Brunswick Floors, Inc. v. Guest, A98A1011.
| Decision Date | 10 September 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. A98A1011.,A98A1011. |
| Citation | 234 Ga. App. 298,506 S.E.2d 670 |
| Parties | BRUNSWICK FLOORS, INC. v. GUEST. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
James D. Benefield III, Brunswick, for appellant.
Robert H. Baer, Brunswick, for appellee.
Brunswick Floors petitioned the trial court for an injunction against its former employee, Brian Guest, pursuant to a covenant not to compete. The trial court granted Brunswick Floors' petition for a temporary restraining order as to the undisputed provisions preventing the solicitation and disclosure of Brunswick's customers. However, the trial court denied Brunswick Floors' request to enforce a provision which prohibited Guest from working as a floor covering installer in an eighty-mile radius of Brunswick for two years, holding that the restraint on the scope of activity unduly restricted Guest's right to earn a living. Brunswick Floors appealed this latter ruling, and for reasons which follow, we affirm.
The review of the evidence in this case is de novo. Dept. of Human Resources v. Northeast Ga. Primary Care, 228 Ga.App. 130, 132(1), 491 S.E.2d 201 (1997).
The record shows that Brunswick Floors, a retail floor covering business, employed Guest as a floor covering installer. On September 14, 1995, after approximately five years of employment, Guest signed a covenant not to compete. The covenant prohibited Guest for two years from termination of employment from (1) "engag[ing] in the floor covering installation, or in floor covering services, directly or indirectly, as an individual, partner, adviser, stockholder, director, officer, clerk, principal, agent or employee, within an eighty (80) mile radius from Employer's location at 3550 Darien Highway, Brunswick, Georgia, 31520"; (2) soliciting business in the floor covering business from any customer or providing floor covering services to any customers who have dealt with Brunswick Floors; and (3) disclosing customer lists, records, statistics, or other information acquired by Guest and from aiding or being a party to any acts which would tend to divert, diminish, or prejudice the good will or business of Brunswick Floors.
After Guest signed the covenant, Brunswick Floors sent him to Kansas City for training in advanced carpet installation. Brunswick Floors paid the cost of lodging, airfare, and training, and $150 spending money. They also sent Guest to Atlanta for a certification course in floor installation, again bearing the costs of lodging and registration.
Guest terminated his employment with Brunswick Floors in May 1997. That same year, he installed carpet for a company in Savannah, Georgia, for approximately one month. Thereafter, Guest installed carpet as an independent contractor for two other flooring companies in Brunswick, Georgia.
Brunswick Floors filed the underlying action to enjoin Guest based on Guest's breach of the covenant not to compete. Guest responded that the covenant was invalid. The trial court, after conducting an evidentiary hearing, granted an injunction for the nonsolicitation and nondisclosure restrictions, but refused to enjoin Guest from "working for another employer as a carpet layer within an 80 mile radius of Brunswick." In upholding the provision not to solicit customers and the provision forbidding the disclosure of customer names, the court held that the provisions were sufficient to protect Brunswick Floors from any competitive disadvantage.
In this appeal, Brunswick Floors asserts that the restriction forbidding Guest from installing carpets for two years in an eighty-mile radius is valid and the trial court erred in denying the injunction. (Citations and punctuation omitted.) W.R. Grace & Co., Dearborn Div. v. Mouyal, 262 Ga. 464, 465(1), 422 S.E.2d 529 (1992). Applying this three-element test to the agreement before us, we find the covenant is overbroad with regard to its territorial coverage and scope of activity restrictions.
In evaluating whether the territorial coverage restriction is overbroad, we...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
HULCHER SERVICES v. RJ CORMAN R. CO.
...is unreasonably broad because it covers a state and areas of states where the plaintiff never worked. See Brunswick Floors v. Guest, 234 Ga.App. 298, 300-301, 506 S.E.2d 670 (1998). As to the restrictions on solicitation of Hulcher's clients or employment of its employees, there is no restr......
-
Capricorn Systems, Inc. v. Pednekar
...covenant is void. See Howard Schultz & Assoc. v. Broniec, 239 Ga. 181, 184-185(2), 236 S.E.2d 265 (1977); Brunswick Floors v. Guest, 234 Ga.App. 298, 300-301, 506 S.E.2d 670 (1998); Harville v. Gunter, 230 Ga.App. 198, 200(2), 495 S.E.2d 862 (b) The next covenant is against solicitation of ......
-
Burbach v. Motorsports of Conyers, LLC
..., 257 Ga. App. 220, 223 (2), 570 S.E.2d 661 (2002) (holding a limitation of 100 miles was unreasonable); Brunswick Floors v. Guest , 234 Ga. App. 298, 301, 506 S.E.2d 670 (1998) (holding a limitation of 80 miles was unreasonable). Although Georgia courts may apply the "blue pencil" doctrine......
-
Ken's Stereo-Video Junction v. Plotner
...trial court noted the concession in its final order and Ken's Stereo does not dispute the acknowledgment. 6. Brunswick Floors v. Guest, 234 Ga.App. 298, 301, 506 S.E.2d 670 (1998); Harville v. Gunter, 230 Ga.App. 198, 200(2), 495 S.E.2d 862 7. See Guest, supra at 300, 506 S.E.2d 670. 8. See......
-
Restrictions on Post-employment Competition by an Executive Under Georgia Law - Steven E. Harbour
...465, 422 S.E.2d at 531 (quoting Rakestraw v. Lanier, 104 Ga. 188, 194, 30 S.E. 735, 738 (1898)). 7. See Brunswick Floors, Inc. v. Guest, 234 Ga. App. 298, 299-300, 506 S.E.2d 670, 672 (1998); Sysco Food Serv. of Atlanta, Inc. v. Chupp, 225 Ga. App. 584, 586, 484 S.E.2d 323,325 (1997). 8. E.......
-
Noncompete Clauses in Georgia: an Economic Analysis
...those of the employer.65 Although the policy justifications appear well-balanced 57. Id. 58. Id 59. See Brunswick Floors, Inc. v. Guest, 506 S.E.2d 670,673 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998). 60. See Rakestraw v. Lanier, 30 S.E. 735, 738 (Ga. 1898); Harbour, supra note 1, at 1136-37; supra Part I.A. 61. S......