A star insurance producer quit HUB International with no notice, joined a rival - and, the brokerage alleges, its clients followed him out the door. 

That is the heart of a complaint HUB International Midwest filed on August 11, 2026, in federal court in Fort Myers, Florida, against a former senior producer and competitor Alliant Insurance Services. 

According to the filing, the producer resigned on June 26, 2026, effective that day, and joined Alliant the same day. HUB alleges he did so despite a non-solicitation agreement that barred him for two years from soliciting, servicing, or interfering with HUB clients on behalf of a competitor. 

Then, the complaint says, the clients started leaving. HUB alleges that within days, three accounts the producer had handled filed broker of record letters shifting their business to Alliant. A broker of record letter is a client's written instruction naming who handles its insurance. 

For brokers, the questions are familiar ones: how far a non-compete actually reaches, and when hiring a rival's producer can turn into a tortious interference claim - the legal charge that a company wrongly disrupted someone else's contract. 

The agreement's wording sits at the center of the case. The filing quotes it: the producer agreed he "shall not, directly or indirectly," solicit any client for a competitor, "accept a broker or agent of record appointment" for such a client, or "interfere with or damage" HUB's client relationships. A separate clause, HUB alleges, requires him to pay "an amount equal to two (2) times the Lost Revenues" tied to any breach. 

HUB also alleges the producer talked the firm down on his way out. On a last-day call with one client, according to the complaint, he said HUB had "no diligence team in place" and would have "trouble supporting" the client - then said his new Alliant team had "everything in place" the client would need. 

The numbers in the filing are not small. HUB alleges the producer's book generated roughly $1.6 million a year, and that his largest client alone accounted for about $573,000. According to the complaint, that client told HUB the move was "not a reflection of the team," and that its property program "has been a shining star since [the client] moved to HUB." 

As for Alliant, HUB alleges the brokerage knew about the agreement and moved ahead regardless. The complaint claims Alliant "has been sued on multiple occasions by competing insurance brokerages for tortious interference with restrictive covenant agreements" - a characterization that attaches to no ruling and remains HUB's allegation. 

HUB brings two claims: breach of contract against the producer, and tortious interference against Alliant. It is asking the court for injunctions against both, plus liquidated and compensatory damages, interest, and attorneys' fees. 

The allegations are untested. This is a newly filed complaint, and no court has ruled on its merits. Before the suit was filed, the producer and Alliant responded through shared counsel; the complaint says a July 10, 2026 letter denied that the producer had solicited the client on the last-day call and asserted he "is abiding by his post-employment restrictions."