Mass resignation of a construction insurance team triggered a Suffolk Superior Court fight over clients and no-poach agreements
Today: Boston.com reports on lawsuitNew here? Follow stories to track developments over time. Create a free account to get updates when stories you care about change.
Overview
Updated 1 hour agoEighteen employees of insurance giant Willis Towers Watson resigned between 8:02 a.m. and 8:46 a.m. on Aug. 19, then showed up at rival Lockton's office two blocks away in downtown Boston. WTW filed a 67-page verified complaint five days later, accusing Lockton of orchestrating a "smash and grab" of its New England construction insurance team and the clients they serviced.
The case hinges on restrictive covenants that bar soliciting clients and fellow employees, a 15-day notice requirement the departing brokers allegedly skipped, and a compensation package WTW says Lockton used to lure the team — including a 10-year salary guarantee for team leader Michael Scott. At stake: more than $5 million in annual revenue tied to 14 accounts that sent broker-of-record letters within 48 hours of the resignations.
Why it matters
If WTW wins an injunction, insurance brokers across the industry face sharper limits on recruiting entire teams and taking client books with them.
Questions about this story
Free account needed to ask — your question is kept and asked for you right after sign-up. Answers are public.
No questions yet — be the first to ask.
Key Indicators
Voices
Curated perspectives — historical figures and your fellow readers.
Play
Exploring all sides of a story is often best achieved with Play.
Higher or Lower
A number from this story, against one from elsewhere in the news — guess which is bigger, then keep the chain going. 5 rounds, 3 strikes; a miss costs a strike and resets your streak.
Keyboard: ↓/L lower · ↑/H higher
0 points — sign up to put that on the leaderboard.
Timeline
Order five events from this story, oldest at top. Each in the right slot scores 1 — neighbours within one slot count too. Your previous result — green ✓ for exact slots, yellow ~ for off by one. Cards now in true chronological order.
Sign up to save your score and track a streak across stories.
Connections
Sixteen names from the news. Find the four hidden groups of four. Four mistakes max.
Sign up to keep a daily streak — a new puzzle lands every day.
Exit debate?
Your progress in this debate will be lost.
- 1 Two AI personas square off on this story.
- 2 You predict who'll win each round — correct picks earn XP.
- 3 One crossfire question is yours to fire. Pick it carefully.
Couldn't generate a topic
Select Your Champions
Choose one persona for each side of the debate
DEBATE TOPIC
Choose personas with different perspectives for a more dynamic debate.
Select debater for this side:
No debate personas available right now.
Select debater for this side:
No debate personas available right now.
Who's Got This Round?
Make your prediction before the referee scores
The referee scores both sides on
Round Results
Set the Crossfire
Pick the question both personas must answer in the final round
Debate Oracle! You called every round!
Sharp Instincts! You know your debaters!
The Coin Flip Strategist! Perfectly balanced!
The Contrarian! Bold predictions!
Inverse Genius! Try betting the opposite next time!
XP Breakdown
Prediction History
People Involved
Organizations Involved
A UK-headquartered insurance brokerage and advisory firm with a Boston office at 125 High St.
One of the world's largest privately held insurance brokerages, based in Kansas City, Missouri, with a Boston office at 225 Franklin St.
Timeline
November 2025 September 2026
-
Boston.com reports on lawsuit
Today MediaBoston.com publishes details of the mass resignation and complaint; case remains open with no court update posted.
-
Preliminary injunction hearing not held
LegalCourt docket shows the hearing before Judge Debra A. Squires-Lee did not proceed; parties may be negotiating a resolution.
-
WTW files verified complaint
Legal67-page complaint filed in Suffolk Superior Court against Lockton and 18 former employees, seeking temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctions plus damages.
-
18 employees resign in 44 minutes
ResignationMichael Scott resigns by email at 8:02 a.m.; 17 others follow by 8:46 a.m., all effective immediately, skipping the 15-day notice requirement.
-
Client broker-of-record letters begin arriving
Client MovementWTW receives 14 broker-of-record letters within 48 hours; five name Lockton explicitly. Lost accounts represent $5M+ in annual revenue.
-
Scott disparages WTW candidate
DisputeWTW alleges Scott called a candidate for its construction team a "bottom feeder," then offered the candidate a Lockton job three days later.
-
Scott threatens to leave with team
DisputeAt a leadership meeting, Scott allegedly demands a senior role in a planned reorganization or he'll take his team and clients to Lockton.
-
Scott discloses Lockton offer to WTW
NegotiationTeam leader Michael Scott tells a WTW executive that Lockton offered his team a compensation package with a 10-year salary guarantee.
Historical Context
2 moments from history that rhyme with this story — and how they unfolded.
Aon/Hibernia poaching arbitration (2019)
Aon sued Hibernia Risk Solutions after a team of New York construction brokers departed, taking client relationships and proprietary pricing models. The case settled after arbitration.
The parties reached a confidential settlement before trial, preserving client relationships under a transition agreement.
The case reinforced that construction insurance teams are fiercely competed-over assets, with client relationships often following brokers who service them directly.
Illustrates the typical resolution path for broker team moves: settlement with transition agreements rather than public adjudication of restrictive covenant law.
Lockton v. Alliant — Mountain West Series (2023)
Lockton's Mountain West Series subsidiary sued Alliant Insurance Services in Delaware after employees departed for the competitor. Lockton sought relief similar to what WTW now demands against it.
The Delaware court considered Lockton's request for emergency injunctive relief against the departing team and Alliant.
The case became a reference point in brokerage poaching disputes; WTW now cites it as precedent for why Lockton should be held to the same standard it demanded of a rival.
The same firm now facing a poaching suit previously brought one — a symmetry courts often weigh when evaluating equitable relief.
