A former BMS Re employee has filed a lawsuit in the New York Supreme Court, alleging that the company is preventing them from accepting positions at competitor Guy Carpenter by enforcing noncompete agreements they claim were never signed or presented to them.
According to the complaint, the employee either resigned or informed BMS Re of their intent to leave, after which the company sought to block them from working at a competitor for 12 months.
BMS Re asserted that its restrictive covenant agreements prohibit employees from joining competitors within that period.
The plaintiff, in turn, acknowledged signing agreements containing confidentiality and non-solicitation provisions when they joined BMS Re, but also argue that those agreements did not include any explicit noncompete clauses.
They claim the company never proposed noncompete agreements and has not provided documentation proving they agreed to such restrictions, according to a report from AM Best.
Historically, recent lawsuits involving noncompete agreements have sided with counterparties.
In July 2024, a Florida jury awarded USI Insurance Services $3 million in a countersuit that claimed that Lockton’s southeast operation and former brokers breached noncompete and nonsolicitation agreements in a "carefully orchestrated scheme" to steal business.
As part of the suit against BMS Re, the former employee also alleges that the company embedded a noncompete provision within investment deeds tied to a share grant program introduced in 2023.
Under this program, employees would receive a portion of any acquisition or investment proceeds but were required to sign power of attorney (POA) forms.
BMS Re, in its defense, explained that the POA forms were necessary to facilitate investment management on behalf of a large group of employees.
The complaint also said that BMS Re then used those POA agreements to enroll employees into investment deeds connected to a $433 million investment from private equity firm Eurazeo.
The plaintiff argues that they never signed or reviewed the investment deeds, making it impossible for them to have agreed to the noncompete provisions within them.
The complaint also disputes the characterization of Guy Carpenter and BMS Re as direct competitors, noting that Guy Carpenter is significantly larger in both size and scope.
The plaintiff argues that Guy Carpenter’s broader operations would allow them to work in areas that do not overlap with BMS Re’s business throughout the 12-month duration of their non-solicitation agreements.
A statement from BMS Re confirmed that while a small group of now former employees filed suit, the case now only concerns one person.
In the statement, the firm said share ownership schemes are commonly operated by re/insurance brokers and almost invariably involve extra commitment from participants.
“BMS expressly explained in documents provided to eligible participants that, in exchange for the benefits offered of participation in ownership of shares in BMS, they would be required, in addition to any covenant already contained in their employment agreements, to give non-compete and non-solicitation covenants as part of the subscription. This was explained as meaning that, in the event they were to leave the business, they would be prevented from joining a competitor for a period.
“BMS are defending the case and are confident that they will prevail.”
What are your thoughts on this story? Please feel free to share your comments below.
