Surveillance footage, a felony plea, and 80% of customers gone
A manager ran his employer's car rental business by day - and built its replacement by night.
A Florida appeals court on September 30, 2026, largely upheld a damages award in a trade secrets case involving a rental car manager who secretly diverted his employer's 22,000-strong customer database to a competing operation he was helping launch.
North Palm Motors, trading as Napleton, ran a Florida car rental business with a confidential web-based customer list containing contact details, rental preferences, and credit card data. The manager had run the operation since 2009. By mid-2015, after a major client defaulted on $450,000 in receivables and a serious accident shook the business, the owner ordered a scale-back and - according to the manager - said he was "going to shut the MFer down."
The manager immediately contacted Schumacher Automotive, which was setting up its own rental arm, Auto Rentals of the Palm Beaches. He was hired in August 2015 but stayed on Napleton's payroll simultaneously.
What followed was brazen. Temporary workers copied Napleton's customer data into Auto Rentals' system. When customers called Napleton to book, they were placed into Auto Rentals' cars without being told. Those who queried unfamiliar credit card charges from "Schumacher Chevrolet" were told Napleton was "going through a name change."
By February 2016, Auto Rentals had generated $820,000 in business - 80% from former Napleton customers - with no marketing, no website, and no paid staff. Then surveillance footage caught the manager and others entering Napleton's office after hours, removing reservation cards. He later pleaded guilty to a felony for wrongfully accessing the computer system.
The trial court found all defendants liable for misappropriation under Florida's Uniform Trade Secrets Act. Schumacher Automotive and its principals had "reason to know" the customer list was misappropriated, the court held, but their conduct did not meet the higher "willful and malicious" threshold - so no punitive damages or attorney's fees were awarded against them.
The appeals court agreed on liability but trimmed the unjust enrichment award from $864,000 to $734,400, finding only 85% of Auto Rentals' profits were traceable to the stolen list. It also upheld the denial of $6.2 million in "actual loss" damages as too speculative.
For HR teams, the "reason to know" standard is the headline. A company that hires a competitor's key employee, watches unexplained revenue arrive without marketing, and fields confused customer complaints may be liable - even if it genuinely believed the competitor was closing.
The decision is not yet final and remains subject to a timely-filed motion for rehearing.
