Appeals, Nos. 122 and 123, Jan. T., 1961, from orders of Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, June T., 1960, No. 1828, in equity, in case of Dozor Agency v. Carl Rosenberg et al. Orders affirmed.
David Kanner, with him James Meneses, F. D. Hennessey, and Paul R. Sand, for appellants.
Jack Brian, with him Robert L. Wilson, and Berman, Richard & Brian, for appellee.
Before Jones, C.j., Bell, Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Bok and Eagen, JJ.
OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE BELL.
Each defendant appealed from the Order of the lower Court which dismissed their respective preliminary objections. The lower Court, after hearing, entered a preliminary injunction, but strange to say the appeals were taken only from the Orders which overruled the preliminary objections. The appeals raised a narrow question of jurisdiction - (1) did the lower Court lack jurisdiction because of want of an indispensable party, and (2) because Equity had no jurisdiction of the complaint
since jurisdiction lay be statute solely and exclusively in the Insurance Commissioner of Pennsylvania.
Plaintiff, which is a Pennsylvania corporation engaged in selling insurance, filed a complaint in equity against Rosenberg and World Mutual Health & Accident Insurance Co. of Pa., hereinafter referred to as "World". Plaintiff's material averments may be thus summarized:
Rosenberg was employed by plaintiff as a sub-agent in 1951; he was thereafter promoted to sales manager and later to president of the company. In these capacities he occupied a position of trust and confidence and had access to all the records of plaintiff. When Rosenberg resigned from the plaintiff company in May, 1960, he secretly took from the files and possession of the plaintiff certain of its confidential records and data, including names, premium dates and amounts, and pertinent information concerning the active policyholders to whom plaintiff had sold insurance. These constituted a very valuable asset of plaintiff.
Plaintiff also averred that these records and information were taken not only for Rosenberg's own benefit, but also for the benefit of the other defendant, World; that Rosenberg's conduct was made known to World, but that World acquiesced in and encouraged Rosenberg's course of conduct and knowingly received, accepted and made use of the confidential information, property and records of plaintiff for its own benefit and to the detriment of plaintiff. These averments were sufficient to justify a preliminary injunction against both Rosenberg and World, although the injunction was issued only against Rosenberg: Robinson Electronic Supervisory Co. v. Johnson, 397 ...