American Shippers Supply Co. v. Campbell
1983 Ind. App. LEXIS 3664, 456 N.E.2d 1040 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Covenants not to compete are disfavored as restraints on trade and are enforceable only if reasonable, requiring the employer to demonstrate a legitimate protectable interest, such as trade secrets or truly confidential information, or "special facts" giving the former employee a unique competitive advantage beyond mere acquired skill or generally available knowledge.
Facts:
- American Shippers Supply Co. (American Shippers) is an Ohio corporation authorized to do business in Indiana, engaging in the highly competitive sale of shipping room supplies and equipment, with an office in Indianapolis.
- James Campbell and Glenn Campbell (the Campbells) began working for American Shippers in 1977.
- On December 22, 1977, the Campbells executed ten-year employment contracts with American Shippers, which included non-disclosure and non-compete clauses.
- After American Shippers opened its Indianapolis office in 1977, the Campbells were transferred there and were responsible for soliciting sales throughout Indiana.
- In October or November 1982, the Campbells offered to purchase American Shippers's Indianapolis operations, but their offer was rejected.
- The Campbells mailed their resignations to American Shippers on April 1, 1983, and their resignations were accepted, effective April 6, 1983.
- Immediately after their resignations became effective, the Campbells began employment with Indy Office and Shipping Supplies, Inc., a direct competitor of American Shippers.
- The Campbells subsequently contacted former American Shippers customers to solicit their business for Indy Office.
Procedural Posture:
- American Shippers Supply Co. filed a complaint against James and Glenn Campbell in the trial court (court of first instance) seeking a preliminary and permanent injunction and money damages.
- The trial court denied American Shippers's complaint, concluding that American Shippers failed to prove a legitimate interest to protect and failed to establish special facts giving the Campbells any competitive advantage.
- American Shippers appealed the trial court's denial to the Indiana Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an employer have a legitimate protectable interest sufficient to enforce a covenant not to compete against former employees who solicit former customers, when the employer's customer information is easily obtainable, not treated as confidential, and the employer fails to establish any special competitive advantage of the employees?
Opinions:
Majority - Robertson, Presiding Judge
No, American Shippers did not have a legitimate protectable interest sufficient to enforce the covenant not to compete against the Campbells. The court affirmed the trial court's denial of American Shippers's request for an injunction, noting that covenants not to compete are disfavored and are only enforceable if they are reasonable, a determination made on a case-by-case basis. An employer must demonstrate "special facts" that give a former employee a unique competitive advantage or ability to harm the employer, such as trade secrets, unique services, confidential information (like customer lists), or a confidential relationship. However, the mere acquisition of skill, efficiency, or general knowledge by an employee does not warrant enforcement. The court found the trial court's conclusion that American Shippers failed to prove its customer lists were trade secrets or confidential information was not clearly erroneous. Evidence showed that customer names and addresses could be easily obtained through public sources like telephone directories or trade publications. While specific customer contacts were not publicly available, the file cards containing this information were accessible to all American Shippers's employees and were not treated as confidential. There was no testimony indicating that customers relied on the Campbells' particular expertise or that a personal relationship existed between the Campbells and the customers. The business was highly competitive, the products were not unique, and customers prioritized obtaining the product over the specific seller. The court also noted evidence suggesting American Shippers's loss of goodwill and customers may have resulted from its own credit problems and inability to obtain supplies. Given the lack of a proven protectable interest, the court did not need to assess the reasonableness of the covenant's scope.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the stringent requirements for enforcing covenants not to compete in Indiana, particularly concerning customer lists. It establishes that employers cannot rely on general customer information or an employee's acquired sales skills to justify such restraints. For a covenant to be enforceable, employers must proactively protect genuinely confidential information or establish that the former employee possessed unique knowledge or relationships that constitute a specific competitive advantage. This ruling makes it more difficult for companies to prevent former employees from working for competitors unless they can demonstrate a clear, substantial threat to proprietary interests beyond general business competition, thus balancing employer protection with employee mobility.
