Macy’s and Aon Hit With Putative Class Action Over Alleged $13.2 Million in Commissions on Employee-Paid Supplemental Insurance

A former Macy’s employee has filed a putative class action in federal court accusing Macy’s, Inc. and three Aon-affiliated brokerage companies of allowing allegedly excessive commissions to be taken from premiums that employees paid for supplemental insurance. Published summaries of the complaint say about $13.2 million in commissions and fees was collected from roughly $36.1 million in employee-paid premiums between 2019 and 2024 for accident, critical illness and hospital indemnity coverage offered through the Macy’s, Inc. Enhanced Benefits Program.

The case is Munson v. Macy’s Inc. et al., No. 1:26-cv-08752, filed October 3, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. No class has been certified. There is no settlement, no claim form and no payment available. The allegations are unproven, and no court has found Macy’s or Aon liable.

Munson v. Macy’s Inc. Quick Facts

Detail	Information
Case	Munson v. Macy’s Inc. et al.
Case number	1:26-cv-08752
Court	U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
Filed	October 3, 2026
Plaintiff	Billie Munson
Defendants	Macy’s Inc.; AON Consulting, Inc.; Hewitt Insurance Brokerage LLC; Aon Insurance Agency LLC
Law involved	Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA); the docket lists 29 U.S.C. § 1104
Jury demand	Demanded by plaintiff
Plan at issue	Macy’s, Inc. Enhanced Benefits Program (reported to have over 50,000 participants)
Products at issue	Accident, critical illness and hospital indemnity insurance
Alleged commissions	About $13.2 million of about $36.1 million in employee-paid premiums, 2019–2024 (about 36.7%)
Class certified?	No; putative class action
Settlement, claim form or deadline	None
Docket as last retrieved	October 3, 2026: complaint, civil cover sheet, four summons requests and a Rule 7.1 disclosure statement

The dollar figures above are allegations from published summaries of the complaint. The public docket confirms the filing, the parties and the ERISA claim, but I could not retrieve the complaint’s full text from it.

What Does the Putative Class Action Allege Against Macy’s and the Aon Entities?

The lawsuit challenges how much of employees’ supplemental insurance premiums allegedly went to broker compensation. Employees paid for these policies out of their own paychecks, and the case claims Macy’s did not adequately police what the Aon entities were paid.

According to published summaries, the complaint alleges:

• Broker compensation averaged about 36.7% of employee-paid premiums over six plan years.
• In 2019, compensation reached 50.8% of premiums overall, including a 65.1% commission rate on the critical illness contract.
• The commission rate fell to 22.8% by 2021, then rose to 62.8% in 2022 around a change of insurance carrier.
• The commissions gave Aon outsized returns while giving employees no matching value, and the plan’s descriptions of “discounted group rates” were misleading.
• Macy’s compared unfavorably with plans at other large employers.

The plaintiff’s position is that this violated the fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty that ERISA, at 29 U.S.C. § 1104, places on those who manage employee benefit plans. A broker earning a commission is not automatically an ERISA violation. The court will have to decide whether this arrangement was.

Is There an Earlier Lawsuit Against Macy’s and Aon, Chin v. Macy’s Inc.?

Yes. A separate proposed class action, Chin v. Macy’s Inc. et al., No. 1:26-cv-05673, was filed July 2, 2026 in the same court, and Bloomberg Law reported that it also targets Macy’s relationship with Aon entities that brokered accident, critical illness and hospital indemnity coverage. This article could not confirm that case’s current status, including whether it has been dismissed, consolidated or is still pending. Check both dockets on PACER before relying on either one.

Are Voluntary Benefits Lawsuits Like the Macy’s Case Part of a Larger Trend?

Yes. Plaintiffs’ firms have recently filed a series of ERISA suits claiming that employers and brokers allowed excessive commissions on employee-paid voluntary benefits. Trade reporting notes, however, that courts have not yet ruled definitively on whether or how ERISA applies to voluntary benefits, so a threshold fight over that question is likely in any of these cases.

Related article: Lands’ End Data Breach Settlement, $60 Cash or Up to $5,000, How to File a Claim by October 22, 2026

Can Macy’s Employees File a Claim Right Now?

No. There is no settlement administrator, claim deadline, claim form or approved fund. Employees do not need to do anything to keep their rights at this stage, and no one is a plaintiff just by having bought the coverage. If a class is certified or a settlement is reached, the court would order notice with instructions at that time. Be careful with websites offering to file a “Macy’s claim” for you.

Current or former Macy’s employees who paid for the coverage may want to keep their benefits enrollment materials, payroll records showing premium deductions, policy documents and any communications about the coverage or carrier changes.

What Happens Next in Munson v. Macy’s Inc.?

The defendants must first be served and respond to the complaint. A motion to dismiss is a common next step in ERISA cases like this one, followed, if claims survive, by discovery and a possible motion for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Many cases like this are narrowed, dismissed or settled before trial, so the filing alone does not mean any payment will result. As of the docket’s last retrieval, no class certification order, settlement or trial date appears.

Munson v. Macy’s Inc. Timeline of Key Dates

Date	Event
2019 – 2024	Period of the alleged commissions
July 2, 2026	Chin v. Macy’s Inc. et al. (No. 1:26-cv-05673) filed in the Southern District of New York
October 3, 2026	Munson v. Macy’s Inc. et al. (No. 1:26-cv-08752) filed; summons requests and disclosure statement follow the same day
To be determined	Defendants’ responses, any motion to dismiss, any class certification motion

Macy’s and Aon Putative Class Action FAQ

Is there a class action lawsuit against Macy’s over Aon insurance commissions?

Yes, a putative (proposed) class action. Munson v. Macy’s Inc. et al., No. 1:26-cv-08752, was filed October 3, 2026 in the Southern District of New York against Macy’s Inc., AON Consulting, Inc., Hewitt Insurance Brokerage LLC and Aon Insurance Agency LLC.

Has a class been certified in the Macy’s Aon lawsuit?

No.

How much in commissions does the Macy’s lawsuit allege Aon received?

About $13.2 million out of about $36.1 million in employee-paid premiums between 2019 and 2024, an average of about 36.7%, according to published summaries of the complaint. These are allegations, not findings.

Which Macy’s insurance products does the lawsuit cover?

Accident, critical illness and hospital indemnity insurance offered through the Macy’s, Inc. Enhanced Benefits Program.

Is there a Macy’s Aon settlement or claim form?

No. The case was filed October 3, 2026, and no settlement exists.

What law does the Macy’s lawsuit rely on?

ERISA. The docket lists 29 U.S.C. § 1104, the statute setting out fiduciary duties.

Does buying Macy’s supplemental insurance make me part of the lawsuit?

No. Munson filed on behalf of a proposed class that no court has certified, so no one is automatically a plaintiff.

What is the Macy’s Aon lawsuit case number?

1:26-cv-08752, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. A separate earlier case, Chin v. Macy’s Inc. et al., is No. 1:26-cv-05673.

What should Macy’s employees do about the lawsuit?

Nothing is required now. Keep enrollment, payroll and policy records, watch the PACER dockets for both cases, and speak with a benefits or ERISA attorney about your own situation.

What the Macy’s Aon Lawsuit Means for Employees

The question at the heart of the case is how much of an employee’s premium for voluntary insurance actually paid for coverage and how much went to broker compensation. The suit does not establish that high commissions are unlawful, only that a federal court will be asked to decide whether Macy’s and the Aon entities met their ERISA obligations. For comparison, see how another ERISA dispute over employee health-plan practices is playing out in JPMorgan Class Action Lawsuit, Alleges Tobacco Surcharges Violate ERISA, What Employees Should Know About the $80 Monthly Charge.

For general information only; not legal advice. AllAboutLawyer.com is not a law firm. The allegations are unproven, and no court has found any defendant liable.

Sources: (1) Justia federal docket, Munson v. Macy’s Inc. et al., No. 1:26-cv-08752 (S.D.N.Y.), last retrieved October 3, 2026. (2) Bloomberg Law, “Macy’s Sued Over Supplemental Employee Health Insurance Coverage” (July 6, 2026), and MLex/Law360 case listing for Chin v. Macy’s Inc. et al., No. 1:26-cv-05673. (3) Published summaries of the complaint allegations. (4) 29 U.S.C. § 1104.

Researched and written by Israr Ahmad, legal content researcher and founder of AllAboutLawyer.com. Case name, number, parties, court, filing date, nature of suit and statute verified against the Southern District of New York docket (via Justia); the Chin filing verified against published case listings; commission figures are allegations from published summaries of the complaints, as of October 6, 2026. Last Updated: October 6, 2026.