Case No. 6:26-cv-00746-ECC-MJK
This page distinguishes the plaintiffs' allegations, the defendants' publicly stated position, and issues that remain for the court or an arbitrator to decide.
The Verified Complaint describes a dispute arising from the termination of two longtime insurance producers and the handling of their compensation, renewals, business relationships, and professional reputation. The plaintiffs assert seven causes of action: defamation; injurious falsehood/business disparagement; tortious interference with existing and prospective business relations; breach of contract; breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; declaratory judgment; and accounting.
Source: Verified Complaint ¶¶ 1-13 and 274-327.
Public timeline
Dates are taken from the Verified Complaint and the public federal docket. Consult the official docket for later activity.
The complaint alleges that Bert J. van der Werff began working with Colonial/Paul Revere in or about 2014 as a District General Agent.
The complaint alleges that Timothy L. Vaughn Jr. began working with Colonial/Paul Revere in or about 2017 as an Agency Development Manager.
The complaint alleges training on enrollment and Section 125 practices and describes communications in which separate business materials were submitted for review or discussed with compliance personnel.
The complaint alleges that employer communications and employee election records treated Colonial products and a separate non-insurance program as independent choices.
The complaint characterizes a call with Colonial compliance personnel as an ambush and alleges that Colonial already possessed records bearing on the accusations.
Van der Werff received a for-cause termination notice effective immediately. Vaughn received a separate notice referring to a thirty-day period.
The complaint alleges disputed chargebacks, offsets, withheld renewal compensation, and unsuccessful efforts to resolve the matter privately.
The plaintiffs filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Oneida County.
The defendants removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York.
The defendants moved to compel arbitration or, alternatively, dismiss. The plaintiffs opposed; defendants replied; and the plaintiffs filed a permitted sur-reply. The official docket should be consulted for any later ruling.
Plaintiffs' account
These are summaries of the plaintiffs' allegations, not independent factual findings by this website.
The complaint alleges that Colonial accused van der Werff of making participation in a separate non-insurance program a prerequisite to Colonial enrollment. Plaintiffs say employer correspondence and signed election records showed that employees could - and did - elect Colonial products independently.
Verified Complaint ¶¶ 104-126, 141-148, 208-235.
The complaint alleges that the plaintiffs relied on Colonial training and employer-facing plan documents concerning election changes, and that van der Werff promptly agreed to follow a later clarification from compliance. The plaintiffs contend that the termination nevertheless relied on an accusation they had already addressed.
Verified Complaint ¶¶ 57-82, 117-121, 149-161.
The complaint alleges that Colonial personnel knew for years that van der Werff offered both insurance and non-insurance services, and that certain separate-business marketing materials were previously reviewed without the same objection later used in the termination process.
Verified Complaint ¶¶ 43-47 and 83-103.
The complaint alleges that Vaughn was terminated at the same time even though his notice did not specify the misconduct alleged against van der Werff, and that access and earning opportunities were effectively removed immediately despite language referring to a thirty-day notice period.
Verified Complaint ¶¶ 175-183.
The complaint alleges that a renewal check was reduced to zero through approximately $16,100 in chargebacks and that later discussions included partial restoration proposals. Plaintiffs seek a complete accounting of commissions, renewals, offsets, advances, and recoupments.
Verified Complaint ¶¶ 190-235 and 315-320.
The plaintiffs dispute assent to the specific DGA and ADM arbitration provisions relied on by the defendants. They point to a filed DGA copy with blank agent signature/date lines and an ADM copy containing typed entries without the electronic audit trail they say would authenticate execution.
Plaintiffs' opposition and sur-reply regarding the motion to compel arbitration.
Defendants' public position
In the publicly listed motion papers, the defendants argue that the plaintiffs agreed to broad arbitration provisions and that written arbitration agreements can be enforceable even without handwritten signatures where assent is otherwise shown. They also seek dismissal in the alternative and dispute the legal sufficiency of the claims.
This site does not attempt to decide those arguments. The actual filings and any court order should be read in full.
Read the source
The hosted web copy redacts personal identifiers and the name of a separate non-party business. It is not the official docket copy.