Nationwide Insurance developed a program to recruit new insurance agents by offering planning, training, and start-up financing to build self-sustaining agencies. These new agents would be independent contractors who would agree to exclusively sell and service Nationwide products. In 2005, Nationwide recruited Christine Lucarell under this program. Based on a business plan developed by Nationwide, Lucarell anticipated revenues of \($200,000\) a year. Nationwide provided Lucarell with a \($290,000\) loan to start up her agency and provided her with minimum production requirements, although Lucarell alleged that these requirements were never part of her contract. Lucarell used the loan to start her agency in 2006, renting and furnishing office space, hiring two employees, and throwing a grand-opening party.

Lucarell initially exceeded her minimum production requirements and won awards for her performance, but eventually began having difficulty bringing in new customers and maintaining her cash flow.

In 2007, Lucarell met with her sales manager and signed an agreement in which Nationwide would provide her with \($15,000\) and reimburse \($35,000\) in businesses expenses in exchange for her to “completely release and forever discharge any and all claims which Agent may have against Nationwide …” Lucarell testified that when she signed the agreement, she had “no choice … They would have terminated me and my agency, and my loan would become due in full.” Nationwide provided Lucarell with a new business plan, but she continued to fall short of the minimum requirements. Lucarell eventually resigned in 2009.

Lucarell sued Nationwide for breach of her agreements and fraudulent misrepresentation. Nationwide counterclaimed for the balance due on her loan. Lucarell claimed that Nationwide had lied to her about the potential success of her agency and then forced her to sign the second agreement under duress of enforcing the loan against her. The trial court found in favor of Lucarell on all claims. Nationwide appealed. How do you think the appellate court ruled? Was Lucarell truly under duress when she signed the second agreement?