The Orlando Regional Realtor Association alleges the lockbox company used its confidential member list to entice members to join rival trade groups, but the company denies the allegations.
Whether it’s refining your business model, mastering new technologies, or discovering strategies to capitalize on the next market surge, Inman Connect New York will prepare you to take bold steps forward. The Next Chapter is about to begin. Be part of it. Join us and thousands of real estate leaders Jan. 22-24, 2025.
A local Realtor association in Florida has sued the parent company of lockbox firm Supra for more than half a million dollars, alleging Supra used the association’s confidential information to entice its members to join other, rival associations.
On Aug. 28, the Orlando Regional Realtor Association (ORRA), which has more than 20,000 members, filed a complaint against Honeywell International Inc. in state court. On Oct. 2, Honeywell had the case transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida Orlando Division. On Oct. 23, Honeywell filed an answer to the complaint.
Honeywell acquired Carrier Global Corporation’s Global Access Solutions business, including Supra, in June.
According to the complaint, ORRA partnered with Supra for lockbox services in February 2006 and renewed the agreement every six years. The agreement was set to expire on Aug. 30, 2024. On June 7, ORRA informed Supra that it would not be renewing the agreement.
A month later, on July 8, Supra sent an email ORRA alleges was done in retaliation for terminating the agreement to ORRA’s confidential “entire distribution list of members,” according to the complaint.
“Supra deliberately, intentionally and without justification interfered with ORRA’s business relationships by sending a malicious Email intimidating ORRA’s Members into leaving ORRA and associating with other organizations,” the complaint says.
Screenshot of email sent to ORRA members from Supra on July 8, 2024
ORRA alleges the email “explicitly encouraged ORRA Members to sever ties with ORRA and associate with other entities,” causing at least 67 to 100 members to leave the trade group since the email was sent.
“Moreover, the Email contained misrepresentations suggesting that ORRA Members would face business discontinuity and encouraging Members to associate with neighboring associations,” the complaint says.
“Supra clearly sought to intimidate ORRA Members into abandoning ORRA based on fabricated threats to their professional stability. This Email completely misrepresented ORRA and violated the Agreement by using the Confidential Information of ORRA.”
The complaint further alleges that Supra continues to contact ORRA members and encourage them to leave ORRA for neighboring associations.
“Supra has even gone so far as meeting with the neighboring associations and colluding with those neighboring associations to steal ORRA Members from ORRA,” the complaint says.
In addition to damages, the complaint asks the court for an injunction forbidding Supra from using the contact information of ORRA’s members, saying ORRA may lose additional members if the injunction is not granted and “suffer irreparable harm.”
The complaint alleges tortious interference of business relationships, tortious interference with contractual relationships, breach of contract, and breach of good faith and fair dealing.
In its answer to the complaint filed last week, Honeywell said it was not a party to the agreement with ORRA and denied the allegations, including ORRA’s characterization of the email sent by Supra.
The company noted that ORRA members who want to use Supra’s products must enter into a separate agreement with the company and, as a vendor, the company maintains the right to communicate with the licensees using its platform.
“Vendor obtained contact information for these keyholders from its independent billing platform and not from ORRA’s database or confidential member list,” the filing says.
“There is nothing in the ORRA Master Agreement that prohibits Vendor from contacting members related to their use of lockboxes and therefore the communication is neither tortious nor can it be considered to have been issued in bad faith.”
Moreover, the filing asserts that the alleged interference was justified “based on the right to protect or promote a pre-existing economic or contractual interest, as the author was not a stranger to the underlying contract or business relationship, nor were improper means employed.”
English (US) · 