• Menu
  • Skip to left header navigation
  • Skip to right header navigation
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to secondary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Before Header

Contact Us (317) 692-9000

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn

Directions

Kroger Gardis Regas, LLP

Kroger Gardis & Regas, LLP

  • Firm
    • About Us
    • History
    • KGR in Our Community
    • TAGLaw®
  • Professionals
  • Practice Areas
  • Information
    • Blog
    • Doing Business in Indiana: A Reference Guide
    • Representing Buyers and Sellers in Acquisitions of Privately Held Companies
    • Receiverships & Class Actions
  • Legal Lessons
    • Courses
    • Login
    • Account
  • News
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Search
  • Firm
    • About Us
    • History
    • KGR in Our Community
    • TAGLaw®
  • Professionals
  • Practice Areas
  • Information
    • Blog
    • Doing Business in Indiana: A Reference Guide
    • Representing Buyers and Sellers in Acquisitions of Privately Held Companies
    • Receiverships & Class Actions
  • Legal Lessons
    • Courses
    • Login
    • Account
  • News
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Search
You are here: Home / Employment Law / Noncompetes – A Breach Does Not Entitle a Company to Increase the Length of an Injunction

Noncompetes – A Breach Does Not Entitle a Company to Increase the Length of an Injunction

December 7, 2016 //  by Steve Runyan

The Indiana Court of Appeals has provided additional guidance on the enforceability of noncompetition and nonsolicitation agreements.  Noncompetes, as they are often known, are regularly enforced when a former employer demonstrates that the restriction is reasonable. The reasonableness of a restriction is measured in two steps:  1) Whether the employer has a legitimate protectable interest, and 2) whether the covenants are reasonable in scope as to the time, geography and activity restricted. See our prior post here

The Court recently considered whether a provision that extended the time of the noncompete for the length of a breach was enforceable.  See Hannum Wagle & Cline Engineering, Inc. et al v. American Consulting, Inc., d/b/a American Structurepoint, Inc., found at http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11301601jsk.pdf

In Hannum, the noncompete provided “that the ‘Non- Compete Period’ shall be extended by the duration of any violation by [Kuntz] of the terms of Paragraph 2 of this Agreement.” These clauses are common and are important to former employers who know that litigation takes time and want the offending employee barred for competing for as long as possible. Without such clauses, an employee is incentivized to delay litigation as long as possible, because he or she can run out the clock of any inunction for the noncompetition period.  The former employee does run the risk that he or she may later be held liable for breach and damages will have accrued.  However, the whole point of seeking an injunction is because it is difficult to prove damages.

However, the Court affirmed Kuntz v. EVI, LLC, 999 N.E.2d 425 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), holding that a preliminary injunction was not an appropriate vehicle to extend the term of a non-compete.  The Kuntz court found, and Hannum agreed, that a preliminary injunction upholds the status quo pending a final determination, and that the status quo was the situation prior to litigation – the original timing of the noncompete. As a result, the noncompete period terminated on the date set forth in the agreement, irrespective of any breach by the former employee.

The Court did not address whether alternative language in the noncompete may support an extension, or whether after a full hearing on the merits, the Court would permit injunctive relief even after the noncompete period had expired.

For a thorough discussion of these issues, or if you have other questions on how to best protect your company or yourself, please contact James Knauer or Steve Runyan, or one of our attorney’s here to discuss your situation. It would be our pleasure to assist you.

Category: Blog, Corporate Law, Employment LawTag: Steven Runyan

Previous Post: « 11th Hour Federal Court Injunction Blocks New FLSA Overtime Rules
Next Post: 2015 Environmental Crimes Top the List »

Primary Sidebar

If you are interested in our services please fill out the form below.

    Your Name (required)

    Your Email (required)

    Phone (required)

    Subject

    Your Message

    RECENT POSTS

    Practical Legal Issues regarding Vaping and Schools

    The tobacco use intervention strategies of the past may have low …

    The Federal Trade Commission Announced a Ban on Non-Compete Agreements: What Does That Mean for Your Business?

    We won’t bury the lede: it could be huge, but it’s also probably …

    2 New Attorneys, 1 Paralegal Join KGR

    KGR is thrilled to start the New Year with two new attorneys Wes …

    KGR Obtains Preliminary Injunction Against City of Bloomington in Free Speech Case

    Turning Point USA (TPUSA) and its local chapter on the Indiana …

    KGR Attorneys File Lawsuit Against USA Track & Field to Advance Athlete Health & Safety

    KGR’s Sports and Entertainment Law Team, led by KGR Partner Bill …

    Footer

    Indianapolis Office

    Kroger, Gardis & Regas, LLP

    111 Monument Circle, Suite 900 Indianapolis, IN 46204

    (317) 692-9000
    (317) 264-6832
    Directions

    Connect with us!

    • Facebook
    • LinkedIn
    • Twitter

    Newsletter

    Select list(s) to subscribe to


    By submitting this form, you are consenting to receive marketing emails from: Kroger, Gardis & Regas, LLP, 111 Monument Circle, Indianapolis, IN, 46204, http://www.kgrlaw.com. You can revoke your consent to receive emails at any time by using the SafeUnsubscribe® link, found at the bottom of every email. Emails are serviced by Constant Contact

    Copyright © 2023 · Kroger, Gardis & Regas, LLP · Log in