AIR AMBULANCE NETWORK, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
MILAN FLORIBUS, MIGDALIA FLORIBUS, PEGASUS JET AVIATION CORPORATION, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Air Ambulance Network sought enforcement of a non-compete agreement against former employee Floribus, who breached it by working for competitor Pegasus. The trial court found the agreement's terms reasonable and the breach established, but denied the injunction solely on the ground that irreparable injury was not proven. The appellate court reversed, holding that irreparable injury may be presumed upon breach of a valid non-compete covenant as a matter of law.
Upon valid findings that time and space restrictions in a non-compete covenant are appropriate and the employer has not breached the agreement, irreparable injury may be presumed as a matter of law, and the trial court must enforce the covenant by injunction. The trial court has no discretion to deny the injunction based on lack of proof of irreparable injury.
[1] Irreparable injury, as a prerequisite for an injunction, means injury that cannot be adequately repaired or redressed by money damages, not necessarily a serious or irrem…
[2] In the context of non-compete agreements, irreparable injury may be presumed upon the breach of a valid covenant not to compete.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“irreparable injury may be presumed upon the breach of a valid covenant not to compete.”
Establishes the controlling legal principle that irreparable injury need not be proven in non-compete cases but is presumed as a matter of law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAir Ambulance Network employed Floribus under an employment and non-competitive agreement with reasonable geographical and temporal limitations. Flori…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Enforceability Of Non-Compete Agreements cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
After non-jury trial, the lower court found that the employment and non-competitive agreement between Air Ambulance Network, Inc. and its employee Floribus provided for reasonable geographical and temporal limitations and had been breached only by Floribus himself in engaging in a competitive air ambulance business operated by the defendant Pegasus.1 Nevertheless, the trial judge denied Air Ambulance’s application for a permanent injunction2 enforcing the covenant on the sole ground that it had not established “irreparable injury.” This ruling was wrong and the final judgment for the defendants on review, which is wholly based upon it, is reversed.
In the sense in which it is used as a stated prerequisite for granting an injunction, the term “irreparable injury” does not refer to the degree of harm caused by the offending act, see 42 Am.Jur.2d Injunctions § 49 (1969); in other words, it is not required, as the trial judge appeared to believe, that the defendants’ breach has resulted in a relatively serious or irremedial blow to the plaintiff’s economic health. Rather, “irreparable” means injury “whether great or small,” Anderson v. Souza, 38 Cal.2d 825, 834, 243 P. 2d 497, 503 (1952), which is not “reparable”, that is able to be adequately repaired or redressed in a court of law by an award of money damages. See Puga v. Suave Shoe Corp., 374 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); 17 Fla. Jur.2d Injunctions § 22 (1981). In the present area of noncompete agreements, which are validated by Section 542.33, Florida Statutes (1981), our supreme court has applied that aspect of the “irreparable injury” rule under which
[i]t is held that the term “irreparable damage” does not have reference to the amount of damage caused, but rather to the difficulty of measuring the amount of damages inflicted. Thus, an injury is irreparable where the damage is estimable only by conjecture, and not by any accurate standard.
As a logical and legal extension of these principles, the court has recently and specifically held in the determinative case of Capraro v. Lanier Business Prods., Inc., 466 So. 2d 212, 213 (Fla.1985), that “irreparable injury may be presumed upon the breach of a valid covenant not to compete.” This conclusion, which clearly precludes inquiry into the existence of “irreparable injury,” which is now deemed established as a matter of law in a case like this, requires reversal of the judgment below.
Under Capraro, upon findings, such as those reached below, that the time and space restrictions are appropriate, see American Bldg. Maintenance Co. v. Fogelman, 167 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964), and that the employer has not itself breached the agreement, see Cordis Corp. v. Prooslin, 482 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), the trial court has no power to do anything but enforce the terms of the covenant as written by injunction. See also Twenty Four Collection, Inc. v. Keller, 389 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), pet. for review denied, 419 So. 2d 1048 (Fla.1982). We order that this be done on remand.
Reversed.
. The appellees claim that the final judgment executed by the trial judge, to which he adhered despite their post-trial motion to amend, should not be given effect because it does not fairly embody his announced rulings at the end of the trial. There is no merit whatever in this position. See Bowery v. Babbit, 99 Fla. 1151, 128 So. 801 (1930); see also City of Pompano Beach v. Beatty, 177 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965).
. A preliminary injunction which had been granted the plaintiff was dissolved.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bradley v. Health Coal., Inc., 687 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…ract liability.” In the Matter of Walter W. Thomas, Debtor, 51 B.R. 653, 654 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.1985) (citing Troup v. Heacock, 367 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), 11 Fla. Jur.2d Contracts § 169 (1981)); see also Air Ambulance Network, Inc. v. Floribus, 511 So. 2d 702, 703 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) review denied, 520 So. 2d 584 (Fla.1988); Cordis Corp. v. Prooslin, 482 So. 2d at 490. If the employer wrongfully refuses to pay the employee his compensation, the employee is relieved of any further obligation under the cont…
-
Sarasota Bev. Co. v. Johnson, 551 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…[t]his conclusion, which clearly precludes inquiry into the existence of ‘irreparable injury,’ which is now deemed established as a matter of law in a ease like this, requires reversal of the judgment below.” Air Ambulance Network, Inc. v. Floribus, 511 So. 2d 702, 703 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), rev. denied, 520 So. 2d 584 (Fla.1988). It seems to me that the Florida courts have recently taken the presumption of irreparable injury established in Capraro, extended that presumption into an irrebuttable presumption and…1 / 4
-
SUN Elastic Corp. v. O.B. Indus., 603 So. 2d 516 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…and geographical limitation remain directly applicable and controlling.3 Capraro v. Lanier Business Products, Inc., 466 So. 2d 212 (Fla.1985); Miller [*518] Mechanical, Inc. v. Ruth, 300 So. 2d 11 (Fla.1974); Air Ambulance Network, Inc. v. Floribus, 511 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), review denied, 520 So. 2d 584 (Fla.1988); Twenty Four Collection, Inc. v. Keller, 389 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), review denied, 419 So. 2d 1048 (Fla.1982); Answer All Telephone Secretarial Serv., Inc. v. Call 24, Inc., 381 S…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bowery v. Searles Babbit, 99 Fla. 1151 (Fla. 1930)
- Miller Mech., Inc. v. Ruth, 300 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 1974)
- Cordis Corp. v. Prooslin, 482 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- The Twenty Four Collection, Inc. v. Keller, 389 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Capraro v. Lanier Bus. Prods., Inc., 466 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 1985)
- Spurlock v. State, 466 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 1985)
- Keller v. The Twenty-Four Collection, Inc., 419 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 1982)
- The Am. Bldg. Maint. Co. OF Oakland v. Fogelman, 167 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Robustiano Puga & Medmolds, Inc. v. Suave Shoe Corp., 374 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- City OF Pompano Beach v. Beatty, 177 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)