Non-compete agreements have long been a source of controversy across many industries, and public adjusting is no exception. Employers often want to protect their business interests, while employees seek the freedom to work in their chosen profession. The recent ruling in Noble Public Adjusting Group, LLC v. Michael Bowman and Bulletproof Public Adjusting Company, LLC 1 provides an example of how courts may view restrictive covenants among insurance adjusters.
This case highlights the challenges public adjusting firms, and probably all adjusting firms, face when attempting to enforce non-compete clauses against former employees. It highlights the importance of ensuring these agreements comply with technicalities of the law—particularly in states like Florida, where courts scrutinize restrictive covenants to determine whether they protect a legitimate business interest.
The General Landscape of Non-Compete Agreements
Non-compete agreements, also known as restrictive covenants, are contractual provisions that prohibit employees from working for a competitor or starting a competing business for a certain period and within a defined geographic scope. These agreements are particularly contentious in industries where relationships and knowledge of business practices are valuable, such as public adjusting.
Merlin Law Group does not practice in this legal field. We sue insurance companies when they fail to pay claims. Public adjusters with clients who have been denied or underpaid claims may seek our help because that is what our attorneys do for a living.
For public adjusters and other adjustment companies interested in this legal topic about noncompete clauses, one law review article noted the following: 2
A noncompete clause or agreement (“noncompete”) is becoming an ever-increasing standard in the business and employment arena. Currently, every state allows for their use under the appropriate circumstances. A noncompete can, and usually does, encompass multiple facets: noncompetition, nondisclosure, nonsolicitation, antipiracy, and protection of trade secrets (collectively, “restrictive covenants”). Through these restrictive covenants, employers seek to protect their customer lists, trade secrets, goodwill, and livelihood, among many other virtuous–and not so virtuous– interests. On the other hand, employees seek to utilize their skills and talents in the most rewarding and beneficial environment, often in contravention of these restrictive covenants. Both seek, mostly, legitimate ends; often these ends conflict.
In response, each state has taken a different stance on the enforceability of restrictive covenants. Some states are employer friendly, while others are, clearly, more employee friendly. Some states create express time and geographic constraints, while most hide behind the idea of reasonableness. Some treat goodwill and customer lists as protectable, while others focus more on trade secrets. Some states allow judicial reformation on a large scale, while others expressly limit any judicial reformation and call for wholesale invalidation of restrictive covenants. And, some states explicitly control noncompete requirements, while others offer a dearth of guidance on the subject.
Consequently, drafting or reviewing a restrictive covenant is difficult and daunting. But, if one knows what to search for in a particular state’s restrictive covenant laws, it makes this task more manageable and will provide employers and employees alike the lens through which to properly inspect any restrictive covenant.
In Florida, non-compete agreements are governed by Section 542.335 of the Florida Statutes, which requires the employer to prove the existence of a legitimate business interest justifying the restriction. These interests may include trade secrets, confidential business information, customer goodwill, and specialized training. If an employer cannot prove such an interest, the agreement is deemed unenforceable. Additionally, even if an employer establishes a legitimate business interest, the restrictions must be reasonable in scope and duration. Overly broad agreements are subject to modification or outright invalidation by the court.
Public adjusting firms may attempt to use non-compete agreements to prevent former employees from working for competitors, but courts will not uphold such agreements unless they protect an actual, provable business interest. This is where many employers falter, as seen in Noble Public Adjusting Group v. Bowman.
In Noble v. Bowman, the plaintiff, Noble Public Adjusting Group, LLC, sued its former employee, Michael Bowman, along with his new company, Bulletproof Public Adjusting Company, LLC, for allegedly violating a non-compete agreement. Noble sought both injunctive relief and liquidated damages, arguing that Bowman had access to proprietary business practices that he was now using to compete against his former employer.
Bowman and Bulletproof moved for summary judgment, arguing that the non-compete agreement was unenforceable. The court agreed and ruled in their favor, finding that Noble failed to establish a legitimate business interest necessary to uphold the agreement. The key issue in the case was Noble’s assertion that its business model and claims handling processes constituted proprietary trade secrets. However, the court found that these processes were neither secret nor unique. Noble used industry-standard software, such as Xactimate, Claims Wizard, and Salesforce, to handle claims—tools that are widely available to any public adjuster.
Furthermore, the court noted that Noble’s workflow structure was not a protected trade secret because it was not confidential. Clients who had previously worked with Noble were aware of its multi-person claims process, meaning there was no secrecy about how the business operated. The court ruled that because Noble had no legitimate business interest to protect, the non-compete agreement was void and unenforceable under Florida law.
This ruling serves as a wake-up call for public adjusting firms seeking to enforce restrictive covenants. Simply calling something a trade secret does not make it so. Courts require concrete evidence that a business process is both confidential and valuable before enforcing a non-compete agreement.
For public adjuster employees, this case reaffirms that overly broad or baseless non-compete clauses can be challenged successfully. If a public adjusting firm attempts to prevent an adjuster from working elsewhere, the firm must demonstrate that it is protecting something truly proprietary—not just common industry knowledge.
Consult an Experienced Attorney Before Signing or Drafting a Non-Compete
One lesson is that if you are an owner of a public adjusting firm considering the use of non-compete agreements or if you are an adjuster being asked to sign one, seeking competent and experienced commercial legal counsel is essential. An improperly drafted agreement may not only be unenforceable but could also expose a business to costly litigation.
The decision in Noble v. Bowman highlights that many states will not enforce restrictive covenants unless they are narrowly tailored and based on a legitimate business interest. Public adjusting firm owners should ensure that their agreements meet state legal standards before attempting to restrict a former employee’s right to work. Likewise, adjusters facing an unreasonable non-compete should understand their rights and be prepared to challenge its enforceability.
This case is a clear reminder that while businesses can try to protect their interests, they must do so within the bounds of the law.
For public adjuster business owners and those trying to be successful in the public adjusting profession, I suggest you consider purchasing and studying Claim Your Success: The Ultimate Guide to Starting and Running a Public Insurance Adjusting Business.
Thought For The Day
“Success is nothing more than a few simple disciplines, practiced every day.”
—Jim Rohn
1 Noble Public Adjusting Group v. Bowman, No. 23-CA-842 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Bay County Feb. 6, 2025).
2 Kyle B. Sill, Drafting Effective Noncompete Clauses and Other Restrictive Covenants: Considerations Across the United States, 14 Fla. Coastal L. Rev. 365, 368 (2013).
