Del. Chancery Court Hits Insurance Co. With Injunction Over Alleged Raid of Rival's Workers
A Delaware Chancery Court judge has issued a preliminary injunction barring a company from servicing the accounts of about 55 customers it had allegedly gained after raiding the staff of a rival.
June 21, 2019 at 01:06 PM
3 minute read
A Delaware Chancery Court judge has issued a preliminary injunction barring a company from servicing the accounts of about 55 customers it had allegedly gained after raiding the staff of a rival.
Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster said Thursday it was “reasonably probable” that affiliates of the Lockton Cos. would succeed at trial on their claims of tortious interference against Alliant Insurance Services Inc., which it said had organized the “en masse” resignation of 26 employees in order to start a competing office in Denver.
Lockton has accused Alliant in court filings of purposely violating restrictive covenants in the workers' contracts, which prevent the employees from soliciting Lockton's customers and personnel for two years after leaving the companies.
According to a March 22 complaint, Alliant senior executive Peter Arkley organized the defection of 26 insurance professionals from Lockton's Denver office earlier this year. Lockton said that Arkley originally timed the move for March 8, but changed the plans to March 12. The new date, Lockton said, aligned with a company retreat that Lockton leadership was attending in Arizona and deprived the company of the chance to develop a litigation strategy over the weekend.
In total, Lockton said Alliant has been able to solicit 144 customers, 55 of which switched their business over to Alliant.
Alliant has countered that the restrictive covenants were invalid, and it was simply taking advantage of an opportunity to expand its operations in a new market.
On Thursday, Laster said it was clear that Alliant had precipitated the resignations, and the company had gone out of its way to cover it up. A preliminary injunction, he said, wouldn't repair any alleged harm that Lockton had already suffered, but it would prevent any further action ahead of trial.
“Issuing a preliminary injunction in this case will restore the status quo, at least to the extent possible, pending a final determination on the merits after trial,” Laster wrote in a 57-page memorandum opinion.
“Although it is not possible to fully recreate the status quo pending trial, a preliminary injunction can go part of the way,” he said.
Under the order, Alliant would be barred from servicing any of the customer accounts it allegedly pilfered and would be prevented from soliciting any more Lockton employees or using any confidential information they possessed.
Michael B. Carlinsky, a partner with Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan who represented Lockton, welcomed the ruling Friday.
“This ruling recognizes that Delaware courts will not countenance misconduct and deception and will not hesitate to take action to remedy it,” he said in a statement.
An attorney for Alliant was not immediately available to comment.
Lockton is represented by Kenneth J. Nachbar, Ryan D. Stottmann, Thomas P. Will and Jarrett W. Horowitz of Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell in Wilmington and Carlinsky, Andrew M. Berdon, Isaac Nesser and Kimberly E. Carson of Quinn Emanuel in New York.
Alliant is represented by Timothy J. Stephens of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius in Philadelphia and Jody C. Barillare from the firm's Wilmington office.
The case is captioned Mountain West Series of Lockton Cos. v. Alliant Insurance Services.
Correction: A previous version of this article misidentified the legal teams for Lockton and Alliant. We regret the error.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllRecent Class Action Lawsuit Alleges Misappropriation of Special Needs Trust Funds
Bumping the Bump-Up Exclusion: A Policyholder's Guide to Resisting Improper Coverage Denials
12 minute readLitigation Leaders: Cohen Ziffer Chair Talks the Advantages of Being on the Policyholder Side of the Insurance Recovery Practice
McElroy Deutsch Files Complaint for MetLife to Determine Policy's Proper Beneficiaries
Trending Stories
- 1Court rejects request to sideline San Jose State volleyball player on grounds she’s transgender
- 2Trump and Latin America: Lawyers Brace for US's Hardline Approach to Region
- 3Weil Advances 18 to Partner, Largest Class Since 2021
- 4People and Purpose: AbbVie's GC on Leading With Impact and Inspiring Change
- 5Beef Between Two South Florida Law Firms Deepens With Suit Over Defamation
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250