Marsh sued for further £2.5m

Marsh & McLennan is being sued by consumer products manufacturer Fortune Brands over allegations that the broker rigged bids and collected undisclosed contingent commissions on the company's insurance placements.

In a suit filed in the US District Court in Chicago, Fortune Brands seeks the return of $4m (£2.1m) in fees it paid Marsh between 1999 and 2004.

It also seeks to recover $800,000 (£400,000) in contingent commissions Marsh collected on the company's business over that period, along with damages reflecting higher premiums Fortune allegedly paid as a result of Marsh's conduct, a Fortune Brands spokesman said.

New York attorney general Eliot Spitzer's October 2004 antitrust suit against Marsh alleged that the broker directed officials of Ace to raise their bid on a Fortune Brands excess liability placement to avoid competing with a quote from a unit of AIG.

Under a settlement reached with Elliot Spitzer in January, Marsh agreed to create an $850m (£443m) reimbursement fund to be shared by clients based on estimates of their premium payments and Marsh's contingent commission revenues from their insurers.

However, a Fortune Brands spokesman said the company had not been informed what recovery it would be entitled to under the settlement and therefore had “no choice but to seek recourse in court".