GLADYS PEREZ, M.D. AND AMARILIS VAZQUEZ, M.D., APPELLANTS,
v.
HUMANA MEDICAL PLAN, INC., APPELLEE
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.
Physicians Perez and Vazquez appealed two temporary injunctions issued under their non-compete agreements with Humana Medical Plan. The court affirmed the first injunction restricting work within a five-mile radius of Humana's clinic but reversed the second injunction that extended the restriction to any competing entity operating within the five-mile radius, even if the physicians' actual employment was outside that area.
The court held that the non-compete agreement's clear language restricts only competition from locations within the five-mile radius. Therefore, the first temporary injunction prohibiting the defendants from working within the five-mile geographical area was affirmed, but the second injunction prohibiting employment outside the restricted area was reversed as overly broad because the physicians' actual place of employment at IHC was outside the five-mile radius.
[1] A non-compete agreement will not be construed to extend beyond its clear language or further than the contract absolutely requires.
[2] A temporary injunction extending a non-compete agreement's geographic restriction to any competing entity within a radius, regardless of the employee's actual place of em…
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“Contracts of an employee not to engage in a competing business, being in the nature of contracts in restraint of trade and personal liberty, will not be construed to extend beyond their proper import, or further than the language of the contract absolutely requires.”
Establishes the principle that non-compete agreements must be narrowly construed and not extended beyond their plain language.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePerez and Vazquez were employed by Humana Medical Plan and were bound by non-compete agreements prohibiting them from competing within a five-mile rad…
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 Contracts In Restraint Of Trade cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendants, Gladys Perez, M.D. and Amarilis Vazquez, M.D. (“defendants”), appeal two lower court orders granting the defendants’ former employer, Humana Medical Plan, Inc. (“Humana”), a temporary injunction arising out of a non-compete agreement. We affirm the first temporary injunction and reverse the second temporary injunction.
The first order under review is a temporary injunction enjoining the defendants from working within a five-mile radius of Humana’s Northwest Clinic pursuant to a non-compete agreement. The second order extended the geographic area of the first temporary injunction to include any entity which operates a business within the five-mile radius that competes with Huma-na, regardless of the fact that the defendants’ actual place of employment would be outside the five-mile radius.
As a result of this modification, the defendants were enjoined from working for their current employer, the Institute of Health Clinic (“IHC”), located one-fifth of a mile outside the five-mile limit of the non-compete agreement because IHC also maintains a separate clinic within the five-mile radius.
The non-compete agreement states: Upon termination of this agreement for any reason, [employee] shall not directly or indirectly engage in, or have any interest in, any person, partnership, corporation, or any other entity ... that competes with any business interest of Employer, which lies within a five (5) mile radius of any Medical Center at which [employee] practiced during the twelve (12) months prior to termination of this agreement, for a period of one (1) year from the date of termination of this Agreement, or during such shorter period of time as Employer or its successor in interest may be engaged in such business interests within any portion of that area....
The clear language of the non-compete provision mandates that the defendants not compete from a location within the five-mile radius only. “Contracts of an employee not to engage in a competing business, being in the nature of contracts in restraint of trade and personal liberty, will not be construed to extend beyond their proper import, or further than the language of the contract absolutely requires.” See Storz Broadcasting Co. v. Courtney, 178 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965). See also Marengo v. Property Management Inc. of South Florida, 472 So. 2d 1388 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)(same); Zimmer v. Pony Express Courier Corp. of Florida, 408 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)(same). As the defendants’ current place of employment is outside the restricted five-mile radius, the second injunction is overly broad.
Accordingly, the injunction prohibiting the defendants from working within the five-mile geographical area is affirmed and the injunction prohibiting the defendants from being employed outside the restricted geographical area is reversed.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
4UORTHO, LLC v. Practice P'rs, Inc., 18 So. 3d 41 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…efendants, but also limited her restriction by ordering her not to work for any competitors of Practice Partners within twenty miles of any Practice Partners office for two years from the date of her resignation. See Perez v. Humana Med. Plan, Inc., 771 So. 2d 1, 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (“ ‘Contracts of an employee not to engage in a competing business, being in the nature of contracts in restraint of trade and personal liberty, will not be construed to extend beyond their proper import (quoting Storz Broad. C…
Authorities Cited
- Storz Broad. Co. v. Courtney, 178 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Zimmer v. Pony Express Courier Corp. of Fla., 408 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)
- Carmela Marengo & Marengo Interiors, Inc. v. Prop. Mgmt. Inc. OF S. Fla., 472 So. 2d 1388 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)