By Owen Gallagher
When a senior commercial insurance producer leaves one agency for a direct competitor, the former employer may seek to hold not only the departing producer but also the hiring agency responsible. A recent decision from the Business Litigation Session of the Suffolk Superior Court illustrates how difficult it can be to pursue those claims without detailed factual allegations.
In USI Insurance Services LLC v. Matthew R. Hillberg & Alera Group, Inc., Justice Peter B. Krupp dismissed USI Insurance Services LLC’s tort claims against competitor Alera Group, Inc., concluding that the complaint failed to plausibly allege either intentional interference with contractual relations or aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty. At the same time, the court granted USI leave to file an amended complaint within 21 days, leaving open the possibility that the claims could be repleaded with additional factual support.
For Massachusetts insurance agencies, the decision underscores that a civil action against a hiring competitor must allege concrete facts, and not simply suspicions, assumptions, or conclusory assertions.
USI alleged Alera participated in Hillberg’s contractual breaches
USI and Alera are direct competitors in the commercial property and casualty insurance marketplace. According to USI’s complaint, Matthew R. Hillberg joined USI in 2012 and became Senior Vice President, Commercial Lines and Producer, giving him access to confidential client information, including client toolkits, placement histories, coverage information, renewal dates, and key contacts.
Hillberg signed a new employment agreement effective January 3, 2021. Among other provisions, the agreement required 60 days’ written notice before resignation, prohibited disclosure of confidential information, restricted solicitation of clients and employees, and required Hillberg to provide any future employer with a copy of the restrictive covenant provisions before beginning employment.
USI alleged that on January 30, 2026, Hillberg resigned effective immediately rather than providing the required 60-day notice. The complaint also alleged that, before resigning, Hillberg emailed confidential USI documents to his personal email account and began working for Alera on February 2, 2026.
Although USI asserted several contract and fiduciary duty claims against Hillberg, the motion before the court concerned only the two tort claims asserted against Alera: intentional interference with contractual relations and aiding and abetting Hillberg’s alleged breach of fiduciary duty.
Court finds complaint lacked sufficient factual support
Justice Krupp emphasized that, on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court accepts well-pleaded factual allegations as true but need not accept conclusory assertions presented as facts. To survive dismissal, a complaint must allege facts that plausibly establish an entitlement to relief.
Addressing USI’s intentional interference claim, the court concluded that the complaint failed to plausibly allege that Alera acted with an improper motive or employed improper means.
The opinion noted that USI acknowledged Alera was a direct competitor and that Hillberg managed valuable client relationships. Under those circumstances, Justice Krupp wrote:
“Persuading him to leave his position at USI to join Alera, with his clients and expertise, falls within normal competitive business practices.”
The court further observed that actions taken to gain a competitive advantage or strengthen a company’s business, standing alone, do not establish the improper motive necessary to support a tortious interference claim. Because USI alleged no facts suggesting actual malice or improper conduct beyond ordinary competition, the claim could not proceed.
Justice Krupp reached a similar conclusion on USI’s aiding and abetting claim. While the complaint alleged “on information and belief” that Alera knew of and encouraged Hillberg’s alleged breaches, the court found those allegations lacked the factual detail necessary to show that Alera substantially assisted or knowingly participated in any breach of fiduciary duty. The complaint did not identify who at Alera allegedly possessed such knowledge, what information they received, or what actions they took to assist Hillberg.
Court does not decide enforceability of the 60-day notice provision
One issue raised by Alera’s motion remains unresolved.
Alera argued that the employment agreement’s 60-day notice provision effectively operated as an unenforceable noncompetition agreement under the Massachusetts Noncompetition Agreement Act because it prevented Hillberg from contacting clients during the notice period.
Justice Krupp did not address that argument.
Instead, having concluded that USI’s complaint failed to plead sufficient facts supporting the tort claims against Alera, the court found it unnecessary to decide whether the contractual notice provision was enforceable. The opinion therefore leaves that question for another day.
Decision leaves door open to amended complaint
Although the court dismissed both claims against Alera, the dismissal was not the final chapter in the litigation.
Justice Krupp granted USI leave to file an amended complaint within 21 days to attempt to cure the pleading deficiencies identified in the decision. The claims against Hillberg also remain pending.
For Massachusetts insurance agencies, the decision offers two practical lessons.
- First, ordinary recruitment of a competitor’s producer—even one with significant client relationships—does not, by itself, plausibly establish tort liability against the hiring agency.
- Second, when an agency seeks to pursue tort claims against a competitor, Massachusetts courts require specific factual allegations showing how the competitor allegedly participated in or encouraged the employee’s misconduct. General assertions made “on information and belief,” without supporting factual detail, may not be sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.
At the same time, agencies should not read the decision as resolving every issue raised by the case. The court did not determine whether Hillberg breached his employment agreement, whether the agreement’s 60-day notice provision is enforceable, or whether USI may be able to state viable claims against Alera through an amended complaint. Those questions remain for further proceedings.
Owen Gallagher
Insurance Coverage Legal Expert/Co-Founder & Publisher of Agency Checklists
Interested in connecting with me? Call me directly at 617-598-3801.
