What happened: A Florida insurance recruiting firm alleges Gallagher Affinity stopped paying millions in override commissions after honoring an oral agreement for nearly three years.
Who's involved: Howard Insurance LLC (plaintiff, recruiter) and Gallagher Affinity Insurance Services d/b/a American Online Benefits Group (defendant, distributor).
What's at stake: More than $2 million in allegedly unpaid override commissions, according to the complaint.
Why it matters: The case puts a spotlight on the enforceability of oral commission-sharing agreements in insurance distribution networks.
Where it stands: Complaint filed November 12, 2026 in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
For almost three years, the override commission checks arrived like clockwork. Then, the complaint alleges, they stopped.
A Florida-based insurance recruiting firm has filed suit against Gallagher Affinity Insurance Services - the unit operating as American Online Benefits Group - alleging the company cut off more than $2 million in earned override commissions after honoring an oral agreement that generated roughly $16 million in payments over 36 months.
The lawsuit, filed November 12, 2026 in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida, brings two counts: breach of an oral agreement and, alternatively, a claim that Gallagher kept money it should not have kept.
The arrangement, according to the complaint, started at a dinner on May 8, 2023 at Eddie V's on East Las Olas Boulevard in Fort Lauderdale. Representatives from both sides and from O'Neill Marketing LLC - an independent marketing organization that served as the distribution hub - sat down to hash out a working relationship.
The deal was straightforward, the complaint says. Howard Insurance would recruit large numbers of sales agents - known in the industry as "downline agents" - to sell ACA and other health insurance policies on behalf of Gallagher's carrier partners. In return, Gallagher agreed to pay Howard Insurance 50% of the override commissions those agents' sales generated. Override commissions are the payments carriers make on top of the commissions agents earn directly for their own sales - they flow to the organizations that recruit and support the agents.
No fixed term. No minimum number of recruits. No minimum policy volume. The payments would continue for as long as the policies stayed active and kept generating commissions.
There was no written contract.
From May 2023 through April 2026, the complaint alleges, Gallagher kept its end of the bargain. Howard Insurance received approximately $16 million in override commissions across roughly 36 months. The filing says the plaintiff holds detailed bank records and internal communications documenting every payment.
Then, in or about April 2026, the payments stopped.
The complaint alleges Gallagher told Howard Insurance it would stop paying the override commissions and instead "reroute" them as "offsets" the company claimed it was owed - supposedly related to advanced commissions previously paid to the downline agents, not to the override commissions themselves.
Howard Insurance says the two are completely unrelated. According to the filing, override commissions sit "over and above" the sales commissions agents earn directly. Howard Insurance also alleges it had separately advanced millions of dollars of its own money to fund continued work with the agents, but that those advances had nothing to do with Gallagher's obligation to pay the overrides.
A wrinkle in the payment chain made things worse. The complaint says O'Neill Marketing, which received the override commissions from the carriers, claimed at one point that it simply could not split the payments between Gallagher and Howard Insurance - that it lacked the accounting capability to do so. O'Neill Marketing then started delivering Howard Insurance's share to Gallagher, expecting Gallagher to pass it through. The complaint alleges Gallagher kept the money instead.
Howard Insurance is seeking more than $2 million in unpaid override commissions, plus interest and costs.
For brokers and agency principals who structure commission-sharing arrangements on a handshake, the case is a pointed reminder that three years of consistent payments do not guarantee the fourth.
The allegations in this complaint have not been tested, and no court has ruled on the merits of the claims.
