Help

BI’s Article search uses Boolean search capabilities. If you are not familiar with these principles, here are some quick tips.

To search specifically for more than one word, put the search term in quotation marks. For example, “workers compensation”. This will limit your search to that combination of words.

To search for a combination of terms, use quotations and the & symbol. For example, “hurricane” & “loss”.

Login Register Subscribe

NFP sues Alliant over real estate group ‘raid’

Reprints
NFP sues Alliant over real estate group ‘raid’

An NFP Corp. unit Wednesday sued Alliant Insurance Services Inc. alleging the rival brokerage poached 19 employees, including real estate practice leader Gary Pestana.

NFP Property & Casualty Services Inc. said in the complaint, filed in federal court in Los Angeles, that it has already lost five clients since the mass resignation of employees to Alliant and suffered damages exceeding $2 million.

NFP said Alliant followed a pattern in its hiring practices: “it orchestrates a raid of a competitor’s workforce that includes directing employees to resign without notice at the same time, inducing the departing employees to breach their contractual and fiduciary obligations to the competitor, and immediately attempting to steal the competitor’s clients and business,” the complaint says.  

Charlotte, North Carolina-baed Mr. Pestana, who was involved in another poaching suit when he and his team left Marsh LLC for NFP in 2019, abruptly left NFP in March and orchestrated the resignation of other NFP employees including Ramy Morcos, a senior vice president, the suit states.

When Mr. Pestana joined NFP in March 2019, he signed an agreement that required him to provide 60-days’ notice. He also signed agreements to protect NFP’s confidential and proprietary information, court records show.

NFP says it invested heavily in building and growing a real estate practice and that it was able to succeed thanks to the work of Mr. Pestana and the employees he was able to onboard.

NFP asserts claims for tortious interference with contract, tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and unfair business practices.

Representatives for the parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment.