Law360 is providing free access to its coronavirus coverage to make sure all members of the legal community have accurate information in this time of uncertainty and change. Use the form below to sign up for any of our weekly newsletters. Signing up for any of our section newsletters will opt you in to the weekly Coronavirus briefing.
Sign up for our Commercial Litigation UK newsletter
You must correct or enter the following before you can sign up:
Thank You!
Law360, London (August 25, 2020, 4:52 PM BST ) An insurance broker has accused an employee of using the home-working situation created by the coronavirus pandemic to plan an "unlawful competitive attack" with a rival to steal trade secrets and clients.
Broker Direct Insurance claims that, from March, senior salesman Darren Judd entered into a "common design" with a competitor, Amicus Insurance Solutions Ltd., conspiring to misuse confidential information and divert customers away from Direct Insurance.
The particulars of claim, dated Aug. 14 but newly made public, describe Judd as "a current employee" who has spent more than 11 years at the Essex-based insurer. He is the "most senior non-executive salesman" within the corporate risk division and was given the largest and most profitable accounts to handle, the lawsuit says.
Because of his seniority, Judd had "full and unfettered access to information which is confidential … through his contact with clients, management of employees, attendance and management meetings," the document reads.
This information is not in the public domain and would be valuable to competitors, Direct Insurance says, as Judd had access to client names, contact details and their insurance renewal dates.
After COVID-19 began to spread, Prime Minister Boris Johnson ordered a strict lockdown of all nonessential businesses and workplaces were told to close. Judd began working from home from March 26 and, during this time, plotted with Amicus to take advantage of Judd's access to confidential information and continuing employment to divert business away from the company, the suit alleges.
Judd made 86 calls to Amicus director Adam Scott on his Direct Insurance-issued mobile between March and June. Of these calls, 30 were made in May "during working hours," one of which lasted 40 minutes, the suit says.
Judd was also issued with a company printer for his remote working setup, which Direct Insurance says he used to print out 96 pages of confidential information. And , although only essential travel was recommended, Judd went to the head office between Feb. 20 and March 18 to print out 427 pages of information, the suit says.
"It is to be inferred that [Judd] printed out this information to misappropriate and misuse it including on behalf of [Amicus]," the suit says.
The company also alleges that texts received by Judd show that Amicus provided him with a memory stick to transfer confidential information from his work computer on to it.
After lockdown eased, Direct Insurance said it asked Judd to return to the office starting June 16. On June 15, he handed his notice in saying that his last day would be in September, the company says.
When Judd returned to the office, he allegedly told colleagues about the company accounts he planned to take over to his new role. He told Direct Insurance clients that he was leaving and that he was willing to do deals on behalf of Amicus. This is a direct breach of the termination clause of his 2018 employment contract, the suit says.
Amicus is a commercial insurance broker specializing in the construction, manufacturing and haulage sectors, and a direct competitor, the suit says.
According to the particulars, a London judge has already granted a springboard injunction against the defendants. The order prevents a former employee from gaining a head start by using confidential information or trade secrets at their new competing business.
Direct Insurance asserts that unless they are restrained by the court, the defendants will continue to misuse its confidential information. The company is asking the judge to grant an injunction, and according to a July 27 claim form, it is seeking damages over £100,000 ($131,000).
Amicus denies all the allegations.
Judd could not be reached for comment Tuesday.
Amicus is represented by Wordley Partnership.
Direct Insurance is represented by Pinsent Masons.
The case is Direct Insurance Group PLC v. Judd and another, case number QB-2020-002617, in the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales.
--Editing by Alyssa Miller.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
