Judge Denied Extension of Marsh Employee Restrictions
The ruling underscores the difficulty of enforcing post-employment non-solicitation pacts beyond agreed-upon terms.
Updated on Sept. 23, 2026 in Remote Work
Live Poll
Should employers be allowed to enforce non-solicitation agreements against former employees after they leave a company?
A Southern District of New York judge denied Marsh’s request to extend non-solicitation restrictions for four former employees. The ruling confirms that the 12-month post-employment period originally bargained for is the limit of equitable relief.
Why it matters
The decision clarifies that courts are reluctant to extend non-solicitation terms when companies fail to prove ongoing irreparable injury. For business owners, it highlights the importance of relying on clear contract terms rather than expecting judicial intervention to bridge gaps in restrictive covenants.
Marsh sought a 265-day extension of non-solicitation terms for four employees, following the departure of 140 staff and 18 clients to Howden since July 2025. The court upheld the original 12-month restriction, noting that damages remain the primary remedy for past violations.
The players
Judge George Daniels
A judge in the Southern District of New York who oversees legal disputes regarding employment and restrictive covenants.
Marsh
A global insurance broker and risk advisor managing complex business relationships and employee talent pools.
Howden
An international insurance brokerage firm competing for market share and talent across the insurance sector.
The details
The court determined that most of the alleged solicitation took place while the four employees were still on the payroll at Marsh, making an extension of post-employment restrictions unjustified. While the judge denied the injunction, the defendants remain legally bound to protect confidential information. Marsh continues to pursue money damages for the losses sustained during the transition of staff to Howden.
Timeline
July 21, 2025: Marsh employees began moving to Howden US.
September 2025: Judge Daniels issued the initial preliminary injunction.
September 19, 2026: The 12-month non-solicitation restriction period expired.
September 22, 2026: Judge Daniels issued the ruling denying the requested extension.
Market Landscape
This decision follows the 2025 preliminary injunction and signals a judicial shift toward strict interpretation of contractual time limits. It narrows the litigation between the two brokerages to three active cases focused on monetary compensation rather than continued employment restrictions.
Operators should review their employment agreements to ensure non-solicitation periods are explicitly defined, as courts will unlikely extend them retroactively. Focus documentation on tangible financial losses, as this remains the primary route for litigation against former employees.
The takeaway
Judicial reliance on the literal expiration dates of restrictive covenants means that operational protection rests on contract precision rather than extended court orders. Ensure that any claims for solicitation damages are thoroughly quantified to support future legal standing.
Further reading
For more on the complexities of managing talent retention and departure, see Remote Work.
Source note: This article includes information reported by Theinsurer.
Live Poll
Should employers be allowed to enforce non-solicitation agreements against former employees after they leave a company?
