Brown and Brown lawsuits fall into two very different piles. The larger pile is the insurance brokerage’s own suits against former executives and employees who left to join or start rivals, most notably AssuredPartners, Foundation Risk Partners, and Howden. The smaller pile is cases brought against Brown & Brown itself, including a federal pregnancy discrimination suit and a New York Court of Appeals decision that limited the company’s ability to enforce Florida non-competes on out-of-state workers. Some of these fights have ended in nine-figure settlements in Brown & Brown’s favor. At least one has ended with Brown & Brown writing the check.
The $20 Million AssuredPartners Settlement
The biggest recovery in the company’s litigation history came from AssuredPartners, a rival brokerage launched by two of Brown & Brown’s own senior leaders. Former chief operating officer Jim Henderson and former chief acquisitions officer Tom Riley left with several other executives to form Assured Agencies LLC in Lake Mary, Florida.1News-Journal Online. Brown Brown Settles With Former Executives Brown & Brown sued in early 2011, alleging misappropriation of trade secrets and violations of employment agreements.
The first suit settled in July 2011. AssuredPartners agreed to an 18-month ban on soliciting Brown & Brown clients or employees, a six-to-twelve-month bar on contacting agencies on Brown & Brown’s acquisition target lists, return of confidential materials, and an undisclosed payment.1News-Journal Online. Brown Brown Settles With Former Executives
It didn’t hold. Brown & Brown sued again, alleging AssuredPartners had continued to hire its employees and service its former clients in violation of the settlement. In October 2016, Circuit Judge Dennis Craig found that eight named former Brown & Brown employees had been servicing Brown & Brown’s former customers while working at AssuredPartners.2News-Journal Online. Daytona’s Brown Brown Gets Record $20 Million as Part of Settlement With Rival Insurance Company3Intelligent Insurer. AssuredPartners Pays Brown Brown $20M to Settle Poaching Lawsuit AssuredPartners did not admit wrongdoing. Brown & Brown general counsel Robert Lloyd said the settlement was intended to “wholly compensate” the firm for “repeated violations.”
Foundation Risk Partners: The Case Brown & Brown Lost
Not every Brown & Brown suit against former leaders has worked out. In February 2017, Charlie Lydecker, the former president of Brown & Brown’s retail division, and Thomas Tinsley, its former retail CFO, launched Foundation Risk Partners.4Berger Singerman. Legal War Escalates Between Daytona’s Brown Brown Crosstown Upstart Foundation Risk Brown & Brown sued, alleging the founders had conspired to form the new company while still employed, stolen internal manuals containing trade secrets, and used prepaid “burner phones” to hide their communications.
Foundation Risk pushed back. It argued that the documents Brown & Brown called trade secrets had been deposited with the U.S. Copyright Office in 2012 and were therefore publicly available, and it counterclaimed for anti-competitive behavior and frivolous litigation.4Berger Singerman. Legal War Escalates Between Daytona’s Brown Brown Crosstown Upstart Foundation Risk
After four and a half years in the Seventh Judicial Circuit in Volusia County, Judge Dennis Craig ruled for Foundation Risk on all counts in the 2020 lawsuit in November 2022, finding “no credible evidence” to support the trade secret allegations against Lydecker, Ben Barbieri, and Alan Florez. The court also noted that Brown & Brown’s own actions had driven away some of the client relationships it blamed Foundation Risk for taking.5Florida Politics. Foundation Risk Partners Earns Major Legal Win in Battle With Rival Firm In December 2022, the court ordered Brown & Brown to pay Foundation Risk’s attorneys’ fees and costs, which Foundation Risk described as a “multi-seven-figure” amount. Brown & Brown appealed, then dropped the appeal and offered a settlement to close the case.6Foundation Risk Partners. Brown Brown Agrees to Pay FRP a Multi Seven Figure Settlement
The Ongoing Howden Fight
The most recent and by far the largest departure dispute began at the end of December 2025, when roughly 300 Brown & Brown employees resigned to join Howden US Services, the American arm of the London-based Howden Group. Brown & Brown filed suit in multiple jurisdictions, calling it a coordinated “raid” timed to the holiday season. According to the complaints, departing employees used WhatsApp to plan the move and were instructed to delete messages after 24 hours. The claims include trade secret theft, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of non-solicitation and confidentiality agreements, tortious interference, and unfair competition.7Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly. Insurance Brokerage Employee Poaching Trade Secrets
Howden says the employees left voluntarily, citing dissatisfaction with Brown & Brown’s management and compensation rather than any coordinated scheme.7Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly. Insurance Brokerage Employee Poaching Trade Secrets
Brown & Brown has already won early relief. On December 29, 2025, a Suffolk Superior Court judge in Massachusetts signed a consented-to temporary restraining order allowing departing employees to service clients who had already signed a broker-of-record letter but barring solicitation of any other Brown & Brown business.7Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly. Insurance Brokerage Employee Poaching Trade Secrets In May 2026, a Hennepin County District Court in Minnesota issued its own TRO after finding Brown & Brown was “likely to succeed on the merits” and faced irreparable harm; the named defendants there are barred from soliciting or serving certain clients, though they may continue with clients who moved between December 2025 and the order. The litigation is still active as of mid-2026. Howden is defending similar suits from Aon, Marsh, WTW, and Alliant.8Insurance Business Magazine. Brown and Brown Wins TRO Against Howden Over Alleged Employee Raiding
Brown & Brown v. Johnson and the Limits of Florida Choice-of-Law
One Brown & Brown case has outlived its facts and become a reference point for non-compete disputes across the insurance industry. In Brown & Brown, Inc. v. Johnson (2015), the New York Court of Appeals took up whether a Florida-based employer could force its New York employees to litigate non-compete disputes under Florida law. Theresa Johnson, a former underwriter at Brown & Brown’s New York subsidiary, had signed an employment agreement with a Florida choice-of-law clause and a two-year non-solicitation covenant. After being terminated, she joined competitor Lawley Benefits Group and serviced some former clients. Brown & Brown sued for breach.9Findlaw. Brown and Brown Inc v Johnson
The court held the Florida choice-of-law clause unenforceable because it conflicted with fundamental New York public policy. Florida law bars courts from considering employee hardship when reviewing non-competes and directs interpretation in the employer’s favor; New York does the opposite, strictly construing such agreements and requiring courts to balance employer, employee, and public interests.10NY Courts. Brown and Brown Inc v Johnson The non-solicitation clause itself was not struck down. The court sent the case back to determine whether it could be partially enforced under New York law, noting that the circumstances of signing (reportedly Johnson’s first day of work, with no advance notice and no chance to consult a lawyer) were relevant.9Findlaw. Brown and Brown Inc v Johnson The takeaway that has traveled beyond the case: an employer cannot use a choice-of-law clause to bypass employee-protective laws in the state where the worker actually lives and works.
The EEOC Pregnancy Discrimination Case
Not every Brown & Brown lawsuit involves departing executives. In July 2016, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued Brown & Brown of Florida in federal court in Tampa for pregnancy discrimination. The EEOC alleged that the company’s Daytona Beach office rescinded a written offer for a personal lines technical assistant position after the applicant disclosed her pregnancy and asked about maternity benefits. The rescission email told her, “We had a very urgent need to have somebody in the position long term… We appreciate you telling us beforehand.”11EEOC. Brown Brown Insurance Brokerage Firm Sued by EEOC for Pregnancy Discrimination Lawsuit
The case ended in a May 2017 consent decree. Brown & Brown paid $100,000, agreed to adopt and distribute a formal pregnancy discrimination policy, provided mandatory training on sex and pregnancy discrimination for managers and HR staff across its Florida offices, and submitted annual reports to the EEOC on complaint handling during a two-year monitoring period.12EEOC. Brown Brown Insurance Brokerage Firm Settles Pregnancy Discrimination Lawsuit for $100,000
Why the Same Kind of Case Keeps Coming Back
Brown & Brown grows primarily through acquisitions and runs a decentralized structure that gives local leaders wide autonomy over client relationships.13Brown & Brown. About Brown and Brown Under that model, the company’s most valuable assets are its people and their books of business rather than centralized infrastructure. When a senior leader leaves with a team, a meaningful piece of revenue can walk with them.
The company reported $5.9 billion in revenue in 2025 and employs roughly 23,000 people across more than 700 locations in 19 countries.13Brown & Brown. About Brown and Brown In June 2025 it announced its largest deal ever, the $9.8 billion acquisition of Accession Risk Management Group, adding more than 5,000 employees.14News-Journal Online. Daytona’s Brown Brown Makes $10B Buy With the Howden dispute active in multiple states and hundreds of employees involved, the company’s courtroom fights over departing talent are not likely to slow down.