One of the most remarkable things one notices about former Tremco Reps: They either love them (as in cult-like - they can do no wrong) or they hate them.
Soon to come: A psychology report on who in Tremco Sales would succeed....very interesting....
And more - you'll see that once a Tremco Rep "leaves the fold" - they are pursued, almost relentlessly, in case after case. After all, just what is it they know about "marketing" to schools that causes soooooooo much concern? (read the Tremco In-House Training Docs and if you know anything about Public Contract Codes and Licensing Laws/Duties of various parties in the design and construction world, it'll hit like a lead balloon.......)
More to come.....
Known Legal Cases:
Update: Tremco is as of Sept. 2007 and ongoing, being sued for a roof failure, in the amount of $515,000 in damages, by Eastern New Mexico University. Details are as follows (settled):
Eastern New Mexico University v. Tremco Incorporated
| Plaintiff: | Eastern New Mexico University |
|---|---|
| Defendant: | Tremco Incorporated |
| Case Number: | 1:2007cv00999 |
| Filed: | September 28, 2007 |
| Court: | New Mexico District Court |
| Office: | Albuquerque Office [ Court Info ] |
| County: | Bernalillo |
| Nature of Suit: | Contract - Contract Product Liability |
| Cause: | 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract |
| Jurisdiction: | Diversity |
| Jury Demanded By: | None |
| Amount Demanded: | $515,000,000.00 |
Cases:
1. Tremco vs. Brennan Baker (former Tremco Rep) in
approximately 2006-present
UPDATE as of July 16, 2008: Baker won in Appeals Court.
WHO Sued WHOM:
"On November 23, 2004, after Tremco sent Baker a cease-and-desist letter, he filed a complaint against Tremco and Rick Gibson, his former supervisor, for declaratory judgment and money damages. Baker sought to have the noncompete clause declared unenforceable and sought damages for Tremco’s alleged tortious interference with his business, alleged violation of Indiana’s “blacklisting” statute, and alleged breach of the Agreement by Tremco.1 Tremco counter-sued Baker and brought in third-party defendant Moisture Management, alleging breach of the Agreement by Baker, tortious interference by Moisture Management, and a trade secrets violation by Baker."
WHAT the Appeals Court ruled:
"In summary, we affirm the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of Gibson on Baker’s claim that Gibson defamed him by telling a third party that he suffered from mental illness and in favor of Tremco on Baker’s “blacklisting” and wrongful discharge claims. Moreover, we reverse and remand with instructions to enter summary judgment in favor of Baker on his claim that he did not violate the noncompete clause of the Agreement. Finally, we remand for trial on Baker’s claim against Tremco of tortious interference and his claim that Gibson defamed him by telling a third party that he had engaged in inappropriate sales practices. Trial on the defamation claim is limited to the issues of Gibson’s malicious intent, general damages, and special damages, if any."
"Tremco maintains that competing against WTI is equivalent to competing against Tremco. Essentially, Tremco is asking to have its own corporate structure disregarded. Generally, a parent corporation and its subsidiary are considered to be separate legal entities, even if the subsidiary is wholly owned by the parent corporation."
"Because all agree that Baker competed directly only with WTI and not Tremco, he did not violate the noncompete clause of the Agreement....We reverse the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Tremco and remand for entry of summary declaratory judgment in favor of Baker on this claim."
and FOR Tremco Reps attempting to leave, and worried about the noncompete agreement, and as regards the Tremco noncompete agreement, the Indiana Appeals Court stated in Brennan's case that:
Tremco stated regarding their noncompete agreement - "As an initial matter, the Agreement provides that it 'shall be governed by the internal laws of the State of Ohio.' "
but the Indiana Appeals Court pointed out that:
"Ohio courts have established that 'restrictive covenants not to compete are disfavored by law.' "
and
and
"Drawing all reasonable inferences from the designated evidence in favor of Baker, we conclude that he has designated evidence that creates a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether he was damaged by Tremco’s alleged tortious interference. Tremco points out that Baker admitted that his lost business could have had nothing to do with any interference from
Tremco, but this does not negate the designated evidence that Baker did, in fact, lose business as a result of Tremco’s interference. The trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Tremco, and we remand for trial on Baker’s tortious interference with a business relationship claim."
The ruling is located here:
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/07160803cjb.pdf
2. Tremco vs. Diana Vice (Taxpayers United for Fairness) in
3. W. R. Kelso Roofing vs. RPM (Parent Company to Tremco)
In
of the Indiana Public Contract Code."
What Happened (reputedly):
Kelso Roofing was the low bidder on a public school project, small, that had been specified for an RPM Geoflex Roof. (RPM is the parent company of Tremco Roofing). The local RPM rep either refused to allow the bid, or refused to certify Kelso as an applicator for their product (Kelso is the 4th or 5th largest roofing company in US). Therefore, the low bid was disqualified.
4. Pat Large and/or Quality Tile Roofing, Inc. vs. Tremco
In
Case Name: QUALITY TILE ROOFING, INC., an Idaho Corporation, and PAT LARGE, individually, and as the president of Quality Tile Roofing, Inc., v. TREMCO, INC>, and Ohio corporation, MIKE GODFREY, JACK HANKES, BILL PARKER, MARK McGINLEY, and STEVE BODILY, individually and in their capacities as agents and employees of Tremco, Inc., and JESSE RHODE aka STEVEN MARVIN SCHELL, an individual.
Case No.: CV OC 9502607D
Jurisdiction: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District of the State Of
Attorney: Rory R. Jones, Jones, Gledhill, Eiden, P.A.
Telephone: (208) 331-1170
Fax: (208) 331-1529
What Happened (reputedly):
Quality Tile Roofing, Inc. submitted a bid, the third Tremco bid they were invited to at Mountain Home Air Force Base, only this time they used another product, and came in at roughly half the price of the two other bidders. Tremco wrote a letter to the Federal Attorney General's Office, accusing Quality Tile Roofing of putting on their product with added polymers, which diluted the product, on two previous jobs at Mountain Home Air Force Base. Quality Tile Roofing did only one of those two jobs. Quality Tile Roofing was able to prove, from the very many boxes of roofing product left over on the first two jobs (which Tremco reputedly refused to take back), that Tremco supplied the bad product to Quality Tile Roofing, and that it could only be mixed with a specialty high-speed mixer made in Austria, not known to be owned by roofing contractors, which was known to be located at the Tremco plant in Vernon, Ca. The testing agency for those unopened cartons was CRS in
Contact is Dick Baxter at (704) 283-8556 and at info@crsrfg.com.
5. Tremco, Inc. vs. Walter Brennan
Location:
Case No.:
Claims:
Disposition: Arbitrated in favor of Walter Brennan, and Brennan sued
Tremco for malicious prosecution.
Description: Walter Brennan was a former Tremco Sales Rep in
then sued him.
6. Brennan vs. Tremco, Inc.
Location:
Case No.: B 125398 in
Superior Court 172388
Claims: Malicious Prosecution.
Disposition: Citation 4/11/2001, arbitration award was not a proof of malicious prosecution
Description: Walter Brennan sued Tremco for malicious prosecution.
7. Tremco, Inc. vs. Hickman Roofing, Inc.
Location: Superior Court,
Case No.: 700507-90
Claims:
Dispositon: Settled out of Court
Description:
Numerous other cases are shown in documents in this case in Alameda County, CA. The other cases shown in that case are below:
8. Tremco vs. Charles T. Fitzgerald and Hickman Systems.
Location:
Claims: Misappropriation of Trade Secrets
Violation of Noncompete Agreement
Disposition: TRO
Description: Fitzgerald left Tremco in December,1987 and
began working for Hickman in February, 1988.
Tremco filed action and without giving notice to Hickman
applied for and received injunctive relief prohibiting
Hickman from competing against Tremco anywhere,
even though the request was premised entirely upon
an alleged contractural obligation of Fitzgerald,
which was limited by its terms to the
Tremco also requested an order enjoining Hickman
from soliciting or servicing Tremco customers, alleged
that Hickman wrongfully obtained information regarding
Tremco's customers and even though Hickman and Tremco
often have shared common customers and Hickman already had independent, legitimate knowledge of all potential roofing customers, including Tremco's.
9. Tremco vs. Stephen F. Schaffer
Location:
Claims: Misappropriation of Trade Secrets
Violation of Noncompete Agreement
Disposition: Not Known
Description: Schaffer worked as a sales representative for Tremco from August 12, 1979 until February 15, 1987. Schaffer went to work for Hickman.
10. Tremco vs. Dan M. Turk and W. P. Hickman Systems, Inc.
Location: Superior Court,
Claims: Failure to Reimburse Violation of Noncompete Agreement
Interference with Contractural Relations
Disposition: Preliminary Injunction Denied (9/20/89)
Summary Judgment for Defendant
Description: Dan Turk was employed at Tremco from April 27, 1987 until March 3, 1989. He then went to work for WP Hickman. Tremco alleged that Turk, on behalf of WP Hickman, solicited Tremco's Customers and that WP Hickman intentionally procured a breach of the agreement with Tremco. Jonas (owner of WP Hickman) worked at Tremco from 1969 until 1985. At the time of his departure,Jonas was National Sales Manager. By written opinion, the court denied Tremco's motion for a TRO.
11. Tremco vs. David D'Anza
Location: Superior Court,
Case No.: 679169
Claims: Violation of Noncompete Agreement
Disposition: Motion to Dismiss Denied; Arbitration Award to Tremco of $16,000; Appealed. Dave D'Anza is believed to have won the appeal but it is not known
Description: David D'Anza was a former San Francisco Bay Area Tremco Rep, managing the Bay area reps, and left the company with other Tremco Reps.
He left Tremco in April of 1988. His customers "are simply owners of buildings", according to WP Hickman, who also stated that there was "Nothing unique about a customer's identity which would warrant a trade secret label."
Jonas, owner of WP Hickman, completed his deposition on 3/14/91.
12. Tremco vs. Paul Lundquist
Location: D. Oklahoma (?)
Case No.: 91-2293 (3/26/91)
Claims: Misappropriation of Trade Secrets
Violation of Noncompete Agreement
Accounting (?)
Tortious Interference with Business and Contractural Relations
Recover Advances
Disposition: Summary Judgment for Defendant on Noncompete Clause
Overruled on the Compensation Claim
Description: Tremco sued the former salesman, who resigned in December, 1990, alleging that
Disclosing Confidential Information and Soliciting Business for Hickman from Tremco Accounts in Lundquist's former territory.
A broad document request was issued to non-party WP Hickman, followed by a deposition subpoena duces tecum on Jonas (Owner of WP Hickman). Jonas was deposed on April 3, 1992. The Discovery dispute was resolved by a protective order whereby documents were submitted to court for an in camera inspection. The court would grant access to only those documents deemed relevant to plaintiff's counsel. The Court ruled in Ludnquist's favor. Action was pending at the time this report was filed in the
13. Tremco vs. Mark K. O'Brien
Location:
Claims: Breach of Contract
Quantum Meruit
Disposition: Settled for $5,000
Description: None Known
14. Tremco vs. James J. Moore
Location: D.
Case No.: 88-8886 (3/18/88)
Claims: Breach of Contract
Failure to Return Material
Violation of Noncompete
Breach of Duty of Loyalty
Disposition: Not Known
Description:
15. Tremco vs. Robert Jonas, W. O. Hickman Company, W. P. Hickman Systems, Inc., Robert Gallion, Kenneth Snyder, Patrick Hickey, Richard Reynolds
Location:
Claims: Breach of Employment Contract
Malicious Attempt to Induce Tremco Employees to leave Tremco
Trade Secret Violations
Disposition: Not Known
Description: Original Lawsuit filed by Tremco against WP Hickman and others.
16. Tremco vs. Howard Betsa
Location: Chancery
Claims: Breach of Restrictive Covenant
Disposition: Not Known
Description: Betsa worked for Tremco from January 1984 until the employment contract was terminated on August 15, 1987.
Betsa went to work for WP Hickman and allegedly called on Tremco customers within the period prohibited by restrictive covenant.
17. Tremco vs. Anthony V. Altomare and Altamore and Associates, Inc.
Location: Court of Common Pleas,
Case No.: 227095
Claims: Unfair competition, by the Use of Privileged and Confidential Information Tortious Interference with
Contracts Tremco had with their Sales Force and Diversion of those Individuals away from Tremco
Disposition: Not Known
Description: Altomare worked for Tremco in
18. Name: Not known (Co. or Person vs. a
Location: Court of Common Pleas, 3rd Judicial District,
Case No.: 1992-CE-6772
Claims:
Disposition: Not Known.
19. Tremco vs. William J. Holman (a/k/a William J. Holman, Jr.), et. al., Respondents, B & B Sheetmetal and Roofing, Inc., et.al., Defendants
Location: Court of Appeals, State of
Case No.: C8-96-2139 Filed July 29, 1997 Carver County District Court, File No. C5941729
Claims: Appellant Tremco, Inc. (Tremco) challenges the district court decisions
(1) granting summary judgment on Tremco's antitrust claim, and
(2) dismissing Tremco's claims under the Minnesota Unlawful Trade Practices Act, the Minnesota Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and the Minnesota Consumer Protection Act for failure to state a claim. Tremco also challenges the district court's limitation of the scope of discovery.
Disposition: The higher court affirmed the lower court’s decision.
20. James Huffman vs. Tremco, Inc.
Location: Court of Common Pleas of
Case No.: 90-22706
Claims: Not Known
Disposition: Not Known
Description: Not Known
21. Barrett Roofs, Inc. and Robert Fine vs. Scotch Plains-Fanwood Board of Education
Location: Superior Court of
Case No.: UNN-L-4599-92
Claims: Not Known
Disposition: Not Known
Description: Unknown, except copy of an expert's deposition for the Defense shows that Tremco's Fasteners do not have an FM Rating, despite claims otherwise.
22. Continental Corporation vs. Laumar Roofing., Co., Inc; and Tremco, Inc.
Location: Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division;
Case No.: L-10654-89
Claims: Removal of Asbestos without taking precautions necessary
Disposition: Not Known
Description: Continental is a New York Insurance Agency, and had the parties reroof their building. After noticing the parties that there was asbestos existing on the roof, defendants agreed to remove the asbestos under abatement procedures. They did not. They sued the parties for losses.
23. State of
NEW
In the Matter of Violations of NJ State Architect's Licensing Laws by Thomas Rienzi(other violations by him are described in the NJ State Commission of Investigation Report, Sept., 2000, entitled "Waste and Abuse in Public School Roofing Projects".)
Location:
Item No.: 00-06-02
Claims: Violations of:
NJSA 45:3-18(a) in that he failed to obtain a certificate of authorization for "Diagnostic Technologies, Ltd."
NJAC 13:27-5.5© in that he aided and abetted an unlicensed entity by using the name "Diagnostic Technologies, Ltd." After being informed in December 1999 that the corporation was dissolved.
NJAC 13:27-6.7(d) for a title block violation.
Disposition: The Architect's Board assessed a penalty of $7,000 plus $780 in costs in 2000-2001.
Description: Not known
24. Harry Barseghian et. al. v. Tremco Incorporated et. al.
| Case Number: | 2:2005cv07257 |
|---|---|
| Filed: | October 6, 2005 |
| Court: | California Central District Court |
| Presiding Judge: | George H. King |
| Referring Judge: | Jennifer T. Lum |
| Nature of Suit: | Torts - Property - Property Damage Product Liability |
__________________________________________________________
