In 2009, Carriage Insurance Agency, Inc., doing business as Carriage Group, entered into an agency agreement to sell insurance products with Ohio Farmers Insurance Co. One of the provisions of the agency agreement was that upon termination of the agreement, “Ohio Farmers shall issue a notice of non-renewal to policyholders.” In 2012, Ohio Farmers decided to end its business relationship with Carriage Group and persuaded Carriage Group to execute a mutual termination agreement. Ohio Farmers subsequently contacted other insurance agencies and informed them that it had terminated its business contract with Carriage Group. Ohio Farmers also reached out to Carriage Group’s current clients who had insurance policies with Farmers Group and advised them that Carriage Group would no longer be able to fulfill their needs. Carriage Group sued Ohio Farmers for “negligently or intentionally acquiring Plaintiff Carriage Group’s current clients and prospective clients,” “negligently or intentionally interfering with Plaintiff Carriage Group’s business relationships with current clients and prospective clients,” “negligently or intentionally interfering with Plaintiff Carriage Group’s business advantage in the market,” and “negligently or intentionally disclosing confidential information to other agencies for purposes of interfering with Plaintiff Carriage Group’s business advantage in the market, converting potential clients and existing clients.” The trial court dismissed the case in favor of Farmers Group, concluding that Carriage Group had not exhausted its administrative remedies under Revised Code Section 3905.50. Section 3905.50 oversees the termination of insurance agent contracts. Carriage Group appealed, arguing that the trial court erred because its tortious interference claims were not subject to Section 3905.50. What is the purpose of the termination provision requiring Ohio Farmers to issue a notice of non-renewals to policyholders? Did Ohio Farmers act ethically in contacting other insurance agencies? How do you think the appeals court ruled? Why?