COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF AND DEMAND FOR ...

91. Moreover, for the first time, Allstate has represented within its Exclusive AgencyResults Measurement its intention to terminate agents who do not meet the “expectedresults” in any of three specified areas. Consistent with this threat, Allstate has in factterminated agents for failure to meet the “expected results” in some regions of thecountry.92. Since introducing the “expected results” in 2000, Allstate has now increased those“expected results” for 2001 – in some regions representing an increase of almost twohundred (200%) percent.93. Allstate’s “expected results” or quotas represent additional terms not contained withinthe Agreement between the parties and thus constitutes a breach of the implied covenantof good faith and fair dealing. Additionally, the quotas are inconsistent with the entireconcept of an independent contractor relationship.94. Plaintiff disputes Allstate’s position that it may unilaterally impose quotas upon theagents and that it may increase those quotas at any time at its discretion.95. As a result of Allstate’s unilateral position and modification of quota requirements,all Allstate agents, including NAPAA’s agent members in Florida, have suffered and willcontinue to suffer injury.WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks a declaration by the Court under the terms of theAgreement that Allstate may not unilaterally modify the Agreement by adding orincreasing production quotas.COUNT VIBREACH OF CONTRACT(Seeking a Judicial Declaration That Agents Are Entitledto Full Commissions on Allstate Agency Support Center Sales)96. The Agency Standards state that the agent will be required to forwardtelephone calls to an Allstate Agency Support Center when the agent’s office is not open.97. Under Allstate’s call-forwarding system, any call to an agency during nonbusinesshours (including lunch) is forwarded directly to an Allstate employee at an