Lamorte Burns & Co., Inc. v. Walters
770 A.2d 1158, 17 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1105, 167 N.J. 285 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employee breaches their duty of loyalty and tortiously interferes with an employer's economic advantage when they secretly gather confidential and proprietary client information while still employed, deny plans to compete, and then immediately use that information upon resignation to strategically solicit the former employer's clients.
Facts:
- Michael Walters was hired by Lamorte Burns & Co. (Lamorte) in 1990 to manage its Clark office, handling Protection & Indemnity (P & I) claims and supervising Nancy Nixon.
- Walters signed an employment agreement obligating him to devote full time, maintain client confidentiality, and not solicit Lamorte clients or cases for 12 months post-termination.
- In 1996, after Lamorte indicated a shift away from P & I work, Walters and Nixon began planning to establish a competing business, "The Walters Nixon Group" (WNG).
- While still employed by Lamorte, Walters and Nixon secretly compiled a target solicitation list using specific client and claim information (names, addresses, phone/fax, file numbers, claim details) from Lamorte’s P & I client files, transferring this data to Walters' home computer.
- When confronted by Lamorte's President, Harold Halpin, in September 1996 about rumors of their leaving to compete, Walters and Nixon falsely denied these plans.
- By late 1997, Walters and Nixon had leased office space, purchased equipment, and set up utilities for WNG, strategically planning to resign on the weekend of December 20-21 to collect Christmas bonuses and immediately launch their solicitation campaign.
- On December 20, 1997, Walters and Nixon faxed their resignations to Lamorte. The following day, they began faxing personalized solicitation letters, offering lower fees and transfer authorization forms to 33 of Lamorte's P & I clients, using the previously acquired confidential client and claim information.
- Within weeks, all 33 of Lamorte's P & I clients requested the transfer of their 116 active P & I claims to WNG, a number that grew to 153 claims by the time the summary judgment motion was heard.
Procedural Posture:
- Lamorte Burns & Co. filed suit against Michael Walters and Nancy Nixon in the trial court (Chancery Division).
- The trial court granted Lamorte's motion for summary judgment as to liability, finding Walters breached his employment contract and both defendants breached their duty of loyalty, tortiously interfered with economic advantage, misappropriated confidential information, and competed unfairly.
- The trial court subsequently awarded Lamorte compensatory and punitive damages.
- Walters and Nixon appealed the trial court's decision to the Appellate Division.
- The Appellate Division affirmed that Walters breached his employment contract but reversed the summary judgment on the tort claims, concluding that there were disputed facts regarding the confidential nature of the information and whether defendants' conduct was acceptable competitive behavior.
- Lamorte Burns & Co. successfully petitioned the New Jersey Supreme Court for certification.
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 employee breach their duty of loyalty and tortiously interfere with an employer's economic advantage by secretly gathering confidential client information while employed, denying plans to compete, and then immediately using that information post-resignation to solicit the former employer's clients?
Opinions:
Majority - LaVecchia, J.
Yes, an employee breaches their duty of loyalty and tortiously interferes with an employer's economic advantage when they secretly gather and use confidential client information to solicit the former employer's clients immediately upon resignation. The court found that the information Walters and Nixon secretly gathered (client names, contact details, specific claim information, accident dates, injured parties) was legally protected as confidential and proprietary information. It clarified that information does not need to meet the strict definition of a 'trade secret' to be protected, but rather, information provided confidentially during employment for the purpose of servicing the employer's clients is protected. Walters and Nixon's knowledge of this protection was evidenced by Walters' employment agreement, their avoidance of a new, more restrictive agreement, Walters' admission that he would not share such information with a competitor, and their awareness that a colleague (Treubig) was fired for attempting similar client solicitation. The court determined that Walters and Nixon breached their duty of loyalty by taking affirmative, secretive steps to injure Lamorte's business while still employed. While employees have a right to plan for future employment, their actions of systematically compiling client data, setting up a competing business, and doing so stealthily (including calling in sick to prepare the new office and falsely denying their plans) went beyond mere preparation and constituted active subversion of their employer's interests. The Restatement (Second) of Agency § 393 prohibits an agent from competing with the principal concerning the subject matter of the agency and from soliciting customers for a rival business before the end of employment. Furthermore, the court concluded that Walters and Nixon tortiously interfered with Lamorte's economic advantage. Lamorte had a reasonable expectation of continuing its client relationships. Defendants' conduct was deemed 'malicious' in that it was intentionally inflicted harm without justification or excuse, transgressing accepted standards of common morality and law. Their orchestrated 'surprise weekend coup,' leveraging purloined confidential information and timing their resignations to immediately solicit clients, was not legitimate competition but rather fraudulent and dishonest conduct. Therefore, the court reversed the Appellate Division's decision, reinstating the trial court's judgment for Lamorte on all tort claims.
Analysis:
This case significantly strengthens the protection afforded to employers against opportunistic behavior by departing employees. It clarifies that the scope of an employee's duty of loyalty extends to prohibiting preparatory activities (such as secretly compiling confidential client lists) taken while still employed, particularly when these actions are deceitful and designed to gain an unfair competitive advantage. The ruling underscores that information need not achieve 'trade secret' status to be legally protected as confidential. This precedent will likely lead courts to scrutinize more closely the 'planning and preparation' defense often asserted by employees, potentially holding them liable for actions that strategically undermine the employer's business prior to resignation, even if direct solicitation occurs post-employment.
