A New York State appeals court ruled that a preliminaryinjunction against a former Aon employee accused of poachingclients can remain in place as the case proceeds.

In a Jan. 10 ruling, the New York Supreme Court, AppellateDivision, first Department issued a ruling keeping a Sept. 21, 2012order in place granting insurance-broker Aon a preliminaryinjunction against Peter Arkley and other former Aon employees.

The court ruled that Aon has standing to bring its allegationsin the New York court and says Arkley's purpose to seek dismissalis “to avoid his contractual obligations.” The court also says thatArkley's actions demonstrate that when “not subject to formaljudicial restraint, [he] has been inclined to solicit Aon'semployees and customers, in addition to making apparent use of itsproprietary and confidential information.”

The case stems from when Arkley left Aon in June of 2011 and went to work for Alliant. In thesubsequent days after his departure, 40 employees left Aon'sConstruction Services Group, allegedly gutting the operation,taking clients and costing Aon $15 million in revenue.

A suit in California, where Alliant is based and Arkley lives,was dismissed by a federal court in June. The judge in that casesays that California law offers protections that Illinois law doesnot. Aon was based in Chicago prior to moving its corporate officeto London last year and filed its claim under Illinois law.

However, the New York courts say the broker has standing intheir state because it does substantial business there and Arkleyfreely accepted the contractual terms of a restrictive covenant inreturn for economic incentives.

The court went on to say that in the California ruling, thecourt “ignored the parties' choice of law provisions in favor ofits own public policy.” The defendant has also not offered thecourt satisfactory argument why Illinois law should not be enforcedby the New York courts.

In a statement, Aon says, “We are very pleased with the Alliantruling.”