Alliant Employees Blocked From Soliciting Former MMA Clients

January 22, 2025 by

A federal judge in Manhattan overseeing an insurance brokerage poaching case has blocked three Alliant Insurance Services employees from soliciting or contacting any current Marsh & McLennan Agency (MMA) clients or using a spreadsheet of MMA clients that MMA alleges they took when they resigned.

U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil issued a temporary restraining order on January 8 against Johnny Osborne, a former producer in MMA’s Huntsville, Alabama office, and two members of his MMA team, Rachel Murray and Margaux Stone— all three of whom simultaneously resigned from MMA on December 16, 2024, without notice, to join Alliant.

MMA asked for the emergency order against its former employees in order to stem further loss of business from what it claims has been a scheme orchestrated by Alliant to poach MMA’s employees and solicit MMA’s clients.

New York-headquartered MMA and California-based Alliant are two of the biggest insurance agencies in the country. Alliant has more than 12,000 employees and more than 100 locations across the U.S. MMA has 15,000 colleagues and 300 offices across North America.

MMA maintains that Osborne, Stone and Murray each executed a nonsolicitation and confidentiality agreement when joining MMA and each agreed that for two years following the separation of their employment with MMA, they would not, directly or indirectly, solicit or service MMA clients or prospective clients. MMA alleges in its complaint that the three are in breach of their nonsolicitation and confidentiality agreements.

According to MMA’s complaint, Osborne managed a book of business for MMA that generated approximately $1.6 million in annual revenue. Stone and Murray handled the day-to-day servicing for many of the clients for which Osborne was responsible, including the largest and most profitable accounts within his book of business.

MMA alleges that from October 2024 onward, Osborne and his team, acting under Alliant’s direction, “systematically disregarded their obligations to MMA.” The filing alleges that Osborne collected and duplicated confidential client data, recruited his team, and engaged in pre-resignation client solicitation, “which he has been continuing at Alliant—in deliberate breach of his obligations under his restrictive covenants with MMA.”

MMA maintains that within 24 hours of it discovering the resignations, at least four of Osborne’s clients had moved their business to Alliant and by the end of that week, at least 16 had moved, and there were “no signs of slowing.”

The restraining order is temporary and does not apply to 38 clients that have already ended their relationship with MMA. Yesterday the judge extended the temporary restraining order until January 28. The judge promised a further order before her temporary directive expires.

MMA filed suit against the employees and Alliant on December 23, 2024, claiming it has become the latest victim of a “deliberate and “destructive” scheme by Alliant involving intentional breaches of contractual and fiduciary duties, client solicitation, and concealment efforts that have earned Alliant “notoriety in the insurance industry and courts across the country.”

Alliant Defense

Alliant opposed the restraining order as anti-competitive and defended the employees and itself.

Alliant noted that, in prior litigation between an affiliate of Marsh and Alliant, which it said involved similar allegations, a court already concluded that the “types of restrictive covenants Marsh is seeking to enforce are unenforceable as a matter of law.”

“This is consistent with the overwhelming body of case law holding that post-employment restrictive covenants are strongly disfavored under New York law,” Alliant said in its memorandum.

Alliant further argued that MMA cannot clearly demonstrate that it faces irreparable harm because New York law recognizes that if MMA ultimately prevails in this litigation, money damages are ascertainable and available.

Alliant also told the court that such a restraint extends “well beyond what is permissible under New York law” and would keep clients from “making their own choice of insurance broker.”

According to MMA’s filing, Alliant has deployed the same scheme against other competitors as well, triggering at least 64 lawsuits that in some cases have resulted in injunctions and other adverse rulings.

Alliant maintains that the other lawsuits involved “different employees, different agreements, different laws, different brokerages, and different facts” and have no bearing on MMA’s case.

In addition to a permanent injunction to keep Alliant from soliciting its clients, MMA is seeking damages, any compensation it paid to Osborne “during the period of his disloyalty, and punitive damages.