COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF AND DEMAND FOR ...

85. Plaintiff disputes Allstate’s position that it may unilaterally impose quotasupon the agents and that it may unilaterally increase those quotas at any time at itsdiscretion.86. As a result of Allstate’s unilateral position and modification of quotarequirements, all Allstate agents, including NAPAA’s agent members in Florida, havesuffered and will continue to suffer injury.WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks declaration by the Court under the terms of the Agreementthat Allstate may not unilaterally modify the Agreement by adding or increasingproduction quotas.COUNT VBREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OFGOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING(Seeking a Judicial Declaration that Allstate May NotUnilaterally Modify the Agreement by Adding or Increasing Production Quotas)87. There exists within the Agreement between Allstate and its agents an impliedcovenant of good faith and fair dealing.88. In the spring of 2000, Allstate introduced its Exclusive Agency Results Measurementsetting forth the “expected results” of an agent’s sales production.89. The “expected results” purportedly imposed upon agents are based on “average” (not“mean”) production within a market area as defined by Allstate.90. The “expected results” represent, for the first time, specific quotas being imposedupon agents by Allstate.