 733, 625 N.W.2d 648, overruled on other grounds by Star Direct, 319 Wis. 2d 274, ¶ 78 n.12, 767 N.W.2d 898. ¶ 21 The instant case requires us to interpret both a statute and a written contract.

  3. Genzyme Corp. v. Bishop

    460 F. Supp. 2d 939 (W.D. Wis. 2006)   Cited 2 times

    This is because Wisconsin law favors the mobility of workers and "therefore, a contract that operates to restrict trade or competition is prima facie suspect." Mut. Serv. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Brass, 2001 WI App 92, ¶ 6, 242 Wis.2d 733, 738, 625 N.W.2d 648, 652 (citation omitted). Accordingly, such restrictions must withstand close scrutiny to pass legal muster as being reasonable; they will not be construed to extend beyond their proper import or further than the language of the contract absolutely requires.

  4. Star Direct, Inc. v. Dal Pra

    2009 WI 76 (Wis. 2009)   Cited 53 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a provision barring solicitation of an employer's customers was a restraint of trade under Wis. Stat. § 103.465

    The court of appeals also examined the divisibility question. Applying Streiff as interpreted by Mut. Serv. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Brass, 2001 WI App 92, 242 Wis. 2d 733, 625 N.W.2d 648, the court of appeals concluded that the business clause was indivisible from the customer clause, and thus neither was enforceable. Id., ¶ 29.

  5. Manitowoc Co. v. Lanning

    371 Wis. 2d 696 (Wis. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 2 times

    Id.¶ 20 When determining whether a restrictive covenant is overbroad, our cases demonstrate that we look not at the particular facts or circumstances of a case, but to the plain language of the agreement itself. See Mutual Serv. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Brass, 2001 WI App 92, ¶¶ 2, 15, 242 Wis.2d 733, 625 N.W.2d 648, overruled on other grounds by Star Direct, 319 Wis.2d 274, 767 N.W.2d 898 (finding that a restrictive covenant was overbroad because it prohibited an insurance agent from working for a competitor in any capacity, even as a janitor, when the insurance agent in fact went to work for a competitor in the same capacity); Equity Enters., Inc. v. Milosch, 2001 WI App 186, ¶ 15 n. 4, 247 Wis.2d 172, 633 N.W.2d 662 (concluding that a provision prohibiting an employee from doing business with any customers the employee serviced during his fifteen years of employment, including one he hypothetically only serviced during his first weeks of employment, was overbroad). Thus, if the text of the NSE provision restrains trade impermissibly, it is unenforceable even if the acts complained of in this action could have been proscribed by a more narrowly written and permissible restrictive covenant.

  6. Sysco Food Services of Eastern Wis. v. Ziccarelli

    445 F. Supp. 2d 1039 (E.D. Wis. 2006)   Cited 16 times
    Holding that confidentiality clause purporting to restrict disclosures "for `all times thereafter'" is "on its face void and unenforceable"

    "Wisconsin law favors the mobility of workers; therefore, a contract that operates to restrict trade or competition is prima facie suspect and will be liberally construed in favor of the employee." Mutual Service Casualty Ins. Co. v. Brass, 242 Wis. 2d 733, 739, 625 N.W.2d 648, 652 (Wis.Ct.App. 2001). "Such restrictions must withstand close scrutiny to pass legal muster as being reasonable; they will not be construed to extend beyond their proper import or further than the language of the contract absolutely requires."

  7. Sysco Food Services of Eastern Wisconsin, LLC v. Ziccarelli

    Case No. 06-C-526 (E.D. Wis. Jun. 28, 2006)

    "Wisconsin law favors the mobility of workers; therefore, a contract that operates to restrict trade or competition is prima facie suspect and will be liberally construed in favor of the employee." Mutual Service Casualty Ins. Co. v. Brass, 242 Wis. 2d 733, 739, 625 N.W.2d 648, 652 (Wis.Ct.App. 2001). "Such restrictions must withstand close scrutiny to pass legal muster as being reasonable; they will not be construed to extend beyond their proper import or further than the language of the contract absolutely requires."

  8. Kozlovich v. S. Abraham Sons, Inc.

    04-C-910-C (W.D. Wis. May. 5, 2005)

    "Wisconsin law favors the mobility of workers; therefore, a contract that operates to restrict trade or competition is prima facie suspect and will be liberally construed in favor of the employee." Mutual Service Casualty Ins. Co. v. Brass, 242 Wis. 2d 733, 738, 625 N.W.2d 648, 652 (Ct.App. 2001). (Although the parties' agreement contains a forum selection clause providing that it is to be decided under Michigan law and that venue is to be in Kent County, Michigan, neither party has challenged venue or the application of Wisconsin law.

  9. JT Packard & Associates, Inc. v. Smith

    429 F. Supp. 2d 1052 (W.D. Wis. 2005)   Cited 7 times
    In JT Packard the plaintiff, seeking to enforce a non-solicitation agreement which its former employee had signed, moved for a preliminary injunction against the former employee (Smith) and his employer (On Power) to restrain them from allowing Smith "to solicit any new customers for defendant On Power that were former customers or potential customers of plaintiff, even if the new customers were ones that had followed defendant to plaintiff from his previous job or were `potential' customers that had no intention of becoming actual customers of plaintiff."

    Plaintiff's non-competition agreement does not appear to be one that Wisconsin courts would uphold, given the state's strong presumption in favor of the mobility of workers. See, e.g., Equity Enterprises, Inc. v. Milosch, 2001 WI App 186, ¶ 11, 247 Wis. 2d 172, 183, 633 N.W.2d 662 (Ct. App. 2001) ("covenants not to compete are generally disfavored in the law"); Mutual Service Casualty Ins. Co. v. Brass, 2001 WI App 92, ¶ 8, 242 Wis. 2d 733, 738, 625 N.W.2d 648, 652(Ct.App. 2001) (contracts that operate to restrict trade or competition are construed liberally in favor of employee). The non-competition agreement imposes an eighteen-month ban on defendant Smith's association with any organization or person that competes with plaintiff in the portions of plaintiff's business in which Smith provided services and in the geographical area in which he provided those services.

  10. STAR DIR. v. PRA

    745 N.W.2d 87 (Wis. Ct. App. 2007)

    ¶ 2 We conclude, based on the undisputed facts, that one of the clauses is overbroad and therefore invalid and unenforceable under WIS. STAT. § 103.465. We also conclude that under Mutual Service Casualty Insurance Co. v. Brass, 2001 WI App 92, 242 Wis. 2d 733, 625 N.W.2d 648, the two clauses are one indivisible covenant under WIS. STAT. § 103.465. Because they are one indivisible covenant, the invalidity of one clause renders the entire covenant — including the other clause invalid and unenforceable under § 103.465. Accordingly, the circuit court properly entered summary judgment dismissing the complaint and we affirm.