Acrisure alleges a former employee and a program administrator worked together to redirect its Texas school district clients to a competitor.

The Grand Rapids, Michigan-based brokerage - one of the largest in the US - filed suit against Insurica Insurance Services on September 23, 2026, in the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas, claiming breach of contract and tortious interference (where one party allegedly induces someone to break a contract with another). Acrisure is also asking the court for a formal declaration that it remains the rightful broker of record for dozens of Texas Independent School Districts.

At the center of the dispute are three insurance risk-pooling programs - the Property Casualty Alliance of Texas, the Coastal Property Alliance of Texas, and Workers' Compensation Solutions - which allow smaller Texas school districts to band together for better insurance rates. Insurica administers those programs. Acrisure's role was to market and service the school district members.

The relationship traces back to a 2017 agreement between Insurica's predecessor, NAS Risk Solutions, and an agency called Carlisle Insurance. When Acrisure acquired Carlisle Insurance in early 2018 through an asset purchase agreement, it took on the agreement and Carlisle's employees - including one individual who would become central to the dispute.

That arrangement held for years. Then, according to the complaint, everything fell apart on a single day.

On April 1, 2026, the former Carlisle employee - who had been working for Acrisure since the acquisition - resigned along with several colleagues. The complaint says he immediately began working in a similar capacity for Lockton Companies or one of its subsidiaries, a direct Acrisure competitor. The same day, Insurica sent Acrisure a "Notice of Default" letter alleging the brokerage had breached the agreement.

The timing, Acrisure alleges, was no coincidence.

The default notice raised two issues. First, Insurica claimed three named subagents - individuals required under the agreement to handle production - no longer worked for Acrisure and had "ceased production related to the Agreement," the complaint states. Second, it alleged Acrisure had fallen short of a production target, claiming Acrisure had "committed to producing $5,000,000 for the PCAT program and to date has produced only $4,756,655." Insurica gave Acrisure 15 business days to fix both issues or face termination.

Acrisure says it responded on April 14, 2026, denying any breach and proposing replacement representatives. The agreement, it argues, required both parties to "work in good faith" to appoint replacements within 90 days if the named personnel left.

What followed, the complaint alleges, was anything but good faith. Acrisure claims its people were locked out of Insurica's system, cutting them off from information they needed to service their school district clients. When access was eventually restored, it was limited to a single employee - and even that was "periodically and randomly denied" without explanation, the filing states.

Acrisure says it put forward multiple qualified candidates to fill the vacant roles, complete with resumes and in-person meetings. Insurica rejected every one, the complaint alleges, without providing reasons or guidance on what qualifications it would accept.

Then, on June 15, 2026 - before the 90-day window from the April default notice had even run out - Insurica sent a termination notice. The same day, it issued a letter declaring that the former Acrisure employee, now at Lockton, was "appointed to serve and represent Programs managed by INSURICA" and that "Acrisure and their representatives are not authorized to represent the above Programs."

Acrisure alleges this was a coordinated move. The complaint claims Insurica and the former employee have since been telling Texas school districts that Acrisure is no longer their broker of record and that the districts "must execute letters" appointing Lockton in its place. Acrisure says that is "both factually and legally incorrect."

The earlier dispute between Acrisure and the former employee had already been resolved. Acrisure sued him and his former colleagues in federal court in Corpus Christi on April 8, 2026, alleging they had breached non-solicitation clauses in their employment agreements - provisions that barred them from contacting or soliciting Acrisure's clients for two years after leaving. That case settled on confidential terms by the end of April, with a formal settlement agreement dated June 23, 2026. The complaint alleges the ongoing solicitation of school district clients breaches both that settlement and the original employment agreement.

Acrisure is seeking compensatory damages, attorney's fees, and a court declaration confirming three things: that it remains broker of record for the Texas school district accounts, that Insurica is not, and that Insurica has no right to tell those districts otherwise.

For brokers and program administrators, the case is a pointed reminder that broker-of-record status, non-solicitation clauses, and program agreements can collide in expensive ways when key personnel change firms.

The allegations have not been tested in court, and no judicial findings have been made.