Judge dismisses some of Marsh unit’s counterclaims against former exec
- October 21, 2025
- Posted by: Web workers
- Category: Finance
A federal judge in San Francisco said Thursday that a Marsh LLC unit failed to sufficiently allege two counterclaims against a former executive who now works for Lockton Cos. LLC.
The judge presiding over Gill v. Marsh USA Inc. said the brokerage failed to state claims against Manpreet Gill for breach of fiduciary duty and violation of California’s unfair competition law. Mr. Gill joined Lockton as executive vice president of its global technology practice group on March 26.
Marsh failed to persuade the judge that California law applied to its breach of fiduciary duty claim against Mr. Gill because the allegations focus on the diversion of corporate opportunities. The brokerage alleges that before resigning in March, Mr. Gill ingratiated himself with its clients in the hopes of gaining their business for Lockton.
The judge said the allegations against Mr. Gill are subject to California’s internal affairs doctrine and therefore governed by Delaware law, where Marsh is incorporated. The allegations were not enough to state a claim under Delaware law, though, . according to the ruling.
Marsh also failed to sufficiently allege that Mr. Gill violated California’s unfair competition law because it does not seek an adequate remedy, the judge said.
The brokerage’s counterclaims for breach of duty and tortious interference with active and prospective business relations were sufficient, the judge ruled.
Marsh can amend the counterclaims that were dismissed, the judge said.
Mr. Gill sued Marsh in California state court in March, seeking a declaration that a nonsolicitation agreement he signed when joining the brokerage was and void under California Business & Professions Code Section 16600. Marsh removed the suit to federal court in April, saying the damages sought by Mr. Gill were too much to allow the case to proceed in state court.
A spokesperson for Marsh declined comment.
Representatives for Mr. Gill did not respond to requests for comment.


