NU Online News Service, Feb. 22, 12:24 p.m.EST

Alliant Insurance Services, Inc. won a victory in New York StateSupreme Court when a judge ruled the insurance-brokerage firm didnot violate an order barring former Aon employees from solicitingbusiness on behalf of the firm.

In a decision handed down on Friday, Judge Bernard J. Fried,sitting in Manhattan, ruled that Newport Beach, Calif.-basedAlliant did not violate his non-solicitation order when the firminvited Aon clients to a construction industry event earlier thisyear.

In his opinion, Fried ruled that the invitation was not sent byformer Aon employees who are covered by the non-competeagreement.

Alliant says the ruling clarifies the scope of the judge'sprevious Dec. 20, 2011 decision where he barred certain employeesand Alliant from soliciting Aon business.

“We are pleased that the court has rejected Aon's efforts toimproperly expand the injunction beyond what Justice Friedpreviously ruled,” says Jeffrey S. Klein, lead counsel for Alliantand chair of the employment litigation practice at Weil, Gotshal& Manges LLP. “[The] ruling helps to clarify the limited scopeof the injunction and will hopefully correct some of the confusionin the marketplace.”

In his ruling, Fried says the only clients that are off-limitsare those clients that “during a 24-month period from June 13, 2009to June 13, 2011 worked with or were produced by a current employeeof Alliant [which is Michael Cusack, a former Aon senior vicepresident and managing director] who (1) previously worked for AonNortheast; (2) had a restrictive covenant; and (3) resigned on June13, 2011.”

The invitation list, Fried says, contained no clients covered bythe restrictions. According to the decision, there are 46 accountsthat Cusack worked while at Aon that would be covered by hisorder.

Aon is suing Alliant for poaching its Construction ServicesGroup of employees and clients. On the day that Cusack and PeterArkley, former CEO of Aon Construction Services Group, departed, 15Aon clients moved their business to Alliant, and 38 employees inthe group left to join Alliant.

The judge previously ruled that Aon is likely to prevail in its claims over breach of contract, breach offiduciary duty, conspiracy, breach of the duty of loyalty,intentional interference with contractual relations and tortuousinterference with prospective economic advantage.

In response to Judge Fried's ruling, Aon spokesman DavidProsperi says by e-mail, “Both parties are pursuing theirrespective rights, and we look forward to pursuing a favorableoutcome for Aon.”