A federal judge in Manhattan has recently extended a preliminary injunction that prohibits three employees of Alliant Insurance Services from contacting or soliciting current clients of Marsh & McLennan Agency (MMA). This legal decision comes in response to allegations that these employees took confidential client information when they abruptly resigned from MMA.
Legal Context of the Preliminary Injunction
U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil issued the injunction, which will remain in effect until the ongoing legal dispute between MMA and Alliant is resolved. The judge determined that MMA is likely to suffer irreparable harm without this injunction and has a strong chance of succeeding in its claims against both Alliant and the former employees.
The injunction specifically targets Johnny Osborne, a former producer from MMA’s Huntsville, Alabama office, along with his colleagues Rachel Murray and Margaux Stone. All three resigned from MMA on December 16, 2024, without prior notice, to join Alliant Insurance Services.
Background of the Case
This preliminary injunction follows a temporary restraining order that expired on January 28, 2025. Both MMA and Alliant are recognized as two of the largest insurance agencies in the United States, with MMA headquartered in New York and Alliant based in California.
Alliant has contested the restraining order, arguing that it is anti-competitive. The company referred to a previous case involving similar allegations against Marsh, claiming that the court ruled the restrictive covenants sought by Marsh were unenforceable. However, Judge Vyskocil dismissed this argument, describing the case cited by Alliant as an “outlier” and emphasizing that New York courts typically enforce restrictive covenants to protect an employer’s relationships and goodwill.
Allegations of Client Poaching
MMA has accused Alliant of orchestrating a scheme to poach its employees and solicit its clients. The agency claims that within just 24 hours of the resignations, four of Osborne’s clients had already transferred their business to Alliant, and by the end of that week, the number had risen to at least 16 clients, with no signs of this trend slowing down.
Judge Vyskocil found that Alliant failed to provide any evidence countering MMA’s claims that Osborne misused confidential information and solicited clients in violation of his agreement with MMA. Each of the three former employees had signed a nonsolicitation and confidentiality agreement, committing not to solicit or service MMA clients for two years after leaving the company.
Financial Implications of the Case
Osborne managed a significant book of business for MMA, generating approximately $1.6 million in annual revenue. His colleagues, Stone and Murray, were responsible for the day-to-day servicing of many of these clients. The judge concluded that MMA is “clearly entitled” to a prohibitory injunction to prevent further losses in client relationships and goodwill, further solicitation of MMA employees, and any unauthorized use or disclosure of confidential information.
Moving Forward
While the preliminary injunction has been granted against Osborne and Alliant, the judge chose not to extend the order to nonparties who may act in concert with Alliant. This case highlights the ongoing challenges within the insurance industry regarding employee retention and the protection of client relationships.
In summary, the legal battle between MMA and Alliant underscores the complexities and potential pitfalls associated with employee transitions in the competitive insurance sector. As the case unfolds, it will be crucial for both agencies to navigate the legal landscape carefully to protect their interests and maintain their client bases.
For more information on legal matters related to employment and restrictive covenants, you can visit Nolo or FindLaw.