One of the country's largest insurance brokerages is taking a former employee to federal court, alleging he walked out the door and started chasing its clients almost immediately.
USI Insurance Services filed a complaint on September 18, 2026, in the US District Court for the District of Colorado, accusing a former producer of breaching his employment agreement by soliciting at least four USI client accounts after joining rival brokerage OneDigital.
According to the complaint, the producer had worked at USI since May 2019, when he signed an employment agreement that included a two-year ban on soliciting client accounts he had managed or serviced, plus ongoing confidentiality rules covering USI's client lists, renewal data, fee arrangements, and strategic plans.
The filing says the producer resigned on or about December 29, 2025, informing USI's employee benefits practice leader of his departure. Although his contract required 60 days' notice, USI agreed to let him go early, and his employment ended at close of business on January 1, 2026.
By around March 2026, USI alleges, the producer had joined OneDigital as an associate vice president at its Englewood, Colorado office.
The complaint names four USI client accounts that the producer allegedly solicited after his departure: Providence Hospitality Partners LLC, VieCure Inc., Bachus & Schanker LLC, and Eastern Rio Blanco County Health Service District, which operates as Pioneers Medical Center.
One of those - Providence Hospitality Partners - has already moved its business from USI to OneDigital, according to the filing. Two others, VieCure and Eastern Rio Blanco County Health Service District, have "unexpectedly notified USI that they are considering and/or accepting proposals for a new broker," the complaint states. USI describes both as longstanding clients and alleges neither had looked for a new broker until after the producer left.
The fourth, Bachus & Schanker, reportedly told USI directly that the producer had reached out after leaving to pitch for the firm's business.
USI says it believes the producer "has been communicating with other USI customers to cause them to move their business to OneDigital" beyond the four named accounts.
The employment agreement, attached to the complaint, set out a two-year window during which the producer could not solicit, service, or accept business from USI client accounts he had personally managed, serviced, or obtained confidential information about during his last two years at the company. A separate six-month restriction covered active prospects. On top of that, the agreement imposed a permanent bar on using or sharing USI's confidential information - what USI characterises as trade secrets under Colorado's non-compete statute.
Crucially, USI's complaint points out that none of this stopped the producer from working for any particular employer, including OneDigital. The restrictions targeted specific conduct - going after USI's clients and using its confidential data - not the employment itself.
USI is asking the court for two things: damages for breach of contract, and an injunction - a court order - stopping the producer and anyone acting alongside him from soliciting or servicing USI client accounts, or using USI's confidential information.
The complaint argues that without a court order, USI faces ongoing harm it cannot recover through money alone. Under standard industry practice, USI says, when a client switches brokers, the outgoing firm has only days to try to win the account back. Once a client leaves, the loss goes beyond commissions - it includes years of cross-selling opportunities and referrals. USI has also requested a jury trial.
For brokerages and HR teams watching the producer mobility space, the case is a straightforward reminder: restrictive covenants either hold up or they don't, and the fight over that question tends to start within months of a departure.
The allegations in USI's complaint have not been tested, and no court has made any findings on the claims.
