The Marsh Howden lawsuit is a sprawling set of cases filed by Marsh USA against Howden and dozens of former Marsh employees starting in July 2025, accusing the London-based broker of orchestrating a coordinated raid on Marsh’s Florida workforce and clients. Two federal judges in the Southern District of New York have granted Marsh preliminary injunctions, and the dispute has grown to include Howden’s UK parent company as a defendant alongside parallel poaching suits from Brown & Brown, Aon, Willis Towers Watson, and Alliant.
What Marsh Says Howden Did
Marsh’s core allegation is that Howden used a mass recruitment of senior Marsh executives to launch its U.S. retail brokerage without buying anything. According to the complaints, Michael Parrish, who led Marsh’s Florida zone, “covertly conspired” with Howden for months while still on Marsh’s payroll, then triggered a wave of resignations starting July 21, 2025. More than 100 Marsh employees left in short order, and at least eight major clients moved with them.1Insurance Business Magazine. Recruitment Raids and Legal Battles: Marsh Launches Lawsuit Over Poaching
Howden formally launched its U.S. retail brokerage on August 4, 2025, days after Marsh filed suit, with Parrish as its CEO.2Business Insurance. Howden Launches US Unit Led by Former Marsh Exec Within months, the new operation reportedly grew to more than 1,000 employees across over 50 U.S. locations.3Howden Group Holdings. Our Story Marsh has alleged that Howden tried to acquire Risk Strategies earlier in 2025, and when that deal fell through, pivoted to the recruitment strategy that produced the litigation.1Insurance Business Magazine. Recruitment Raids and Legal Battles: Marsh Launches Lawsuit Over Poaching
The legal theories are consistent across Marsh’s filings. The complaints assert breach of contract (specifically one-year non-solicitation covenants covering employees and clients, plus confidentiality obligations), breach of the faithless servant doctrine, unfair competition, tortious interference against Howden, and misappropriation of trade secrets. Marsh says departing employees accessed confidential pricing models, renewal timelines, compensation data, personnel information, “Client Playbooks,” and strategic plans before resigning.4Midpage. Marsh USA LLC v. Parrish
The Three Marsh Lawsuits
Marsh has filed three separate actions in the Southern District of New York, each targeting a different wave of departures.
The first, Marsh USA LLC v. Parrish, was filed July 29, 2025 against Parrish, Giselle Lugones, Robert Lynn, and Julie Layton — the four senior Florida executives Marsh says engineered the exodus.5CaseMine. Marsh USA LLC v. Parrish Et Al.
The second, Marsh & McLennan Agency v. Charles Baxter Southern III, was filed October 31, 2025. Marsh alleged Southern, a former managing executive, used confidential compensation data to prepare offer letters for Marsh employees and diverted roughly 36 client accounts worth over $4 million in annual recurring revenue to Howden.6Insurance Insider. Aon v. Howden and Related Filings
The third, Marsh USA LLC v. Gronovius, was filed November 3, 2025 against seven more former Florida zone employees: Alfred Gronovius, Andrea Amodeo, Carlos Serio, Giovanni Perez, Janette Wilcox, Nathan Collins, and Richard Lennerth. Marsh alleged a “concealed scheme” to take trade secrets and clients, “turncoat conduct” in their final weeks, and deleted company documents.7Insurance Journal. Marsh Sues Seven More Former Employees Over Howden Departures On November 10, 2025, Marsh amended the complaint to add Howden US Specialty LLC and Howden US Services LLC as defendants, alleging Howden had by then poached more than 100 Marsh employees and 60 clients.6Insurance Insider. Aon v. Howden and Related Filings
The Two Injunctions Against Howden
Marsh has won preliminary injunctions in both the Parrish and Gronovius cases.
On September 18, 2025, Judge George B. Daniels granted the first injunction in the Parrish case. The court found Marsh was likely to succeed on its breach-of-contract claims and faced irreparable harm not fully compensable by money damages. The order prohibited the four defendants from communicating with or soliciting Marsh employees and clients about Howden, and from using or disclosing Marsh’s confidential information.4Midpage. Marsh USA LLC v. Parrish
On February 24, 2026, Judge Jennifer L. Rochon granted a second injunction in the Gronovius case, this one reaching Howden itself. The court found Marsh likely to succeed on its breach-of-contract claims against the former employees and on its tortious interference claim against Howden, and described the non-solicitation covenants as “narrowly” tailored and likely enforceable.8Insurance Journal. Federal Court Grants Marsh Injunction Against Former Employees at Howden
The February order broke the restrictions down by defendant:
- All defendants were barred from using or disseminating Marsh’s confidential information and ordered to return it within 21 days.
- Gronovius, Amodeo, Serio, Wilcox, and Collins were prohibited for one year from their resignation dates from soliciting Marsh employees or contacting those about whom they had obtained confidential information in the preceding two years.
- Gronovius, Serio, and Perez were further prohibited for one year from soliciting or servicing Marsh clients from whom they had obtained confidential information.8Insurance Journal. Federal Court Grants Marsh Injunction Against Former Employees at Howden
One important limit: the court did not bar the defendants from servicing clients who had already moved from Marsh to Howden before the ruling.8Insurance Journal. Federal Court Grants Marsh Injunction Against Former Employees at Howden Business that had already walked out the door stayed walked out.
How Howden and the Former Employees Are Fighting Back
The defendants have two main lines of defense.
The first is unclean hands. The Parrish defendants argue that when they left Aon for Marsh in 2021, Marsh itself orchestrated the same kind of mass recruitment, and that Martin South, then president of Marsh’s U.S. and Canada regions, played the “primary role” in moving them and their clients from Aon.5CaseMine. Marsh USA LLC v. Parrish Et Al. That 2021 episode is documented: Aon sued Marsh in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court in June 2021, alleging Marsh had orchestrated a “corporate raid” recruiting 44 key Aon personnel in South Florida within two weeks and that Parrish had promised Marsh he would bring at least $40 million in Aon business.9LBR Cloud. Aon Risk Services v. Marsh USA Inc. Et Al., Verified Complaint On December 17, 2025, Magistrate Judge Gary Stein granted the defendants’ motion to compel South’s deposition. In March 2026, however, a judge denied the defendants’ attempt to compel broader discovery from Marsh about the Aon recruitment.10Insurance Journal. Marsh-Howden Update: Parrish Appointed CEO, Americas
The second is a direct challenge to Marsh’s trade secret claims. Howden argues in its motion to dismiss that Marsh relies on vague “general categories” rather than identifying specific trade secrets, that some of the information (such as employee compensation terms) is explicitly permitted to be shared under Marsh’s own agreements, and that client-file information belongs to the clients, not Marsh. Howden also contends that Marsh has not shown it took reasonable measures to protect the information or tied Howden to any specific misappropriation.11Insurance Insider. Marsh v. Howden Motion to Dismiss
Parallel Lawsuits From Other Brokerages
Marsh is not alone. Four other major brokerages have sued Howden over similar departures, suggesting the recruitment pattern Marsh describes was repeated across the industry.
Brown & Brown filed suit in Suffolk Superior Court’s Business Litigation Session in Massachusetts on December 22, 2025, after approximately 200 employees across four offices resigned on December 19 to join Howden. Later filings put the total at nearly 300. The complaint names 28 Massachusetts employees and alleges that local leaders Eric Kasen and Justin Kesner coordinated the raid, that departing employees used Signal with self-destructing messages, called themselves “Seal Team Six,” ported company phone numbers to personal devices, and pre-solicited clients before leaving.12Agency Checklists. Howden’s Holiday Poaching of 200 Employees Ends in Lawsuit A consented-to temporary restraining order issued December 29, 2025 barred further solicitation. In May 2026, Justice Kenneth Salinger denied Howden’s motion to dismiss, and a Minnesota judge granted Brown & Brown a partial injunction against 16 former employees and Howden in that state.13The Insurer. Massachusetts Judge Denies Howden’s Motion to Dismiss Brown & Brown Poaching Case
Aon sued in the Southern District of New York in December 2025, naming former managing director Anthony Rampersaud, his assistant Nancy Montalvo, and Howden US Services. Aon alleged Rampersaud used a company-funded trip to London to meet personally with Howden founder David Howden, then shipped boxes of confidential Aon documents to his home and refused to return his company phone when he resigned on November 25, 2025.14Insurance Insider. Aon v. Howden, Verified Complaint
Willis Towers Watson sued Howden and former executive Danielle Lombardo in New Jersey federal court in October 2025 over alleged breach of restrictive covenants and “millions of dollars” in business. The case settled December 16, 2025 with no public terms.15Business Insurance. Howden, Willis Settle Lombardo Poaching Case
Alliant Insurance Services sued Howden and three former employees — Jessie Guerrero, Christina Murphy, and Sunnie Fairburn — in Harris County, Texas in January 2026, calling the departures a “smash-and-grab” targeting its energy and marine team.16Insurance Journal. Alliant Sues Howden Over Alleged Employee Raiding The parties agreed to a temporary consent injunction.17The Insurer. Alliant, Howden Agree to Temporary Consent Injunction in Texas Poaching Lawsuit
Where the Case Stands Now
As of June 2026, the Marsh-Howden litigation is still growing. On June 15, 2026, a New York federal judge granted Marsh permission to add Howden Group Holdings, the UK parent, as a defendant, allowed Marsh to assert new trade-secret claims, and kept the existing injunction in place.18The Insurer. Marsh Expands Howden Poaching Suit as Judge Leaves Injunction Largely Intact No trial date has been set in the Parrish case, and no settlement has been publicly reported in any of the Marsh cases.19Leagle. Marsh USA LLC v. Parrish
The underlying legal landscape favors this kind of lawsuit for the moment. The FTC’s proposed nationwide ban on non-competes was vacated by a federal court in Texas in 2024, and the agency abandoned its appeal in 2025, leaving enforceability a matter of state law.20MarshBerry. Non-Competes Still Exist, but So Do Talent Raids Marsh and the other plaintiffs have leaned on non-solicitation covenants, confidentiality clauses, trade-secret claims, and tortious interference rather than classic non-competes, and courts have so far sided with them at the preliminary injunction stage.