{"id":799,"date":"2022-07-11T18:51:52","date_gmt":"2022-07-11T18:51:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/paulyshao.com\/?p=799"},"modified":"2022-08-05T02:57:23","modified_gmt":"2022-08-05T02:57:23","slug":"slay-et-al-v-allstate","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.paulyshao.com\/?p=799","title":{"rendered":"Slay, et. al. v Allstate"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

We<\/span><\/b> did not provide the complaint of Mary Slay, first filed in 9\/2016, because Justice Cunningham summed her case ably and clearly in the delivery of the judgment of the three-justice panel of the Appellate Court.<\/p>\n

The three justices reviewed whether the allegations of the second amended complaint stated a claim for breach of the EA Agreement, arising from a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. They came to the conclusion that Allstate had breached in this case the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and thus reversed and remanded the case back to the lower court. It indicates that the EA Agreement is not air-tight, as many agents made to believe, and it can be challenged. However, it must be pointed out that this judgment is made narrowly in view of the facts presented by Slay and cannot be applied broadly to refute the EA Agreement by referring to a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Below we outline the Slay case:<\/p>\n

In 2004, Ray McKnight, an Allstate manager, began recruiting Mary Slay to become an Allstate insurance agent in Lake City, Florida. McKnight allegedly offered Mary the opportunity to purchase an existing book of business from a retiring agent, Rick Bringger. However, McKnight allegedly failed to disclose that he had a conflict of interest because his wife, Faye McKnight, wanted to purchase an Allstate agent\u2019s book of business and open her own office in Lake City, in direct competition with Mary. Ray also allegedly failed to disclose to Mary that Allstate was in the process of cancelling approximately thirty percent of the policies in Bringger\u2019s book of business and that Allstate had begun the process of non-renewing all mobile home policies, all commercial policies, and all landlord and rental policies in Florida. The second amended complaint alleges that in 2\/2005, \u201cin reliance on McKnight\u2019s promises and representations,\u201d Mary, whose husband Buddy was an independent agent who was eligible to sell Allstate products, obtained an $800,000 loan to purchase Bringger\u2019s book of business.<\/p>\n

In 3\/2005, Ray\u2019s wife allegedly opened an exclusive Allstate agency, competing directly with Mary\u2019s agency. Mary\u2019s business was also harmed by several other circumstances, which resulted in Mary losing more than thirty percent of her book of business, although she continued to work hard selling policies to meet her production requirements. In 9\/2011, Allstate terminated Mary\u2019s EA Agreement, allegedly for failing to meet her production requirements. Following the termination, Mary arranged to transfer her economic interest in her customer accounts to her husband, Buddy. However, Allstate refused to approve the transfer of [Mary]\u2019s economic interest in her customer accounts to Buddy. Instead, Allstate transferred and\/or sold her economic interest in her customer accounts, along with her book of business, to Faye McKnight, the spouse of Mary\u2019s manager. Allstate offered Mary a $40,000 termination payment of TPP, which was far less than the value of her economic interest in the marketplace.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n