One last point. According to the ASA, “State Farm may terminate the appointment of [the ASA agent] as a licensed agent at any time and for any reason. The officers do not explicitly dispute the validity of this provision, which corresponds to a provision of the previous EC agreements. However, we caution that State Farm should not use this provision to obtain through the backdoor, which it cannot obtain through the doors of the trade secrets and initiative provisions of the ASA. The Court finds that the agent`s agreement in the agent`s agreement allowed State Farm to sever its relationship with Little in writing at any time. Little admits that he received a written notification effective October 31, 2001 and that his relationship with State Farm has ended. At the hearing, Little`s lawyer testified that Little was ordered to break his contract when State Farm applied for the signature of the ASA and that his omission was the cause of his termination. Contrary to this assertion, the California court found that “Harold Little`s contract was terminated, not because he refused to execute the ASA, but because he continued to authorize or instruct his employees to act on behalf of State Farm without prior written authorization from State Farm,” even without that clear statement as to the reason for the termination of Little`s Agent`s agreement. Utah law is clear that employment can be terminated at any time and for any reason. Thus, the Court finds that Little`s default remedy has failed legally. According to the EC, a plenipotentiary could “delegate” to its CE employee a “mandatory in-office power” for private passenger cars, housing risks and personal insurance in kind and in the event of an accident, as well as the power to receive life and health insurance claims. Such a “delegation” did not reduce the “responsibility of the agent in the exercise of that authority” within the framework of state farm rules and state laws.
To Patricia Adkins v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ass, et al. (the “Adkins case”), several agents across the country, including Little, filed an action against State Farm in the California State Court “to seek a cease and desed action against the LSA`s indictment.” In that case, the agents argued that the non-compete and trade secrecy clauses of the ASA were contrary to the agent`s existing agreement. A buy-back contract can be structured in one of three ways. You should seek the advice of your tax advisors to determine which one is best for you. The agents sued State Farm for breach of contract and violation of the California Unfair Competition Act (Bus. – Prof. Code, No.
17200 and following) for attempting to enforce the ASA. The officers essentially argue that the LSA is asserting the control of LSA officers in violation of the independent AA3-4 agreement between State Farm and the agents. In their complaint, the plenipotentiaries request a request for declaration and omission (declare the finding of the control inappropriate and claim it). With regard to (1) the “employment” of the LSA agent by the agent assisting the representative in marketing and maintenance is substantially similar or identical to the EC; (2) the “appointment” of this worker as a state-approved agent by State Farm; (3) the “delegation” of the plenipotentiary to the LSA staff member of the “verbindlichen in-office” authority concerning the risks of private vehicles, the risks of housing and personal insurance in kind and in the event of an accident, as well as the power to make private life and health insurance “claims”; and (4) the agent, not state Farm, which is the employer of the LSA employee.