Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Diaz v. John Adcock Insurance Agency
Citations: 729 So. 2d 465; 15 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 479; 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 3278; 1999 WL 147341Docket: No. 98-01906
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; March 18, 1999; Florida; State Appellate Court
John Adcock Insurance Agency, Inc. initiated a lawsuit against former employee Walter Diaz to enforce a non-compete agreement after terminating his employment in February 1998. The circuit court granted a temporary injunction preventing Diaz from interacting with Adcock's customers, which Diaz subsequently appealed on four grounds. The court dismissed three of Diaz's challenges to the injunction's merits without elaboration. Diaz also argued that the injunction should have required the posting of a bond, a condition the circuit court rejected based on a clause in Diaz's January 1996 employment agreement that allowed for injunctions without bond in case of a breach. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610(b) typically mandates a bond for temporary injunctions, but the court examined whether this requirement could be waived by contract. The ruling referenced previous cases, including Ross v. Champion Computer Corp., which recognized the bond waiver's enforceability issue without directly addressing it, and Parker Tampa Two v. Somerset Development Corp., which limited recovery for damages from a wrongful injunction to the bond amount posted. The court noted that the agreement in this case was made seven years after the Parker decision. Unlike Spencer Pest Control Co. of Florida, Inc. v. Smith, which dealt with a statutory requirement for proving irreparable injury to enforce a non-compete, the current case did not involve a public policy violation against restraints of trade, leading to the conclusion that Diaz's contract could permit a waiver of the bond requirement. The bond requirement for temporary injunctions is established by procedural rules, and there are no public policy reasons to reject the parties' agreement to waive it. Notably, the Florida Legislature enacted section 542.335, which mandates that a proper bond must be provided for enforcing restrictive covenants, and prohibits waiving this requirement. However, this statute does not apply to the current case as it pertains only to actions involving restrictive covenants entered into after July 1, 1996. The court affirms the enforcement of a contract provision that waives the bond requirement for a temporary injunction, specifically for agreements made prior to that date. The ruling does not address whether such waiver impacts the right to recover damages if the injunction is later deemed wrongful, referencing the case of Provident Management Corp. v. City of Treasure Island to highlight the distinction regarding municipalities not posting any bond. The decision is affirmed with concurrence from the judges.