Experior Financial Group’s lawsuit against Primerica is a Florida state court case filed on September 29, 2025, in which the Canadian managing general agency and three individual co-plaintiffs are seeking a court order stopping alleged conduct by Primerica Financial Services and five named individuals. As of December 2025, the case has not reached the merits: the defendants have moved to send the dispute to arbitration, and Experior is fighting to keep it in court.1UniCourt. Experior Financial Group Inc et al. vs. Primerica Financial Services LLC et al.
Who Filed the Case and Where
The lawsuit was filed in the Ninth Judicial Circuit Court of Florida, in Orange County, and is styled Experior Financial Group Inc et al. vs. Primerica Financial Services LLC et al. Judge Chad K. Alvaro is presiding.1UniCourt. Experior Financial Group Inc et al. vs. Primerica Financial Services LLC et al.
Alongside Experior Financial Group Inc., three individuals are named as plaintiffs: Hector Steven Suarez Carrascal, Gaspare Marascia, and Victor Estrada. The defense side lists Primerica Financial Services LLC together with five named individuals — Miguel Angel Illidge, Angie F. Nicoletti, Mariana Elena Romero Fernandez, Alejandro Romero, and Dionicio “Dion” Garcia — plus three unnamed defendants identified as Does 1 through 3.1UniCourt. Experior Financial Group Inc et al. vs. Primerica Financial Services LLC et al.
What the Complaint Alleges and What Experior Is Asking For
The complaint asserts jurisdiction under Florida Statute 48.193, alleging that the defendants conduct business in Florida and committed tortious acts within the state. It is categorized as a corporate-business dispute, with an amount in controversy stated as exceeding $50,000, exclusive of interest, costs, and attorney fees.1UniCourt. Experior Financial Group Inc et al. vs. Primerica Financial Services LLC et al.
The important detail about relief is this: the filing is framed as a case in equity, and Experior is seeking injunctive relief. In plain terms, the plaintiffs want a court order stopping certain conduct, not just money damages. That framing signals the dispute is about behavior Experior wants halted going forward, which is consistent with the kinds of claims companies typically bring against competitors and former personnel — non-solicitation, non-compete, trade-secret, or interference claims — although the public docket does not spell out which of those theories, if any, Experior is pursuing.1UniCourt. Experior Financial Group Inc et al. vs. Primerica Financial Services LLC et al.
The Arbitration Fight Driving the Case Right Now
As of December 2025, the case remains open with no ruling on the merits. The central procedural battle is over where the dispute will be heard. The defendants filed a joint motion to compel arbitration and stay the case, arguing the matter belongs in a private arbitration proceeding rather than in state court. Experior opposed that motion and filed multiple memoranda of law arguing against arbitration.1UniCourt. Experior Financial Group Inc et al. vs. Primerica Financial Services LLC et al.
On December 11, 2025, both sides filed a joint stipulation extending the deadline for the defendants to file their reply brief on the arbitration motion. No hearing date has been reported, and Judge Alvaro has not ruled.1UniCourt. Experior Financial Group Inc et al. vs. Primerica Financial Services LLC et al.
That ruling matters. If the court grants the motion, the lawsuit will be paused and the fight will move into a private arbitration process, largely out of public view. If the court denies it, the case continues on the public docket in Orange County and moves toward discovery and, eventually, a merits decision on whatever claims Experior has pleaded.
What the Public Record Does Not Say
The docket is thin on facts about the underlying dispute, and it is worth being clear about what is not in it. The available court records do not describe what the individual defendants are alleged to have done specifically. They do not say whether any of the individual defendants were previously affiliated with Experior, and they do not identify the roles the named individuals hold at Primerica. The conduct at issue is described only in the general language of “tortious acts” committed in Florida.
Anyone trying to read the filing as a specific set of accusations against particular people is reading in more than the public record supports. Until the arbitration motion is resolved and the case either proceeds in court or moves into arbitration, the concrete allegations may not become public at all.
Who Experior Is
Experior Financial Group was founded in 2014 by Lee-Ann Prickett and Jamie Prickett and is headquartered in Guelph, Ontario.2LeadIQ. Experior Financial Group Lee-Ann Prickett was appointed CEO in October 2025, after serving as president and chief operating officer since the company’s founding.3Experior Financial Group. Lee-Ann Prickett Appointed CEO
Experior describes itself as a “Tribrid MGA,” a model it says blends captive-style training and onboarding, independent brokerage access to products from more than 26 carriers with agents owning their book of business, and network marketing features including team-building, overrides, and income through recruitment.4Experior Financial Group. Tribrid MGA Careers Canada
The company expanded into the United States in September 2019, with a head office in Cheektowaga, New York, and agent-operated offices in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin. It operates in the U.S. as an independent marketing organization and insurance aggregator.5Experior Financial Group USA. Contact Us6Experior Financial Group USA. Experior Financial Group USA7FSRAO. Experior Financial Group Comment on Proposed Rule 2025-001
Primerica, the defendant, is a much larger and longer-established competitor in the life insurance and financial services distribution space. That basic competitive posture, combined with Experior’s request for injunctive relief and its choice to sue five named individuals alongside the corporate defendant, is the shape of the case as the public record currently defines it. The rest waits on Judge Alvaro’s ruling on arbitration.