Rising healthcare costs force Americans to make tough choices
Even insured Americans are jeopardizing preventive careLife & HealthBy Josh RecamaraDec 04, 2025ShareNew findings from the Nationwide Retirement Institute has revealed that even insured Americans are struggling to manage rising healthcare costs, leading many to delay or skip essential care. According to the results, nearly 37% of insured adults reported avoiding medical care when sick due to costs, and 41% have skipped appointments over the past year. Preventive services are particularly affected - dental cleanings (23%), vision tests (20%), specialist visits (17%) and mental health care (16%) have been postponed or canceled. While these measures reduce immediate expenses, they may increase long-term health and financial risks in retirement.Insurance premiums on the riseCosts for coverage continue climbing. In 2025, single coverage is expected to increase 5%, with family coverage rising 6%. With temporary Affordable Care Act tax credits set to expire, households could face even higher premiums. Coupled with rising out-of-pocket expenses, Americans face a dual squeeze, with higher upfront costs and potential medical bills they cannot manage. Nationwide's survey found that 18% have used medical debt or credit cards to cover expenses, and 31% cannot afford an unexpected $500 medical bill. High-cost medications, such as GLP-1 drugs, add further financial pressure. According to Kristi Rodriguez, senior vice president of Financial Services Marketing and leader of the Nationwide Retirement Institute, these costs are forcing Americans to make difficult decisions about when and how to seek care, which can have lasting consequences for health outcomes and retirement finances.Retirement planning under strainRising healthcare costs heighten retirement fears, with 73% listing health expenses as a top concern and 71% fearing impacts on savings. More than half reported that medical costs have already reduced their ability to save, and 68% worry that a single major health event could derail finances. Yet, most Americans are unprepared - 59% are not confident in budgeting for retirement health care, 66% cannot estimate lifetime costs, and only 38% have a savings plan. Misunderstandings about Medicare are widespread, with two-thirds unsure if it covers long-term care.Financial guidance can helpWorking with a financial professional improves confidence and knowledge, with only 21% of clients paying for advice reporting uncertainty about Medicare coverage, compared with 42% of those without professional guidance. However, more than half of clients have not received advice on when to file for Medicare, indicating opportunities for deeper support.Rodriguez emphasized that financial professionals can help clients connect health and wealth by budgeting for routine care, planning for medical expenses, and navigating Medicare.Related StoriesHealth insurer Curative valued at $1.28 billion in fund raiseInsurer's shares plummet as it stands to lose billions
Speed isn't enough - brokers must still lead on coverage quality
Efficiency gains won’t matter if brokers can't deliver better, more competitive coverageTransformationBy Chris DavisDec 03, 2025ShareGetting quotes faster isn't a win if the coverage doesn’t hold up. For Jane Tran (pictured), co-founder and COO of Sixfold, that’s where the industry is missing the point on AI adoption. “Our customers expect us to give them better coverage, more competitive coverage, and more comprehensive coverage,” she said. “Just getting a quote faster - if it’s not better, if it doesn’t fit those three things - it’s actually just not good for coverage, and for your relationships in the long term.” While much of the insurance sector is focused on digitizing for efficiency, Tran cautioned that real value lies elsewhere. For brokers, that means staying aligned with underwriters, who share the same long-term goals. “As brokers are working with different carriers and different underwriters, that's something that is still an open conversation that actually is more aligned than not,” she said. Tran stressed that strong underwriting, trust, and expertise will remain the true differentiators. “With all of this new technology that's coming out, there's always a lot of emphasis on productivity gains, which is great,” she said. “But actually, in five years’ time, that may just be table stakes.” Digital tools won’t replace human skills - they’ll expose the gaps Self-service tools and digital workflows aren’t threats to brokers - they’re a filter. For Tran, the rise of automation will increase the value of human connection, not reduce it. “These self-service tools are great, and they're usually only great for sometimes a small, maybe the mid-market business,” she said. With more catastrophe risk and growing complexity in commercial lines, brokers will need to lean into their strengths - particularly where tech can’t follow. “If you can automate or digitize some of the smaller business so the broker has more capacity to come up with more creative solutions... that’s really great,” Tran said. “In that instance, I do think more of the soft skills, those relationships, are going to be much more important - because those things you can’t automate.” Brokers who understand this shift will benefit from a reallocation of time: less spent on transactional quoting, more on advisory value. The differentiators in the coming years won’t be in how fast you process a quote - but in how well you manage risk, understand nuance, and deliver strategic support to clients who expect more than automation. AI and underwriting: from reactive to strategic Tran sees the greater promise of AI in how it enhances risk qualification and commercial underwriting. While the industry has long dealt with large datasets, its ability to extract insight has lagged behind. “We have a lot more data - for better, for worse, candidly - but we also have the toolsets to understand the noise within that data and how to make better decisions,” she said. As computing power catches up with data volume, insurers can finally move past the grunt work and into real-time portfolio intelligence. Tran pointed to London’s shift toward portfolio-based underwriting as a signal of this trend. “The more that you move - how we use the data, the decisions that we make, and its impact on our broader portfolio - then I think everyone sort of wins within this model,” she said. The challenge will be applying these tools to broader market conditions and emerging risks. Cyber, climate, and intangible exposures are evolving too quickly for traditional actuarial models to keep up. Tran suggested that AI will enable insurers to respond faster and more intelligently to those risks, provided the systems are in place to act on what the data shows. Related StoriesAI and human-in-the-loop: Applied Systems' smarter model for insurance data accuracyGlobal insurers speed to deploy agentic AI at the “core” of their operations
Allstate alleges 17 companies ran $2 million no-fault fraud scheme
Lawsuit alleges five physicians fronted for unlicensed operators across 90 clinicsClaimsBy Tez RomeroNov 21, 2025ShareAllstate has accused 17 shell companies of running a $2 million ultrasound fraud ring through New York's no-fault system.A sprawling insurance fraud network allegedly used fake medical corporations and sham ultrasound clinics to submit fraudulent claims to Allstate, according to a lawsuit filed November 19 in federal court in New York's Eastern District.The case alleges that unlicensed operators recruited five physicians to front what looked like legitimate medical practices while secretly running a coordinated scheme to submit bogus claims for diagnostic ultrasounds that patients rarely needed - or sometimes never received.Are you an insurance innovator? Tell us — we want to hear your storyHere's how it allegedly worked: The operation set up 17 separate companies that appeared independent but functioned as one machine. Eleven "technical" entities, owned by unlicensed individuals, would show up at no-fault clinics across the New York metro area and perform ultrasounds. Six "professional" corporations, with licensed doctors listed as owners, would bill separately for interpreting those same scans.This dual-billing approach - known in the industry as a PC/TC split - let the network charge twice for every procedure. The technical side billed for performing the ultrasound, while the professional side billed for reading it. Allstate says the defendants submitted more than $2 million in claims through this arrangement.The lawsuit paints a picture of an operation designed to look legitimate on paper while violating nearly every rule in New York's no-fault playbook. The professional corporations were supposedly owned by physicians, as state law requires, but Allstate alleges the real control stayed with unlicensed businesspeople who masterminded the scheme.Those same physicians - board-certified in fields like gastroenterology and physical rehabilitation - were allegedly rubber-stamping ultrasound interpretations despite having no training in radiology. One doctor listed in the filing is a gastroenterologist who lives in Maryland and works at a practice in Pennsylvania, yet somehow was interpreting ultrasounds for New York accident victims.Patients allegedly came through kickback deals with no-fault clinics scattered across 90 locations in the region. Many received spinal ultrasounds, a test Allstate says is rarely indicated for the soft-tissue injuries typical in car accidents and isn't part of standard treatment protocols.The fraud allegedly relied on mailing claims to insurers, which triggered federal mail fraud charges and opened the door to RICO claims - the racketeering law typically reserved for organized crime. More than 1,000 fraudulent claims went through the mail, according to the filing.Two of the physicians named had been sued before. GEICO sued one in 2024 for allegedly running a similar scheme, and another faced GEICO allegations in 2025 over nearly identical conduct.Allstate is seeking to recover more than $982,000 in damages, which could triple under RICO's penalty provisions. The insurer also wants a court declaration that the defendants can't collect on any pending bills.The allegations remain untested in court, and no final determination has been made. This is yet another headache for an industry already grappling with organized fraud rings bleeding millions from the system.Related StoriesAllstate alleges nine DME firms ran $679k fraud schemeAllstate hits Houston clinics with RICO suit over alleged $1.4m fraud
Widow defeats insurer's bid to block $9 million settlement
A widow's fight over insurance approval reveals a major shift in how courts are limiting carrier power over worker death settlementsLegal InsightsBy Matthew SellersNov 24, 2025ShareWhen Sally Rorapaugh settled her late husband's wrongful death lawsuit for $9 million, she thought the matter was closed. Instead, she faced an unexpected battle: his employer's insurance carrier demanded a cut and threatened to stop her benefits entirely. A New York appellate court has now ruled decisively in her favor, establishing clearer boundaries for when insurance carriers can block such settlements. In July 2019, Rorapaugh's spouse was killed in a motor vehicle accident while working. Rorapaugh filed for workers' compensation benefits that August and, a year later, sued the other driver and vehicle owner in federal court in the Northern District of New York. By February 2021, the parties reached a settlement and filed a dismissal agreement. Are you an insurance innovator? Tell us — we want to hear your storyWhen the employer and its workers' compensation carrier learned of the deal in August 2021, they took aggressive action. The carrier insisted it had never consented to the settlement and demanded that Rorapaugh's weekly benefits be stopped entirely, invoking Workers' Compensation Law § 29. Under the statute, a carrier must consent to any third-party settlement unless the settlement amount exceeds the total statutory compensation benefits the claimant would receive over their lifetime. At issue was a straightforward calculation: Did Rorapaugh's $9 million settlement (with a net recovery of approximately $5.9 million after legal expenses) exceed her lifetime workers' compensation benefits? A Workers' Compensation Law Judge found it did. Using credible evidence of Rorapaugh's age and life expectancy, the judge calculated that her lifetime workers' compensation benefits would total roughly $1.2 million. Since her settlement vastly exceeded that figure, the carrier's consent was unnecessary. The Workers' Compensation Board upheld this decision on appeal and awarded Rorapaugh an additional $113,631.55 in "fresh money" after deducting the carrier's proper share of litigation expenses. The appellate court upheld the Board's central holding. Under Workers' Compensation Law § 29(5), carrier consent is required only "if the settlement is for less than the statutory amount of compensation benefits." Because Rorapaugh's recovery so dramatically exceeded her projected lifetime benefits, consent was unnecessary. However, the court reversed the Board's $113,631.55 award. The court determined that the Workers' Compensation Board lacks jurisdiction to apportion litigation expenses. Instead, under Workers' Compensation Law § 29(1), the equitable apportionment of expenses must be handled by the court in which the third-party action was instituted – the US District Court for the Northern District of New York. Rorapaugh cannot use the Workers' Compensation Board process to resolve this dispute and must return to federal court. This creates a significant procedural barrier for claimants who settle third-party actions without carrier consent. While they gain the right to settle without approval if the recovery exceeds lifetime benefits, they lose access to the Workers' Compensation Board's administrative forum for resolving expense disputes. For claimants, the ruling clarifies that carriers cannot block settlements when the recovery substantially exceeds lifetime benefits. For carriers, the ruling narrows – but does not eliminate – their power. They retain lien rights and the ability to offset future benefits, but cannot use consent requirements as leverage against substantial recoveries. Related StoriesInsurer sanctioned for forcing workers' comp case after claim dismissedAppeals court clears Penn National of liability in $29 million case
Insurance moves: AXIS and SageSure
They include a new sales chief and head of delegated strategyInsurance NewsBy Josh RecamaraDec 02, 2025ShareThe insurance sector is seeing targeted leadership moves as companies position themselves for growth in the delegated authority and specialty markets. AXIS Capital Holdings and SageSure have both announced senior appointments to drive underwriting, distribution, and producer engagement strategies.AXIS appoints head of delegated strategyAXIS Capital Holdings Limited has named Lewis Edwards (pictured, left) as head of delegated strategy, global markets, in a newly created role, effective Dec. 1. Based in London, Edwards will report to Sara Farrup, head of global markets. He joins from Liberty Specialty Markets, where he led the Delegated Authority Practice, and brings prior experience from Allianz Corporate & Specialty, AIG, and Heath Lambert.Edwards will oversee AXIS’s portfolios of coverholder and managing general agent (MGA) business, developing binding authorities with carefully selected brokers and partners to complement the company’s open market underwriting strategy. The appointment is aimed at strengthening AXIS’s position in the specialty insurance market and supporting long-term growth.SageSure names chief sales officerSageSure, a US-focused MGA specializing in catastrophe-exposed markets, has appointed John Sence (pictured, right) as chief sales officer.Sence, formerly vice president of personal lines national sales at Cincinnati Insurance Companies, brings extensive experience in both agency operations and carrier leadership.In his new role, Sence will lead sales strategy, distribution expansion, and high-impact producer engagement, supporting SageSure’s investments in system enhancements, new earthquake and wildfire capabilities, and mass-affluent market growth. He is expected to help scale SageSure’s inforce premium from $3 billion while enhancing collaboration with distribution partners.Related StoriesInsurance moves: AXA XL, Arch Insurance, Prudential Financial, W. R. Berkley, Lincoln FinancialSageSure to acquire Olympus MGA in major Florida expansion
Homeowners' insurance outlook stable
New data reveals what's reshaping conditions for carriersInsurance NewsBy Jonalyn CuetoDec 01, 2025ShareAM Best has revised its market segment outlook for the United States homeowners’ insurance segment to stable from negative. The change follows moderating premium growth, enhanced catastrophe risk management practices, and improved conditions in the property reinsurance market, according to the Best’s Market Segment Report, “Market Segment Outlook: US Homeowners.”The firm reported that the segment remained resilient despite elevated catastrophe losses in the first half of 2025. The third quarter showed a notable reduction in severe events, with a quiet period for land-falling hurricanes. Demand for homeowners’ coverage continued to increase as claim activity rose due to extreme weather patterns and broad economic and political uncertainty. Premium growth stayed robust but slowed compared with the prior year. Rate activity and expanded coverage needs were the main contributors, according to AM Best.“Better performers within the homeowners’ insurance space maintain solid risk-adjusted capitalization with sufficient liquidity. However, the capital cushion has eroded for some carriers in high-risk areas due to material operating losses driven by severe events, most recently from the January wildfires in California and severe tornado outbreaks across the country in the first half of the year,” said Maurice Thomas, senior financial analyst, AM Best.Rate actions remained a priority for carriers as they sought adequate pricing amid inflationary pressures and macroeconomic factors. Material rate increases and higher inflation guard factors supported premium growth. Insurers also advanced their use of technology to refine risk selection and improve loss mitigation.The report noted that insurers continued to face higher homebuilding and construction costs, which elevated loss expenses. Tariff-related uncertainty added pressure to construction and repair costs, though no significant effects from tariffs had been reported. Ongoing volatility and market strain contributed to increased interest in merger and acquisition activity, especially for distressed companies.Moderate softening in property catastrophe reinsurance rates appeared in 2025. “January 2026 renewals are expected to see further stabilization or minor price shifts, though less comparative relief is expected for primary carriers operating in catastrophe-prone states,” said Thomas. “Overall, the improving reinsurance dynamics in 2025 helped to alleviate pressures in the homeowners’ segment, fostering its resilience. Nevertheless, the segment remains inherently exposed to the effects of weather-related operating volatility.”Related StoriesExcessive lawsuits driving up insurance premiums for US policyholdersFarmers lifts homeowners' insurance cap in California
Obsidian boosts capital as it eyes further growth
Expansion plans are driving Obsidian's business toward a premium milestoneInsurance NewsBy Insurance BusinessNov 21, 2025ShareObsidian Insurance Holdings, Inc. is expanding its financial capacity to support rapid growth, increasing surplus across its writing companies through a senior notes issuance and additional shareholder investment. The capital boost comes as Obsidian, the parent company of Obsidian Specialty Insurance Company, Obsidian Insurance Company, and Obsidian Pacific Insurance Company, prepares for a third consecutive year of over 50% premium growth. The company expects total gross written premium in 2025 to surpass $1 billion. Are you an insurance innovator? Tell us — we want to hear your storyStrategic capital raise strengthens foundation Obsidian issued $40 million in 8% senior unsecured notes due November 15, 2030, rated “BBB-” by Kroll Bond Rating Agency, alongside $30 million from existing equity holders, including Genstar Capital. With this infusion, the company’s group capital and surplus now stands at $131.65 million. Obsidian’s growth has been fueled by both established partnerships and newly onboarded programs, supported by diverse panel of more than 200 reinsurers. Obsidian CEO William Jewett highlighted how the company has evolved since its founding five and a half years ago. “Obsidian has become a leading program carrier with a keen focus on underwriting profitability, operational excellence, and the establishment of strong and enduring relationships with our MGA and reinsurer partners,” he said. “This additional capital will fuel, and support continued profitable growth in the years ahead. We are very appreciative of all our partners and stakeholders that have contributed to our success.” For Obsidian president Craig Rappaport, investor confidence is a crucial part of the company’s narrative. “Our strong support from investors has validated the Obsidian story and the exceptional differentiated business our team has built,” he said. “We see significant opportunities in the market to continue Obsidian's robust growth and performance and look forward to working with our partners to execute our strategy over the next several years." Related StoriesObsidian snaps up Western HomeObsidian taps new chief underwriting officer
Marsh McLennan Agency acquires Hawaii brokerage trio
Deal adds Atlas, Pyramid, and IC International to the national broker's footprintInsurance NewsBy Insurance BusinessDec 02, 2025ShareMarsh McLennan Agency (MMA) has officially announced the acquisition of three privately-owned insurance brokerages based in Honolulu, Hawaii.The transaction involves purchasing the firms from Tradewind Group, an investment company with deep roots in the region.The strategic deal encompasses Atlas Insurance Agency, Pyramid Insurance Centre, and IC International. Collectively, these three agencies represent a leading brokerage presence across the state of Hawaii and provide comprehensive insurance solutions to both businesses and individuals throughout the islands. The firms also bring niche industry specializations to MMA, including expertise in the municipality, transportation, and hospitality sectors.Terms of the acquisition were not disclosed by either party involved in the transaction.MMA confirmed that employees from all three firms will join the agency as part of the transition.The teams will also continue to operate out of their existing office locations to maintain stability for clients.Marsh McLennan Agency West region president and CEO Chris Williams framed the deal as a commitment to the state's resilient economy."We recognize that the Hawai‘i business community is built on relationships and respect. This transaction represents a long-term investment in a market with strong fundamentals, diversified industries, and a resilient economy,” he said.“With our resources and network, paired with the brokerages’ local insights, we see meaningful opportunities to expand the services available to clients across the islands."Viewing the deal as a catalyst for future development, Atlas Insurance Agency president Chason Ishii noted the benefits for both clients and staff."This transition was a thoughtful and strategic decision that will ultimately provide our clients with expanded insurance solutions and our team new opportunities for growth."Pyramid Insurance Centre president Scott Higashi emphasized that the partnership honors their local roots while providing global reach."MMA’s deep respect for our local expertise and community connection, combined with their access to global resources, will strengthen our teams’ ability to meet the evolving needs of the families and businesses that make us who we are."Explaining the decision to divest, Tradewind Group CEO Rob Nobriga noted that the move allows the investment firm to redirect its focus."Separating our brokerages from our carrier operation gives each the freedom to grow and better serve Hawai‘i, while allowing us to invest more deeply in local talent, businesses, and real estate projects where we can make the greatest impact,” he said.Nobriga added that finding the right cultural fit was paramount during the sale process."As we explored options for a new home for our brokerage businesses, we were deliberate in choosing an organization committed to stability and deeply valuing the Hawai‘i community,” he said.“By maintaining local operations and relationships, we look forward to the continued positive impact these teams will achieve as part of MMA."Related StoriesMarsh McLennan Agency expands in Tennessee
Ryan Specialty expands US offerings with public sector MGU
Chris Connacher was tapped to lead the new divisionInsurance NewsBy Josh RecamaraDec 04, 2025ShareRyan Specialty Underwriting Managers (RSUM), the underwriting management division of Ryan Specialty, has launched a new MGU focused on the public sector. Called Ryan Specialty Public Entity, the MGU will provide casualty and auto physical damage coverage to publicly owned, tax-funded entities across the US, on both insurance and reinsurance bases. Bespoke solutions for public entitiesRyan Specialty Public Entity offers coverage for single and group tax-funded organizations, including cities, counties, municipalities, special districts, state and local governments, among others. The MGU is designed to address a dislocated market through underwriting expertise, innovation and responsiveness.Chris Connacher has been appointed president of Ryan Specialty Public Entity. He brings extensive public entity underwriting experience to the team, focusing on flexible and stable coverage solutions for municipalities, educational institutions and other public organizations.Miles Wuller, CEO of RSUM, said the public entity insurance market has become increasingly challenged and underserved, adding that Ryan Specialty Public Entity is well-positioned to fill this gap. Connacher noted that joining RSUM provides centralized technical support, allowing the team to respond effectively to the difficulties public organizations face in securing appropriate coverage.Strengthening US financial lines capabilitiesThe launch builds on RSUM’s recent expansion in the professional liability space.RSUM recently rebranded its North American Professional Liability (NAPL) team as Ryan Financial Lines. The team underwrites professional service businesses across the US, including law firms, accounting firms and others. Supported by a global A+ rated carrier, Ryan Financial Lines offers both primary and excess layer coverage, strengthening RSUM’s international portfolio and providing high-quality solutions across the professional liability spectrum.Related StoriesAmwins expands into credit insurance
'Cyber security is no longer just an IT issue': QBE urges cross-functional cyber prep
60% of employees believe they’ve never made a cyber mistake at workCyberBy Emily DouglasDec 04, 2025ShareThis article was created in partnership with QBE.A recent report from QBE found that cyber risk in the workplace is shaped by employee behaviour, not just by technology. According to the report, 60% of employees believe they’ve never made a cyber mistake at work, with 86% adding that they feel confident in their ability to spot cyber threats, despite the reality that many breaches go unnoticed. In today’s digital economy, cyber risk isn’t just an IT problem - it’s a major boardroom issue with organization-wide implications. Speaking to Insurance Business, Ian Walsh, Vice President and US Cyber Product Leader at QBE North America, agreed by emphasizing that it’s high time businesses prioritize cyber security as a company-wide concern.“As organizations increasingly depend on technology, a single cyber incident can quickly escalate into a full-scale crisis,” he explained. “It can lead to significant financial and reputational loss. Organizations should take an enterprise-wide approach in assessing cyber risks and mitigating exposures to enhance cyber resilience.”The reason is simple - the interconnected nature of modern business operations means a breach in one area can rapidly cascade into multiple points of failure. This perspective is shaping how QBE approaches cyber insurance and risk management; Walsh was quick to debunk an all-too common misunderstanding here.“A common misconception is that cyber insurance fails to address major risks. In reality, the product has evolved significantly over the years to cover a broad spectrum of exposures, including security incidents, data breaches, unintentional outages or system failures, social engineering attacks, and reputational damage, among others.”Many still underestimate the diversity of threats which fall under the cyber umbrella. The modern threat landscape is not just about hackers breaking into systems; it also includes employee error, insider threats, third-party failures, and public relations fallout. And a key part of managing these risks lies in cross-functional cooperation.“Defining roles for cyber incidents is essential,” added Walsh. “Each department should have an assigned point of contact prepared to respond internally and externally to a cyber incident. An incident response plan and regular tabletop exercises are critical to ensuring an organization is prepared for an unexpected cyber-related event.”Employee training is another frontline defense and why the human element is increasingly central to QBE’s underwriting conversations.“One click can lead to a significant cyber incident and financial loss. We need to make sure we are asking organizations questions about the cyber awareness education and training they are providing to their employees.”Threat actors are becoming increasingly sophisticated, particularly through social engineering and phishing attacks. Walsh emphasized that employee training works, and the strongest defense is a workforce equipped with robust cyber awareness skills. Employees must not only recognize malicious links or attachments but also understand the broader tactics used by cybercriminals, such as urgency scams and impersonation schemes.Preparation now must include employee awareness of emerging risks, especially as technology evolves. Artificial intelligence, in particular, is introducing new vulnerabilities and regulatory concerns.“With the advances in artificial intelligence, organizations must educate employees on emerging threats such as deepfakes,” Walsh explained. “Organizations should also monitor AI regulatory changes to address any potential compliance issues.” For business leaders, the key takeaway is integration - cyber risk management must be embedded across functions, disciplines, and strategic planning. That means mapping potential risk scenarios, understanding how they could impact the organization, and ensuring proper coverage exists.“Once you have assessed your organization’s risk landscape,” Walsh added, “you should work with your insurance partners to understand how your insurance program would respond and if you have affirmative coverage for these risk scenarios.”QBE makes no warranty, representation, or guarantee regarding the information herein or the suitability of these suggestions or information for any particular purpose. QBE hereby disclaims any and all liability concerning the information contained herein and the suggestions herein made. Moreover, it cannot be assumed that every acceptable risk transfer procedure is contained herein or that unusual or abnormal circumstances may not warrant or require further or additional risk transfer policies and/or procedures. The use of any of the information or suggestions described herein does not amend, modify, or supplement any insurance policy. Consult the actual policy or your agent for details about your coverage. QBE and the links logo are registered service marks of QBE Insurance Group Limited. © 2025 QBE Holdings, Inc.
US severe storm losses set new benchmark as insurers turn to advanced modeling
The storms are establishing a "new normal" for extreme weather lossesCatastrophe & FloodBy Josh RecamaraNov 23, 2025ShareInsured losses from US severe convective storms (SCS) had already reached $42 billion through September 2025, with average per-event costs 31% higher than the previous decade, according to Moody's analysis. The frequency and intensity of these storms are establishing a "new normal" for extreme weather losses, according to the note.Severe convective storms are among the most frequent and costly natural catastrophes in the US. Since 2020, SCS losses have outpaced those from hurricanes, prompting insurers to reconsider how they quantify and manage this escalating exposure.Are you an insurance innovator? Tell us — we want to hear your storyThe leading threat to insurers' balance sheetsInsurance executives view SCS as a top issue for their balance sheets. A summer 2025 survey conducted by reinsurance MGA Demex, among American Property Casualty Insurance Association (APCIA) members, with input from National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies (NAMIC) attendees, ranked SCS highest in potential impact on annual earnings after reinsurance recoveries. Fire (excluding wildfire), hurricanes and tropical storms, wildfire, and flood followed. Eighty-seven per cent (87%) of respondents expressed significant or some concern over future SCS losses, highlighting the ongoing threat to insurers’ financial stability.The survey found that traditional reinsurance remains insurers' primary risk transfer tool, but many are exploring additional solutions. Sixty-three per cent (63%) of APCIA respondents said they would, or might, purchase aggregate working-layer coverage if available, while 49% of NAMIC respondents were investigating similar options.Moody’s and other observers noted that high attachment points in reinsurer contracts leave primary insurers exposed to substantial losses from frequent SCS events if relying solely on conventional coverage.Rising risk factorsBetween January and September 2025, the US experienced 39 SCS events, with average insured losses exceeding $1 billion per event. Growth in urban and suburban development – which has increased by 20% since 2000 – amplifies exposure, creating larger “bullseyes” for storm damage. Additional factors such as rising material costs and social inflation further exacerbate claims severity.According to Moody's, SCS events are highly localized and frequent, and historical data is often inconsistent, making traditional modeling approaches unreliable. Without robust models, insurers have often reduced coverage, limited risk transfer capacity, and raised premiums in exposed regions.What makes SCS unique - and challenging for insurersSevere convective storms include a range of weather phenomena such as tornadoes, hailstorms, straight-line winds, and derechos. Unlike hurricanes, which typically impact broad regions with advance warning, SCS events are often highly localized and can develop rapidly, sometimes with little notice. This unpredictability makes it difficult for insurers to model risk and price policies accurately.The US Midwest and Southeast are particularly prone to SCS activity, but recent years have seen significant events in regions not historically considered high risk. The 2023 and 2024 storm seasons saw record-breaking hail events in Texas and Colorado, as well as destructive tornado outbreaks in the Great Plains and Ohio Valley.SCS losses are also influenced by the increasing value and density of property in affected areas. As suburban sprawl continues and more high-value assets are concentrated in storm-prone regions, the potential for large, multi-billion-dollar loss events grows. Additionally, the prevalence of older, less resilient building stock in some communities can drive up claims costs when storms strike.Industry response and outlookIn response to the mounting threat, insurers and reinsurers are investing in advanced analytics, catastrophe modeling, and risk engineering to better understand and manage SCS exposures. Some are also working with policyholders to promote loss mitigation measures, such as impact-resistant roofing and improved building codes.Despite these efforts, the consensus among industry experts is that SCS will remain a leading source of insured losses in the US for the foreseeable future. As the frequency and severity of these storms continue to rise, insurers will need to adapt their risk management strategies, pricing, and product offerings to maintain resilience and protect policyholders.Related Stories'Multiple cycles' mark new era for global reinsuranceFCA appoints Sarah Pritchard as first deputy chief executive
Rising pet health costs drive growth and innovation in insurance market
Accident claims this year focused on lameness, fractures, as well as eye injuries and dental issuesInsurance NewsBy Josh RecamaraDec 01, 2025SharePet health costs continue to rise, with varying factors such as breed, age, regional veterinary cost variations and workplace adoption shaping underwriting and pricing strategies.Spot Pet Insurance's 2025 Wrapped report, based on hundreds of thousands of claims, highlighted key patterns in pet injuries and illnesses, as well as cost variations across breeds, states and types of care.Insurance claims trends in 2025According to the report, accident claims remained focused on lameness, fractures, eye injuries and dental issues, while illness claims were dominated by stomach problems, allergies, urinary and reproductive disorders, skin conditions and respiratory issues. The average claim cost increased to $456, reflecting rising veterinary expenses.Notably, some claims reached as high as $34,917 for illnesses and $16,390 for accidents, underscoring the importance of comprehensive coverage, according to the report.Preventative procedures, such as microchip implantation, were also a growing area of claims, with over 12,600 policyholders submitting requests in 2025. The report also noted a drop in the average age of pets at enrollment from 3.6 years in 2024 to 3.2 years in 2025. Early enrollment benefits insurers by expanding lifetime policy value and engaging owners before costly claims arise. Encouraging coverage at a younger age can improve risk pools and reduce overall claims volatility, according to the report.State and breed risk considerationsInsurance premiums are increasingly influenced by state-level veterinary costs and breed-specific risk factors. States like Idaho saw average claim costs rise by 20%, while Texas experienced a 24% decrease.For insurers, adjusting underwriting and pricing to reflect these regional differences is critical. Similarly, high-risk breeds - including Wetter Hounds, Schiller Hounds, and Pulis - command higher premiums, while lower-risk breeds such as Olde Boston Bulldogge and Entlebucher Mountain Dogs allow for more competitive pricing.Workplace pet insurance and customer experienceA major trend in 2025 was the 57% increase in companies offering pet insurance as an employee benefit. This presents insurers with a growing distribution channel and a way to spread risk across larger pools while attracting new csustomers. Workplace plans also support brand loyalty and can reduce acquisition costs for individual policies, the report said.On claims processing, Spot Pet said its processing averaged three days, with automated wellness claims completed 1.5 days. For insurers, efficient and transparent claims handling strengthens trust, encourages renewals, and can help manage claim severity.Opportunities for insurersInsurers can expand coverage to include routine care, preventative procedures, and wellness benefits, reflecting the evolving needs of pet owners.Digital platforms, AI-driven analytics, and personalized policy guidance provide further opportunities to differentiate offerings and improve customer engagement. Clear communication and education about coverage options also enhance adoption and help policyholders make informed choices, the report said.Related StoriesFlorida lawmakers push for greater transparency in pet insuranceShutdown risks leaving millions with costlier health insurance
Global trade fragmentation set to affect insurance costs and coverage, report finds
Insurers urged to adapt their strategiesInsurance NewsBy Josh RecamaraDec 03, 2025ShareThe US effective tariff rate of 15% could reduce global property and casualty (P&C) premium growth by 0.7 percentage points and life premium growth by 1.2 percentage points between 2025 and 2027, compared with 2024 levels, an analysis shows. Brokerslink's report, produced by the Swiss Re Institute, highlights the insurance implications of rising trade tensions and geoeconomic fragmentation.Claims impact in the USTariffs are expected to raise import prices for non-exempt goods, including commodities and intermediate goods, which feed into local supply chains. Higher inflation will increase claims severity as insured assets become more expensive to repair or replace.Swiss Re Institute forecast a 2.4-percentage-point rise in P&C claim payouts in the US between 2025 and 2027. Property claims are projected to rise by roughly 8.9% and motor physical/own-damage claims by over seven percentage points due to higher vehicle and spare part costs. Lines covering services (D&O, C&S) and income compensation (motor/general liability) are likely less affected, while the impact on health insurance remains uncertain, though skewed toward adverse outcomes.Claims impact in the rest of the worldOutside the US, absent significant retaliation, tariffs are expected to have limited direct impact on inflation and claims severity.Some countries may even experience disinflation due to currency appreciation against the US dollar, a global economic slowdown, and partial re-routing of trade to cheaper sources. Country-specific factors, however, will still drive claims trends.In Germany, for instance, large fiscal spending is projected to boost construction activity, raising construction costs and resulting in an estimated 1.2-percentage-point impact on property claims payout growth between 2025 and 2027. Construction cost inflation in Germany is also expected to remain above headline CPI, keeping property insurance claims elevated.Long-term implications and growth opportunitiesRising geoeconomic fragmentation could limit international risk diversification, push up insurance costs, and make peak risks harder to insure. Reduced global cooperation on climate, pandemic, and cyber risks may widen protection gaps, leaving insurers and clients with higher exposures.Meanwhile, heightened uncertainty is increasing demand for protection, particularly in cyber, which is forecast for double-digit growth amid growing digital exposure and AI adoption. Re-industrialization and the energy transition are expected to generate additional demand for commercial and specialty insurance solutions.José Manuel Fonseca (pictured), Brokerslink president and CEO, said the findings underline the need for insurers and brokers to adapt risk strategies, price products appropriately, and capitalize on emerging opportunities in an increasingly fractured global market.Related StoriesBrokerslink adds Drivento and HWF to boost global expertiseBrokerslink, RIMS announce major collaboration
Frankenmuth blocks appraisal its own policy explicitly allows, policyholders sue
Policy allows appraisal even after claim denial - insurer blocks it anywayLegal InsightsBy Tez RomeroNov 21, 2025ShareA Michigan insurer is facing a lawsuit after refusing to let policyholders appraise their storm damage claim, despite policy language explicitly allowing appraisal even when coverage is denied.Frankenmuth Insurance Company denied hail damage claims from two Illinois property owners following the April 4, 2023 storm that hit the Chicago area. But when the policyholders invoked their right to appraisal, the insurer said no, according to a federal lawsuit filed November 18 in the Northern District of Illinois.The dispute centers on a commercial building at 516 N. York Rd. in Bensenville, where owners Satori Properties and Cordoba Properties say the storm damaged the roof, metal siding, and other exterior components. They reported the loss in August 2024, more than a year after the storm hit.Are you an insurance innovator? Tell us — we want to hear your storyFrankenmuth acknowledged the building had damage but denied the claim anyway, telling the owners in December 2024 that the hail damage happened more than two years before the April 2023 storm. Ten months later, the insurer issued a second denial, this time citing late notice for damage to the exterior cladding.That's when things got contentious. The property owners demanded appraisal in July 2025, a standard mechanism in property policies to resolve disputes over loss amounts. Frankenmuth rejected the request in August, telling them appraisal only applies to repairs the insurer has already determined are covered.But the policy itself tells a different story. The appraisal clause says either party can demand appraisal when they disagree on the value of property or the amount of loss. More significantly, it includes this line: "If there is an appraisal, we will still retain our right to deny the claim."That language appears to allow appraisal even when an insurer hasn't accepted coverage, directly contradicting Frankenmuth's position. The case also comes on the heels of fresh Illinois court rulings that side with policyholders on this issue.Earlier this year, the Illinois Court of Appeals ruled in Zhao v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. that disputes about whether covered damage exists are appraisable issues of loss. The court also said late notice defenses don't eliminate an insured's right to demand appraisal.The property owners are now asking a federal judge to compel Frankenmuth to proceed with appraisal. They're also seeking damages for breach of contract and penalties under Illinois law for bad faith claim handling.Illinois statute 215 ILCS 5/155 allows judges to award either 60% of the amount owed under a policy or $60,000, whichever is greater, when insurers engage in vexatious and unreasonable conduct. The statute also provides for attorney's fees and costs.The lawsuit alleges Frankenmuth misrepresented legal standards by falsely telling the policyholders that appraisal only applies to covered repairs, despite multiple court decisions saying otherwise. It also accuses the insurer of failing to conduct a proper investigation and refusing to settle a claim where liability was reasonably clear.No determination has been made on the allegations.Related StoriesAllstate rejects $332k appraisal award after accepting hail damage claim processIllinois appellate court compels State Farm to honor appraisal clause in hail damage dispute
Crawford & Company names CFO as interim chief executive
Move comes shortly after firm reports strong Q3 financialsInsurance NewsBy Kenneth AraulloNov 24, 2025ShareCrawford & Company has announced that W. Bruce Swain, Jr. (pictured above), will become interim president and chief executive officer effective January 1, 2026.Swain's appointment follows Rohit Verma's decision to leave the position at the end of 2025 to pursue other interests.Swain currently serves as chief financial officer and has spent more than 30 years with the company. He will join the Crawford board of directors upon taking the top role.Are you an insurance innovator? Tell us — we want to hear your storyHolly Boudreau will replace Swain as chief financial officer starting January 1, 2026. Boudreau joined Crawford in 2013 and currently serves as senior vice president of Tax, Treasury and Finance Transformation. She is a certified public accountant and previously worked as a tax director at PricewaterhouseCoopers.Read more:Crawford sees higher earnings in Q3His appointment comes as Crawford demonstrates strong operational momentum. The company reported a 31% surge in net income attributable to shareholders in the third quarter ending September 30, with the North America loss adjusting segment increasing operating earnings to $6.9 million from $5.4 million in the prior-year period."Bruce's appointment as interim president & CEO reflects the board's utmost confidence in his proven leadership and deep understanding of Crawford's business," non-executive board chair Jesse C. Crawford, Jr. said.Read next:Crawford names new global data protection officerVerma joined Crawford in 2017 and assumed the CEO position in May 2020. “Leading Crawford has been the honor of my career, not just for what we achieved, but for the people I had the privilege to work alongside,” Verma said."I'm honored by the board's confidence in the management team and me and am excited to lead Crawford into its next chapter," Swain said.Related StoriesCrawford sees higher earnings in Q3Crawford names new global data protection officer
Black Sea tanker strikes push war-risk premiums higher as underwriters reassess exposure
Drone strikes on Russian-bound tankers drive Black Sea war-risk premiums sharply higherInsurance NewsBy Chris DavisDec 01, 2025ShareWar risk premiums for shipping through the Black Sea have ticked higher after Ukrainian naval drones struck two tankers bound for a Russian port, prompting underwriters to reprice the threat environment and charterers to brace for further volatility, market sources say.War cover repriced after fresh strikesAccording to shipping and insurance market participants, additional war risk premiums for a standard seven-day voyage to Ukrainian ports have moved up to about 0.5% of a vessel’s value, from roughly 0.4% a little over a week ago.Rates for trips into Russian Black Sea ports – traditionally priced higher than those for Ukrainian calls – are now being quoted in a range of around 0.65% to 0.8%, compared with close to 0.6% last week, the same sources said.The latest repricing reflects growing concern that the weekend’s tanker attacks could signal a more sustained campaign, adding to already elevated risk perceptions around Russian-origin cargoes and Black Sea routes.Details of the tanker incidentsThe two tankers (link ) Two oil tankers ablaze after ‘external impact' | Insurance Business targeted by Ukrainian naval drones were under Western sanctions and were sailing in ballast toward Novorossiysk, a key Russian Black Sea oil export hub, when they were hit, an official from Ukraine’s Security Service (SBU)One of the vessels, identified as the Mersin tanker, had previously called at a Russian port, according to maritime security sources. Their preliminary assessment is that the ship was struck using limpet-type devices, mirroring tactics seen in earlier attacks this year that have not been formally acknowledged by Ukraine.Underwriters weigh shifting risk profileFor marine insurers and brokers, the strikes highlights how the Black Sea remains a fluid and politically sensitive risk zone, with pricing moving in step with perceptions of both capability and intent to disrupt trade.Munro Anderson, head of operations at Vessel Protect – a specialist in marine war risk cover and part of Pen Underwriting told Reuters– " the pattern of incidents suggests a broader strategy by Ukraine to squeeze Moscow’s energy revenues. That approach is now feeding directly into how underwriters are modeling exposures"He said the recent attacks are shaping the market’s view of Russia-focused traffic, with underwriters reassessing both the likelihood and potential severity of further disruptions to oil flows and related shipping activity.Implications for brokers, shipowners and cargo interestsFor brokers and their shipping and commodity clients, the move in war risk rates tightens already challenging economics on Black Sea routes. Operators must now weigh higher cover costs (link Data-driven seas: Behind the strategic pivot towards data-driven underwriting in marine insurance | Insurance Business_ against alternative options such as rerouting or delaying voyages – with knock-on implications for freight, charterparty negotiations and cargo supply chains.While capacity remains available for now, market participants will be watching closely to see whether any further escalation triggers more pronounced rate hikes, tighter terms, or a shift in appetite among specialist war risk underwriters..main_content .h1,.main_content h1{font-size:32px}.main_content .h2,.main_content h2{font-size:24px}.main_content .h3,.main_content h3{font-size:18px}.main_content .h4,.main_content h4{font-size:16px}Related StoriesData-driven seas: Behind the strategic pivot towards data-driven underwriting in marine insuranceTwo oil tankers ablaze after ‘external impact'
APCIA supports bill to limit foreign influence in US litigation
Foreign-backed litigation can increase exposures and drive up claims costsInsurance NewsBy Josh RecamaraNov 23, 2025ShareThe American Property Casualty Insurance Association (APCIA) has expressed strong support for the Protecting Our Courts from Foreign Manipulation Act, introduced by Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) (pictured, left).The legislation is aimed at safeguarding the integrity of the US civil justice system and protecting national security, as the House companion bill, or H.R. 2675, sponsored by Rep. Ben Cline (R-Va.) (pictured, right), recently advanced out of the House Judiciary Committee.Third-party litigation funding (TPLF) has evolved into a multi-billion-dollar industry that often operates without transparency. Foreign entities, including governments and sovereign wealth funds, can finance lawsuits in US courts, creating potential risks for national security, intellectual property and civil justice fairness. Are you an insurance innovator? Tell us — we want to hear your storyFor insurers, these arrangements carry specific implications. Foreign-backed litigation can increase liability exposures, drive up claims costs, and introduce legal uncertainty, affecting both underwriting and risk management practices. Insurers could face unexpected claims from complex, high-value lawsuits, potentially impacting loss ratios, reinsurance arrangements, and the pricing of policies.The proposed legislation would prohibit foreign governments and sovereign wealth funds from financing US litigation. It would also require disclosure of foreign funding sources and litigation agreements to both courts and the Department of Justice, while mandating oversight and reporting by the DOJ's National Security Division to track foreign involvement in civil cases.Sam Whitfield, APCIA’s senior vice president of federal government relations and political engagement, stated that foreign-backed litigation represents a clear and present risk not only to national security and economic stability but also to insurers, who may be forced to absorb unforeseen liabilities or defend against unpredictable legal claims. Whitfield emphasized that swift passage of the reforms is necessary to protect consumers, insurers, and the broader financial system.APCIA, as the primary national trade association representing home, auto, and business insurers, promotes private competition and a stable insurance marketplace.With TPLF growth showing no signs of slowing, APCIA’s backing of the bill highlights the insurance sector’s interest in ensuring a fair, transparent, and secure legal environment, directly influencing the stability and resilience of the US insurance market.Related StoriesChatbots spark new front in cyber litigationPredictive tool designed to flag claims litigation risks
AI isn't just cutting costs - it's rewriting the insurance playbook
AI is reshaping insurance - from pricing and fraud detection to customer clarity - ushering in a new era where trust becomes the industry's most valuable assetTransformationBy Chris DavisDec 03, 2025ShareAI is doing more than automating tasks in insurance - it’s changing how insurers calculate premiums, explain coverage, and detect fraud. And according to José Luis Bernal (pictured), chief digital, data and innovation officer at MAPFRE USA, the biggest impact may be trust. “AI is bringing much more predictive predictability into the premiums,” Bernal said. “It can be done much more accurately and, with a new technology, much more firm and being explainable to the end customer.” For years, customers struggled to understand how premiums were calculated. Now, AI offers more transparency. Bernal said this shift could finally give customers clarity on what they’re paying for - something they’ve long demanded. Alongside greater accuracy, automation continues to drive down operating costs. But Bernal pointed to another win: better fraud detection. “Right now, those third customers are paying the premium of the fraudulent customers,” he said. “Thanks to AI, now we can detect much more accurately.” He emphasized that effective fraud detection wouldn’t rely on a single algorithm, but rather a blend of machine learning, graph databases, and shared industry datasets. The result: a pricing model that no longer penalizes honest customers for fraudulent behavior elsewhere in the pool. Better understanding, smoother transactions Bernal also highlighted how AI is improving the way policies are explained. “As a normal customer, reading the policy is pretty hard, and knowing exactly if you are covered or not in certain areas is not easy,” he said. Now, with AI-powered tools, customers can ask specific questions and receive clearer answers about their coverage. Homeowners’ insurance is a prime example of how AI is simplifying the customer-agent interaction. Traditionally, determining the value of a home’s contents has been guesswork. That’s changing. “There are tools right now in which, taking a few pictures, you can have a quick estimate of the value of your house,” Bernal said. He added that many customers significantly underestimate the cost of replacing their belongings - AI can help close that gap and streamline the quoting process for both customers and agents. Risk models need to keep up with emerging threats The pace and complexity of risks - from climate to cyber - are increasing, and Bernal said AI can reshape how underwriters respond. “What AI is bringing is much more accuracy and better predictions of what's going to happen,” he said. That could lead to more price volatility, especially at renewal. But with improved data and modeling, insurers could justify sharper adjustments. That’s where regulatory tension could emerge. “In the US, compared to my background in Europe, regulators pay much more attention to whether you have enough money to cover your liabilities,” Bernal said. “The way you get to a price, they are much more free to take this to the market.” He expects US insurers to push for more pricing flexibility as AI improves underwriting accuracy. More volatility, he added, could also create demand for new insurance products that shield policyholders from rate swings. “Do I want to freeze rates or something like that for the next three years?” he said. “This is a product that can be built.” He said several firms were already exploring these ideas. Legacy systems still blocking transformation Despite the buzz around AI and digital innovation, Bernal said many insurers still aren’t meeting the basic tech requirements. “You need your system in the cloud,” he said. “The second, for me, is your system has to have good API connection.” Without these, access to new tools remains limited. Even for those with the right infrastructure, challenges remain. Data - especially unstructured data - must be reorganized to work with AI tools. And there’s another missing piece: the orchestration layer. “You have to acknowledge you need this piece of technology,” he said, referring to platforms that integrate different AI tools and processes. Without it, automation stays fragmented. Insurers must avoid falling for tech hype When it comes to digital transformation, Bernal said many companies make the same mistake: buying into technology for its own sake. “You realize your problem has not been solved,” he said. “Technology per se is not going to solve your problems.” He advocates a “bottom-up” innovation approach - giving teams controlled ways to test features and measure ROI without large upfront investments. “Nobody likes it, but the return on investment expected... we will need to have discipline in measuring and taking decisions based on ROI,” he said. That ROI model is evolving. “In the past, making an upfront investment was very high,” Bernal said. “Today, with these orchestration layers, the upfront investment is going to be very small.” That means insurers can launch smaller pilots, validate quickly, and scale what works. Modularity is the future of insurance IT Bernal sees insurers moving toward modular systems that can plug into specialized vendors. A cloud-first, API-enabled architecture allows legacy systems to tap into “best of breed” tools, such as advanced rating engines, without full replacement. “Leader by leader, our legacy systems are going to be more and more modular,” he said. This modularity opens the door to more personalized, lower-cost service at scale. It also allows companies to access external “marketplaces” of tech solutions that can rapidly improve the customer and employee experience.
Yellowstone sues Argonaut over D&O coverage tied to NYAG probe
Insurer faces lawsuit over D&O response to New York AG caseLegal InsightsBy Tez RomeroDec 02, 2025ShareYellowstone Capital’s leaders are taking Argonaut Insurance to federal court, accusing the carrier of walking away from a D&O claim after a New York Attorney General probe. Filed on November 26, 2025, in the US District Court for the District of New Jersey, the suit comes from Yellowstone Capital LLC and its chief executive, Yitzhak Stern. They say Argonaut Insurance Company wrongly refused to cover financial fallout from a multi-year investigation and enforcement action by the New York Attorney General over Yellowstone’s merchant cash advance business. According to the court papers, Yellowstone bought consecutive private company D&O policies from Argonaut with a maximum aggregate limit of $3 million for all loss. The coverage included three core grants: protection for individual insureds when the company does not indemnify them, reimbursement to the company when it does indemnify directors and officers, and direct coverage for the company itself when it is named in a claim. The filing notes there was no retention for individual non-indemnified claims, and retentions ranging from $50,000 to $75,000 for claims under the reimbursement and company coverage. The dispute, as described in the suit, begins in late 2018, when the New York Attorney General served a subpoena duces tecum on Yellowstone. The subpoena sought documents for what the Attorney General called “fraudulent, illegal, and deceptive conduct” relating to the company’s sale of merchant cash advances in New York and to New York residents. Yellowstone notified Argonaut, which, the filing says, responded in June 2019 that the subpoena was not a claim but would be accepted as a “notice of circumstances that may give rise to a ‘claim.’” Argonaut allegedly stated that coverage would be “afforded under [the policy] for any Loss incurred in connection with such circumstances” once they resulted in a Claim. The policy’s “Interrelated claims” language is central to the coverage fight. That provision treats related matters as a single claim first made when the earliest related claim or notice is given. The plaintiffs allege that when the Federal Trade Commission brought an enforcement action in 2020 involving Yellowstone, Stern, and others, Argonaut determined the FTC case was interrelated to the New York subpoena, treated them as a single claim first noticed in December 2018, and defended and indemnified Stern in connection with the FTC action. The New York Attorney General’s investigation continued. According to the filing, the office served Stern with an individual subpoena in September 2022, followed with a Notice of Intent to Sue on January 8, 2024, and then filed an enforcement action on March 5, 2024, in New York state court. The petition alleged, among other things, civil usury, criminal usury, making high interest loans without a license, fraud, deceptive business acts and practices, and a fraudulent transfer of Yellowstone’s assets. After motions to dismiss and what the plaintiffs describe as many months of negotiations, they say the parties reached consent orders on January 16, 2025. Yellowstone agreed to pay $3.4 million; Stern agreed to pay $12.7 million. The filing also states that the Yellowstone parties walked away from $534,552,724 in purchased receivables. According to the suit, the consent orders did not attribute the $16.1 million in settlement payments to any particular claim or form of relief and allowed the Attorney General, “in its sole discretion,” to apply the funds to restitution, penalties, investigation costs, or administration costs. Yellowstone and Stern say they formally tendered the New York Attorney General’s Verified Petition to Argonaut on September 9, 2024, and later notified the carrier in February 2025 that the matter had settled, enclosing the consent orders. Argonaut ultimately acknowledged that the New York enforcement action was a claim, the suit says, but denied coverage. According to the filing, Argonaut relied on several provisions: a business practices exclusion aimed at unfair competition and unfair business or trade practices; the policy’s consent requirements for incurring defense costs and settlements; and a definition of Loss that excludes civil fines, penalties, disgorgement, restitution, and sums paid in connection with injunctive relief. The plaintiffs counter that defense costs are expressly included in Loss, that those costs alone totaled approximately $9 million - about three times the policy limit—and that the business practices exclusion applies only to the company coverage, not to Stern’s individual protection. They allege nearly $6 million in fees paid to Proskauer Rose LLP for work from September 2022 until early 2024 for Yellowstone and four individual officers, more than $1 million in defense costs for Stern and another officer through Harris St. Laurent & Wechsler LLP, and more than $1.8 million for Yellowstone’s own defense by Calcagni & Kanefsky LLP. Taking into account defense costs, the $16.1 million paid under the consent orders, and the abandoned receivables, the suit claims aggregate Loss is approximately 180 times greater than the $3 million policy limit. The plaintiffs also accuse Argonaut of bad faith, pointing to what they call delay in issuing a coverage determination, inconsistent treatment of the FTC and New York matters, and improper reliance on notice, exclusion, consent, and Loss provisions. They say they have complied with the policy’s requirement to attempt non-binding mediation and now seek damages, including up to the policy limits, along with a declaration that the New York Attorney General enforcement action is a covered claim. These are allegations at an early stage of the case. The court has not yet made any findings on coverage, bad faith, or damages. Related StoriesCourt overturns Travelers' $5k microbe sublimit on sewer-backup coverage disputeCommunity associations face new wave of liability risks as tech and compliance collide
United Risk strengthens global leadership, names new CEO
Company strengthens its executive team as it reaches its two-year milestoneInsurance NewsBy Josh RecamaraNov 24, 2025ShareUnited Risk marked its two-year milestone since its formation in 2023 by announcing key executive appointments and leadership promotions.Chairman Jamie Sahara highlighted the company's growth, noting its position among the top five MGAs globally, with 25 property and casualty underwriting programs and nearly 600 staff across nine countries and four continents.Hayden Smith has been promoted to CEO, bringing extensive experience in mergers and acquisitions and ceded reinsurance from his time at Enstar Group and StarStone. Smith’s leadership is expected to drive strategic direction across United Risk’s international operations, including offices in New York, Bermuda, London, Paris, Dubai, Singapore, and Sydney.Are you an insurance innovator? Tell us — we want to hear your storyAndrew Lucas joins as general counsel, bringing expertise in corporate governance, mergers and acquisitions, and insurance-sector regulatory matters from his tenure at Clyde & Co LLP. Lucas will also oversee legal and compliance frameworks critical to the MGA's multinational business.Gregg Holtmeier takes on the role of chief commercial officer, focusing on relationships with capital providers such as reinsurers, insurers and sidecar capacity. His prior experience as chief strategy officer at BMS and global head of casualty at JLT Re equips him to manage and expand United Risk's commercial partnerships effectively, it was stated.Patrick Watson joins as chief operating officer, leveraging more than 21 years of experience in insurance operations, program development and scaling complex organizations. His focus will be on operational efficiency and infrastructure to support United Risk's expanding underwriting programs.President Rick Christofer continues to lead relationships with underwriters, agents, and brokers, now with greater bandwidth to focus on client-facing growth thanks to the strengthened C-suite. Christofer’s background includes roles at AIG Private Client Group, Guy Carpenter, General Reinsurance, and The Hartford.Sahara emphasized that these appointments complete the leadership team, and provide a robust framework.Related StoriesUnited Risk bets on rental reform with launch of ThriverUnited Risk names new leadership as global expansion accelerates
Airbus hit by new A320 scare - hundreds of aircraft need checks
Structural defect issue hits manufacturer with more issuesInsurance NewsBy Insurance BusinessDec 01, 2025ShareAirbus has warned customers that more than 600 A320neo-family aircraft will need structural checks after discovering that exterior fuselage panels on some jets may fall outside manufacturing specifications, in the latest headache for airlines relying on the workhorse single-aisle type to meet tight capacity plans.Liability and product risk in focusFor insurers, the developing situation raises immediate questions around product liability, aviation hull and loss-of-use exposures, as well as the potential for knock-on business interruption claims as airlines juggle grounded assets, deferred deliveries and disrupted schedules. While there is currently no suggestion of an in‑service safety incident, the combination of structural inspections, a recent global software recall and an aggressive year‑end delivery push materially elevates operational and counterparty risk for both Airbus and its airline customers. Underwriters will be watching closely for signs of extended downtime, repair campaigns or regulatory intervention that could crystallise claims or trigger policy reviews on both manufacturer and operator programs.Scope of inspections and potential exposure baseAccording to a presentation to customers, around 628 A320neo-family jets are affected by the issue. Of those, some 460 airframes are still within Airbus’s production system in one form or another, while 168 aircraft are already in service with airlines.The problem centres on crown panels around the main front door area, where the outer skin may be either too thin or too thick relative to Airbus’s manufacturing tolerances because of variability in a supplier’s milling process. The affected panels do not carry traceable serial numbers, forcing Airbus to require inspections across the full affected population rather than being able to target a smaller subset.While the checks themselves are described as relatively straightforward and non‑invasive, the lack of traceability means each affected aircraft will need to be physically examined before it can be cleared. Airbus has told customers that a “significant proportion” of panels are expected to conform to specification and can remain in place.An Airbus spokesperson said the root cause has been identified and contained, and that all newly produced panels now conform to requirements. Even so, the announcement triggered a sharp market reaction, with Airbus shares dropping as much as 10 per cent intraday on Monday before closing 5.8 per cent lower, while airline customers Lufthansa and easyJet also traded lower on the news.Delivery delays, fleet plans and business interruptionThe inspections come at a highly sensitive point for the manufacturer, which is under pressure to hit ambitious full‑year delivery guidance. Airbus is targeting “around 820” aircraft deliveries this year, implying a record‑setting push of more than 160 handovers in December after delivering about 72 jets in November and 657 year‑to‑date. The current record for a December delivery surge is 138 aircraft in 2019.Analysts are split on whether the latest disruption will tip Airbus off its targets. Jefferies analyst Chloe Lemarie, who has been tracking handovers and had already flagged November’s weaker‑than‑expected performance, has argued that the target remains within reach given the underlying ramp‑up in production, though her latest assessment pre‑dated the quality issue. Independent aviation analyst Rob Morris has suggested Airbus may still achieve roughly 800 deliveries for the year, a level some investors see as good enough to satisfy guidance language, but warned the final outcome could end up “marginally lower”.For airline operators and their broker partners, the development adds another layer of operational uncertainty on top of the weekend’s global software recall that saw thousands of Airbus jets temporarily grounded and caused widespread disruption at airports. Some deliveries are already being delayed by the panel inspections, according to people familiar with the situation, though the duration and full extent of the impact are not yet clear.What underwriters and brokers will be watchingAt this stage, there are no firm indications that the production flaw has translated into an in‑service safety issue, and inspections are being framed as precautionary quality‑assurance checks rather than a grounded‑fleet scenario. Still, with a large number of aircraft either awaiting handover or in early build, any further slippage in the delivery profile could affect airlines’ near‑term fleet and capacity plans, with knock‑on implications for utilisation, contingency cover and risk exposures in areas such as business interruption, loss of use and contractual performance.For brokers advising carriers with A320neo exposure, the immediate focus will be on how quickly Airbus can complete the inspection cycle, the extent of any repair or rework requirements, and whether this latest issue compounds the operational and commercial fallout from the software recall that has already tested resilience across aviation supply chains..main_content .h1,.main_content h1{font-size:32px}.main_content .h2,.main_content h2{font-size:24px}.main_content .h3,.main_content h3{font-size:18px}.main_content .h4,.main_content h4{font-size:16px}
BOXX Insurance responds to cyber pressures with new assist platform
Latest offering delivers expert guidance and features to take on evolving dangersCyberBy Kenneth AraulloNov 20, 2025ShareBOXX Insurance has introduced Cyberboxx Assist, a new suite of cybersecurity tools and services designed to help businesses and individuals strengthen their digital resilience.The offering aims to support users in predicting, preventing, and responding to cyberattacks as well as infrastructure and supply chain disruptions that can result in significant downtime.Cyberboxx Assist will be available to all BOXX policyholders. The platform includes 24/7 expert cybersecurity support, a Virtual Chief Information Security Officer (vCISO) for small businesses, and enterprise-grade features such as Attack Surface Management and ID protection. Users will also have access to cyber awareness training, security policy resources, and guided support.Are you an insurance innovator? Tell us — we want to hear your storyMounting pressure in the cyber marketThe launch of Cyberboxx Assist comes as the US cyber insurance market faces mounting pricing pressure and increased competition, with more than 200 carriers now offering cyber insurance products.This competitive environment has led to broader coverage options, but also to concerns about long-term sustainability, as some policyholders are able to secure higher coverage limits while paying less at renewal.Read more:US cyber market pricing pressure poses long-term riskDespite the growing number of carriers, cyber insurance adoption among small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the US remains low, with only about 30% of SMEs currently purchasing coverage.This gap highlights the ongoing challenge of engaging businesses that are often most vulnerable to cyber risks, even as solutions like Cyberboxx Assist aim to make cyber protection more accessible.“Recent major outages are a stark demonstration that the biggest digital risks aren’t always a cybercriminal or a hacker. They can sometimes be unexpected technical faults that bring down the internet’s backbone,” said Christyn Yoast (pictured above), president of BOXX Insurance US.Sectors such as banking, insurance, telecommunications, and travel are increasingly integrating cyber protection into their offerings to address customer expectations for data and account security. This trend presents an opportunity for organizations to provide safeguards against digital risks, including online fraud and identity theft.Yoast observed that many brands and service providers are seeking to deliver cyber services to their customers using a predict-and-prevent model. “They don’t have the technology and expertise to put this in place, and BOXX strategically fills this gap in an easy to use and accessible solution that fits within their existing customer experiences,” she said.Related StoriesThe new frontier of underwriting AI riskCyber premiums fall, but fears of underpricing loom
Corporate active assailant and K&R risks are no longer "emerging" threats
Workplace anger, ambiguous motives and outdated definitions are redefining risk exposure for businessesWholesaleBy Chris DavisNov 26, 2025ShareActive assailant and kidnap & ransom (K&R) risks have become embedded in day-to-day corporate planning - no longer reserved for distant geographies or classified as emerging. That shift, said Mark Skinner (pictured), chief underwriting officer at Samphire Risk, reflects both a growing frequency and a significant change in the nature of threats. “It’s much more domesticated,” Skinner said. “Active shooter, kidnap and ransom - these are very much now part of board-level planning.” Media visibility has also contributed to the shift. “Before, it used to be a story here or there that somebody picked up,” he said. “Now I think mainstream media is definitely reporting more.” As attacks have become more public and more frequent, insurers have responded with product development to meet rising demand. Are you an insurance innovator? Tell us — we want to hear your storyBut visibility isn’t the only thing driving change. The motives behind attacks have also become harder to categorize. Where once K&R and active shooter coverage might have been limited to politically motivated terrorism or targeted extortion, Skinner said today’s incidents often stem from more personal or workplace grievances. “You could have a workplace violence situation, where somebody’s been let go and fired and has come back into the entity armed with the intent to cause damage and killing,” he said. “That kind of archetypal truck bomb in downtown New York potentially is very difficult to carry out, versus high impact but low sophistication attacks we have seen with vehicles, knives etc.” From ideological to ambiguous Skinner said definitions have not kept pace with how these risks are playing out in the real world. Many terrorism policies still require government declaration and specific thresholds to trigger - ideological motive, casualty numbers, or a defined level of property damage. That complexity often leaves insureds exposed. “Those thresholds can be considered quite high for there actually to be an actual terrorist incident,” he said. Some organizations approach to active assailant coverage has been to remove that ambiguity. “An attack involving a weapon with the intent to cause harm,” Skinner said, describing the broader definition used in its active shooter policies. “That can be a very basic example of a person with a knife targeting, stabbing one person…which an active shooter policy would pick up.” That distinction becomes critical when events fall short of terrorism definitions but still have severe consequences for a business and its people. “It offers wider coverage because it actually picks up the traditional terrorist event, too,” he said. Blended risks, fragmented responses The blurring of motives and methods means risk is no longer easily segmented - and yet the market still often is. “You’ve got an incident over here on the left-hand side, you call one number…oh, actually, no, it’s a kidnap and it’s somewhere else, so you’ve got to call another number,” Skinner said. “Big, large corporates can end up having five or six numbers to call if there’s an incident.” He pointed out the operational risk this creates, especially during high-stress, high-impact events. “That incident generally involves a person…something very bad has happened…and cripple this business from a human and asset perspective,” he said. “There’s potential ambiguity of what number do I call, what policy actually responds to that.” To mitigate this, Samphire advocates for simplified, integrated plans that offer a single point of contact and unified response. “We very much believe in looking at that blending piece…or very clear and concise structured plans so they’re embedded in,” he said. However, consistent coverage can be difficult to maintain when clients remarket their insurance annually. “Year one, you get one number; year two, you get another number…that cycle just goes around, which actually presents a risk in itself,” he said. Prevention as coverage One of the most significant developments in the space is how policies are now being structured to respond “left of incident” - before an event actually takes place. “If you suspect something’s going to happen…you can pick up that number and get some immediate advice,” he said. “Some of these policies actually respond before the incident happens.” In the case of active assailants, that includes pre-incident indicators such as stalking or threats. “Was that person known? Was that person displaying traits that something might do that?” Skinner said. “Law enforcement may not get involved until the act has actually happened, but what do you do before? That’s where insurance can actually step in.” This proactive structure is also emerging in K&R coverage, where virtual kidnaps, express kidnaps and detentions are seeing increased focus. While traditional abduction events still exist, Skinner said the market is trending toward coverage that anticipates and mitigates early-stage threats. “We’re seeing a lot more around the other acts…often included but not the high-profile bit of policies,” he said. When claims get complicated Liability disputes are common, Skinner said, particularly when claims involve multiple parties, landlords, subleases or shared properties. “These are quite elongated, complex risks,” he said. “That’s why this insurance exists.” The challenge lies in assigning responsibility. “There is always a challenge around who is ultimately held responsible from a vicarious legal liability perspective,” he said. Having well-informed brokers who understand the specific wordings and nuances of these policies is key to reducing these disputes. “The good brokers and good distribution channels really understand their core wordings,” Skinner said. “The insured needs to be aware of what they’re buying, and how it responds.” Tangible risk, misunderstood exposure Partnerships between insurers and crisis response firms like Spearfish Security have become central to addressing risk in high-value sectors, such as mining or crypto. What concerns Skinner most, however, is when clients don’t even realize the level of risk they face. “You’ve got somebody’s expert in crypto…has a lot of assets…but is unaware of that risk because they’re in a different environment,” he said. “The risk still presents itself as being very tangible and credible and potentially being targeted.” This disconnect - between operational expertise and personal threat awareness - has created new pressure on insurance to evolve beyond indemnification and toward active risk mitigation. “That false perception of safety is a risk in itself,” Skinner said. Related StoriesWhy this soft market could be the most dangerous yet for cyber insuranceHow cyber insurers are adapting to the new ransomware playbook
‘Volatility is the new normal’: How middle-market firms can stay ahead in 2026
MMA’s Matt Stadler explains how brokers can help clients turn instability into a strategic advantageInsurance NewsBy Gia SnapeDec 02, 2025ShareUS middle-market businesses are heading into 2026 with a familiar mix of uncertainty and operational pressure.Inflation and supply chain instability remain stubborn, talent shortages continue to grow, and risk exposures are rising across virtually every major line of business. At the same time, the insurance market is moving in two directions: property rates are softening, while casualty continues to harden.One brokerage leader believes the volatility that marked 2025 will continue – and, in some areas, intensify – for the sector, meaning insurance brokers are being called on to provide more strategic, data-driven guidance than ever.According to Matt Stadler (pictured), president of Marsh McLennan Agency (MMA), the current environment amounts to “a perfect storm” for middle-market clients.“Capital is tighter, risks are more complex, and the insurance market is less forgiving,” Stadler toldInsurance Business. “The question becomes: Do they capture the savings after years of increases, or reinvest those dollars into risk mitigation and long-term strategy?”“Volatility is the new normal” for middle-market businessesIf 2025 was defined by uncertainty, 2026 is shaping up similarly: inflation is persisting, geopolitical tension is rising, and the labor market is still strained.Stadler said middle-market firms were disproportionately impacted this year because many lack the internal risk management resources that larger enterprises have. “They’ve faced higher costs of goods, weakening labor dynamics, and a spike in risk exposure,” he explained. “And unlike enterprise organizations, they may not have full-time teams addressing these pressures every day.”Additional shocks, including the recent government shutdown, amplified the strain. For some businesses, particularly those relying on government loans or services, the disruption created significant financial stress.But the middle-market’s agility remains its strength.“In times of uncertainty, the best leaders rise,” Stadler noted. “These businesses innovate, diversify, and make decisions quickly. That resiliency is why they continue to outperform expectations.”Despite their durability and adaptability, many middle-market companies enter 2026 exposed in several critical areas:Underutilized alternative risk strategies- Captives, parametrics, and other alternative solutions remain underexplored by many clients. “If you haven’t been proactive in evaluating these options, you’re going to face significant headwinds,” Stadler warned.Cyber risk sophistication- Many companies purchased cyber insurance as a one-size-fits-all solution rather than tailoring it to their actual risk profile. That leaves them vulnerable as cyber claims grow more advanced.Casualty severity trends- The surge in mid-range claims demands more disciplined risk prevention and claims management, Stadler said.Diverging markets call for holistic risk strategyWhile property pricing is moderating, casualty is still moving sharply upward, propelled by social inflation, nuclear verdicts, and a rise in medium-severity claims in the $1 million to $20 million range, according to Stadler. He cautioned brokers and middle-market leaders against viewing these trends in isolation.“When you look at middle-market clients, you are not just looking at P&C, you’re also looking at employee health & benefits (EH&B),” he said. “EH&B costs are also hardening, particularly as the talent market becomes more competitive. CFOs need to evaluate their total cost of risk, not just one silo.”This divergence makes holistic risk planning essential. For brokers supporting middle-market accounts, Stadler said the priority should be building year-round strategies, not 90-day renewal reactions.“Underwriters reward companies that understand their data and treat risk as a strategic pillar,” he said. “Clients who articulate what they’re doing to mitigate risk, not just what they’re insuring, are outperforming the market by a mile.”As middle-market clients grapple with competing pressures, brokers have an opportunity to serve as strategic navigators. According to Stadler, brokers should focus on:Delivering deeper analytics. Detailed exposure analysis, benchmarking, and predictive modeling help clients tell a stronger story to underwriters.Developing year-round risk strategies. Continuous improvement, e.g., through enhanced safety programs, supply chain assessments, and talent risk strategies, can significantly improve market performance.Helping clients articulate their data. Underwriters are “less forgiving,” at this moment, Stadler emphasized. Companies that demonstrate control, planning, and data fluency will command better pricing and terms.Reviewing total cost of risk across all lines. With property softening and casualty hardening, integrated planning is essential to avoid short-sighted decisions.Related StoriesMeasured rate increases, ample capacity shaping the US commercial insurance market – Artex RiskIs rate relief on the way for middle market businesses?
Eleventh Circuit upholds Old Republic's $47.5 million acquisition as fair value deal
A struggling title insurer's desperate move to avoid regulatory receivership just got a major legal win – and it could reshape how distressed carriers handle survival strategiesLegal InsightsBy Matthew SellersNov 26, 2025ShareEleventh Circuit has ruled a title insurer's $47.5 million asset sale to avoid receivership constitutes fair value – validating a survival strategy for distressed carriers. ATIF, a Florida-based title insurer, faced a perfect storm in 2008. Attorney-agents absconded with funds, investments tanked, and premium income collapsed. By 2015, regulators demanded action or threatened receivership. When Old Republic Title offered to assume ATIF's policy liabilities in exchange for the company's assets, ATIF's board saw a lifeline. The alternative was a one-dollar buyout from an unaffiliated company. The Florida Office of Insurance Regulation initially rejected the proposal, but after Old Republic agreed to assume more liabilities, regulators approved the Master Agreement executed in December 2015. ATIF transferred 47.5 million dollars in tangible assets while Old Republic assumed between 45 million and 57.2 million dollars in policy liabilities. Are you an insurance innovator? Tell us — we want to hear your storyWhen ATIF filed for bankruptcy in 2017, creditor trustee Daniel Stermer challenged the deal. He hired expert witness Allen Pfeiffer, who valued ATIF's intangible assets at approximately 80 million dollars, separately valuing the title plant at approximately 30 million dollars. Stermer argued the company had surrendered far more value than it received. The bankruptcy court rejected Pfeiffer's analysis. The expert had estimated ATIF's revenue as if it still issued new title policies, which the joint venture agreement had eliminated years earlier. Pfeiffer also bundled all intangible assets into one valuation rather than analyzing them separately. Old Republic's rebuttal expert, Steven Hazel, highlighted that Pfeiffer's methodology lacked support from standard valuation practices. The judge found Pfeiffer had no formal credentials in valuation and had never separately valued a title plant. His opinion was too speculative to carry weight. With intangible assets discounted, the court focused on the agreed-upon tangible figures. The roughly equivalent exchange – 47.5 million in assets for 45 to 57.2 million in assumed liabilities – constituted reasonably equivalent value. Without credible evidence about intangible asset values, Stermer's case collapsed. When the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case on November 24, it deferred to the bankruptcy judge's decision to exclude Pfeiffer's testimony. Appellate courts give trial judges considerable latitude in determining expert reliability. Stermer also claimed fraud through concealment. The court disagreed. The Master Agreement had been filed with the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation, carefully reviewed, and modified based on regulatory feedback. Property deeds were publicly recorded. There was no hidden scheme. Stermer's successor liability and alter ego arguments also failed. ATIF and Old Republic's joint venture ATFS had not truly merged. ATIF retained 240 million dollars in assets and continued operating separately. While ATFS and Old Republic eventually shared a bank account, the court found no evidence of fraud or creditor harm. For title insurance professionals, the ruling offers three critical lessons. First, transparent regulatory engagement matters profoundly in court. When regulators actively review and approve distressed transactions, judges take notice. Second, expert witnesses in valuation disputes face rigorous scrutiny. Methodology and industry support trump conclusions. Third, strategic asset sales survive legal challenges when companies receive reasonable value, regardless of insolvency timing. The November 24 decision reassures struggling insurers that well-documented, regulatory-approved asset transfers will receive judicial respect. The case demonstrates that keeping regulators informed and involved in distressed transactions can validate survival strategies that might otherwise face creditor challenges. Related StoriesAppellate court denies title agent liability shield in insurance payout caseOld Republic expands specialty footprint after posting strong premium growth
Insurance moves: Starkweather, Affordable American, Duck Creek, Mutual Group and New York Life
They include a new CTO and a new SVPInsurance NewsBy Josh RecamaraDec 03, 2025ShareSeveral major insurance and financial services firms have announced key leadership appointments.Affordable American Insurance expands national sales capacityRoss Haskett (pictured) has joined Affordable American Insurance as vice president of sales. Haskett brings a decade of experience in insurance-industry lending and agency financing. In his new role, he will focus on identifying high-potential independent agencies, expanding AAI's network, and supporting sustainable growth, acquisition planning, and market penetration.Starkweather & Shepley strengthens human services practiceStarkweather & Shepley Insurance Brokerage has appointed Tom Rogers as senior vice president within its human services practice group. With over 20 years of experience serving nonprofit and human services organizations, Rogers will design customized risk management programs that align with operational goals and long-term sustainability. Sean Cottrell, senior vice president leading the practice, emphasized Rogers' experience in supporting mission-driven organizations and enhancing client guidance.Duck Creek Technologies appoints CTORajesh Raheja has been named chief technology officer at Duck Creek Technologies. Raheja brings extensive experience in cloud platforms and AI-driven solutions, having held senior roles at HPE, Boomi, Broadcom and Oracle. He will lead Duck Creek’s global technology strategy, platform innovation, and engineering teams, advancing cloud-native solutions and AI capabilities for property and casualty and general insurance markets.The Mutual Group enhances distribution leadershipMichael Moore joins TMG Insurance Services as SVP, head of distribution and business development. Moore will expand GuideOne Insurance's market presence, innovate distribution capabilities and strengthen agency relationships. His experience at Nationwide Insurance and commitment to mutual insurers position him to support the evolving needs of future member, it was stated.New York Life Investments appoints global head of institutional distributionMatt Mosca has been named global head of institutional distribution at New York Life Investments. Reporting to CEO Naïm Abou-Jaoudé, Mosca brings over three decades of institutional asset management experience from MetLife Investment Management and BlackRock. He will oversee the firm’s institutional business strategy globally, supporting collaboration and innovation across private and public market investments.Related StoriesInsurance moves: Standard, Trident Marine, Starkweather, Alliant and Kaufman GroupInsurance moves: The Mutual Group, Howden, Chubb, Plymouth Rock, Boston Mutual and more
Eighth Circuit backs Liberty Mutual's denial of absentee homeowner's fire claim
His sons lived there full-time – but they weren't covered eitherLegal InsightsBy Matthew SellersDec 03, 2025ShareThe Eighth Circuit has ruled policyholders must actively reside in properties to claim coverage – validating insurers' strict interpretation of "residence premises" language in homeowners’ policies. In a ruling issued December 1, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit sided with Liberty Mutual in a dispute over whether the company should have paid for damage from a fire at a Minnesota home. The case hinged on a straightforward question: Can someone still claim coverage for a house they own but no longer live in? The answer, according to the court, was no. The story began in 2010 when Roland Pour Sr. bought a house in Champlin, Minnesota, where he lived with his wife and two children. In 2015, he purchased a homeowners policy from Liberty Mutual. In 2019, Pour Sr. relocated to Bethlehem, Georgia to live with his second wife, but kept the Minnesota property. His sons, Kmontee and Roland Jr., continued living in the Champlin home while their father paid the mortgage and property taxes from afar. Pour Sr. wasn't completely absent. He visited Minnesota a couple of times each year, with trips lasting two days to two weeks. But his mailing address, driver's license, voter registration, and financial accounts had all moved to Georgia. In September 2021, a fire damaged the Champlin home, attached garage, and personal property inside. Pour Sr. filed a claim expecting coverage. Liberty Mutual declined, arguing he hadn't "resided" at the Champlin home for three years. The company also denied coverage for his sons' personal property, saying they were not "residents of Pour Sr.'s household" and therefore not insureds under the policy. The policy defined "residence premises" to include "the one family dwelling, other structures, and grounds" but only "where you reside." The court found this language unambiguous and applied the dictionary definition of reside: "to dwell permanently or for a considerable time." Pour Sr. argued the provision merely described which property he had insured, not a continuing condition. The court disagreed, noting his residency status hadn't changed between when the policy was issued in May 2021 and the fire in September 2021. During the policy period, he visited Minnesota once and didn't stay at the Champlin home. In the two years preceding the fire, he visited three or four times, never staying more than two weeks, often sleeping at his cousin's nearby home. The ruling acknowledged that a person can have more than one residence for insurance purposes. So-called "snowbirds" aren't automatically excluded from coverage everywhere. But the court emphasized this requires fact-specific analysis. On the sons' coverage, Minnesota courts use a three-factor test for household residency: living under the same roof as the named insured, having a close and informal relationship, and substantial intended duration. The court found the sons didn't qualify because they weren't dwelling with their father under the same roof. As the court noted, a household is "something more than a group of individuals who occasionally spend time together in the same place." For insurers, the decision validates using policy definitions as coverage conditions. Liberty Mutual's interpretation held up under appellate review, providing clear grounds to deny claims that don't meet residence requirements. Pour Sr.'s claim for his own personal property stored in the home was not denied and was settled separately. But on dwelling coverage and the sons' personal property, the insurer prevailed. This decision is binding across the Eighth Circuit's eight states but could influence courts elsewhere.
Two oil tankers ablaze after ‘external impact'
Maritime Risk Managers, carriers on high alert after suspected shadow fleet casualtiesInsurance NewsBy Matthew SellersNov 28, 2025ShareTwo tankers long associated with sanctioned Russian oil trades caught fire on Friday in separate incidents in the Black Sea, prompting large-scale rescue operations by Turkish authorities and deepening anxieties in a region already troubled by naval mines and shadow-fleet activity.The vessels — the Kairos, a 274-meter tanker, and the Virat, an aframax-class ship — were traveling in waters north of Turkey when each reported what officials described as an external impact. Both ships are among the group of vessels targeted by Western sanctions for transporting Russian crude. In recent years, these tankers have typically operated with limited transparency, patchy regulatory oversight and irregular insurance arrangements, characteristics that have unnerved risk assessors even in quieter weeks.The Kairos, which was en route to the Russian port of Novorossiysk, issued a distress call roughly 28 nautical miles off Turkey’s Black Sea coast. The ship, sailing in ballast under the Gambian flag, suffered a blast that ignited a fire. Turkish rescue authorities deployed two rescue boats, a tug and an emergency response vessel, eventually retrieving all 25 crew members without injury.Read next: Collision in the Gulf sparks renewed concern over shadow fleet, war risk exposureShortly afterward, further east in the Black Sea, the Virat reported a similar event about 35 nautical miles offshore. Personnel on board detected heavy smoke in the engine room. A commercial ship in the vicinity joined rescue teams sent by Turkey, and all 20 crew members were reported safe.Shipping agency Tribeca said the explosion aboard the Kairos originated in the engine room and noted that reports indicated the tanker “may have struck a mine and be in danger of sinking.” Maritime intelligence analyst Michelle Wiese Bockmann observed online that the vessel had recently been removed from the Gambian registry along with dozens of others due to “fraudulently issued certificates,” which she said rendered the tanker “flagless, stateless, and any insurance and class (if it has any) invalidated by the fact that it’s falsely purporting to fly the flag of Gambia.” She added, “The ship is in ballast, which is the lesser of two evils, but I’ve long maintained the dark fleet is an accident waiting to happen and incidents like this are but a harbinger of what is to come.”Read next: Insurance checks on foreign vessels to tighten in face of Russian shadow fleetTurkish officials said that shipping traffic through the Bosphorus continued uninterrupted, despite visible plumes of smoke rising from one of the damaged tankers. Images released by Turkey’s Maritime Affairs Directorate showed flames climbing from the deck of the Kairos.Read next: Canada sanctions Russian drone makers, 'shadow fleet' vesselsAlthough the cause of the explosions has not been confirmed, recent history offers an ominous context. Since the start of the war in Ukraine, more than 100 naval mines have been identified across the Black Sea, including anchored devices that have broken free as well as drifting ordnance that has traveled far from original deployment zones. Various cargo ships have struck mines over the last three years, including a Panama-flagged carrier in late 2023 and an Estonian vessel that sank near Odesa in 2022.Analysts broadly attribute most mine-laying operations in the region to Russian forces, particularly in areas near occupied Crimea and along approaches to Ukrainian ports. Mine-clearance efforts by Turkey, Bulgaria and Romania are ongoing, but the scale of the problem — as well as the mobility of drifting mines — has made full decontamination elusive.These latest incidents underline the evolving hazards associated with the so-called shadow fleet, whose vessels often operate outside typical compliance frameworks. Some ships in this network lack verifiable insurance and certification, raising the risk of costly maritime casualties, environmental damage and complex claims disputes.Read next: Sanctions-evading Russian oil ships could pollute the Arctic, PM's adviserFor insurers and brokers, the twin explosions underscore the widening gulf between conventionally managed fleets and those tied to sanction-evading oil trades. Coverage questions — particularly for vessels with unclear flag status, dubious certification or opaque ownership — are likely to intensify as the region remains exposed to mine hazards and geopolitical risk. In the Black Sea, a shipping route on which insurers once relied on predictable risk modelling, the margin of uncertainty continues to expand.As the fires burn out and salvage teams assess whether either tanker can be recovered, one fact is clear: the operating environment for underwriters and maritime risk specialists in the region has grown even more unpredictable. The incidents offer yet another reminder that in a sea already crowded with drifting ordnance, the risks associated with shadow-fleet tankers cannot easily be contained.
Silence from brokers as Lloyd's reopens investigation into former CEO
A major Lloyd's investigation has drawn global attention - but brokers remain noticeably quietInsurance NewsBy Bryony GarlickDec 02, 2025ShareLloyd’s of London is under renewed scrutiny after reopening an investigation into the alleged promotion of a senior employee said to be in a relationship with its former chief executive, John Neal. The decision follows concerns that an earlier internal review did not fully address the matter. The consequences have already extended internationally: American International Group withdrew a senior job offer to Neal after learning of the probe, highlighting the weight global insurers place on governance concerns at the market.The developments come after years of cultural reform efforts at Lloyd’s, including initiatives launched following a 2019 Bloomberg report into misconduct within the market. Yet even Neal acknowledged the pace of change in a 2022 discussion on diversity and inclusion, saying: “Does it feel different on the ground, or in the room? I’m not sure it does yet.” He also warned that “talk without action isn’t enough” and emphasized the need for “leadership accountability.”Three years later, those comments are being tested.Despite the significance of the investigation, brokers, central to Lloyd’s daily operations, have been reluctant to speak publicly. Unlike previous regulatory developments, the latest controversy has generated little visible reaction on LinkedIn or other platforms. The online debate that emerged around the FCA’s recent decision to classify bullying, harassment and violence as conduct breaches did not materialize when the Lloyd’s probe was revealed.Industry legacySeveral brokers who had been vocal about workplace conduct issues in general declined to comment on the record when contacted for this article. One responded: “we’ll let others comment on this situation.” Another said it was “probably safe to steer clear.”One female insurance professional, speaking anonymously, said the hesitation reflects longstanding market dynamics. “When women were first allowed on the floor at Lloyd’s in 1973, it still had echoes of ‘this is how we’ve always done things’. Before that, women working in insurance had to communicate through a male intermediary. So there’s a legacy in the industry - a gender and power imbalance that goes with that.”Absence of reports doesn’t mean absence of harmOthers warn that silence risks undermining cultural progress. Compliance expert Branko Bjelobaba said the issues highlighted by the investigation fall squarely within the concerns regulators are already addressing. “I regularly explore how non-financial misconduct is coming under sharper scrutiny from the FCA (and the government with the impending ban on NDAs),” he said. “The FCA wants to see great culture in firms and boards are expected to act and not just when the headlines hit - not when it becomes topical, but right now.”He added that engagement across the market remains inconsistent. “How many men attend these sessions? Not nearly enough,” he said, warning that silence can mask ongoing issues: “It’s not about me… Is it safer to stay silent than risk causing offence? Absence of reports isn’t the same as absence of harm.”Lloyd’s has said its leadership is committed to building a culture that is “inclusive, transparent, consistent and values-led”. But the reopening of the Neal investigation has renewed questions about the effectiveness of those efforts, and whether cultural change can take hold when so few are willing to discuss the most sensitive issues publicly.Related StoriesLloyd's of London under scrutiny as governance issues highlight market risksRevealed - woman at center of John Neal relationship allegations
State Farm loses Maryland UIM jurisdiction battle
State Farm's attempt to shift a modest UIM claim to circuit court just backfired in Maryland's highest courtLegal InsightsBy Matthew SellersNov 26, 2025ShareState Farm consented to settle. Then demanded circuit court. Maryland's high court said no – clarifying where UIM disputes belong.When George Bowens' car was hit by an underinsured driver in February 2023, the path seemed clear: collect from the other driver's insurer, then pursue his own underinsured motorist coverage for the remaining damages. He didn't expect to end up at the Maryland Supreme Court.On November 24, 2025, that court issued a decision affecting how insurers handle modest UIM claims in the state. The question was straightforward but consequential: when an injured driver settles with the at-fault motorist's carrier and then sues their own insurer for remaining benefits, does the case belong in District Court or circuit court?Are you an insurance innovator? Tell us — we want to hear your storyThe answer depends on what the injured person is asking their own insurer for, not the total accident damages.Bowens was injured in Prince George's County when Lisa Daniels struck his car. Daniels' liability insurer offered $30,000 – her full policy limit. Bowens' State Farm UIM policy provided $50,000. He stood to recover an additional $20,000.Following Maryland's required procedure, Bowens notified State Farm of the settlement. State Farm consented and waived its subrogation rights – the legal mechanism allowing insurers to pursue claims against at-fault parties. Bowens accepted the $30,000 and then filed a claim with State Farm for the remaining $20,000.State Farm denied it. Bowens sued in District Court, which has a $30,000 cap. State Farm moved to dismiss, arguing that Bowens needed to prove total damages of $50,000 to recover anything – exceeding District Court's jurisdictional limit. The case belonged in circuit court, the insurer claimed.Both lower courts agreed and dismissed Bowens' claim. The Maryland Supreme Court reversed.Justice Killough explained the principle simply: jurisdiction depends on the amount someone is suing for now, not their underlying injuries. Though Bowens' accident injuries totaled $50,000, he was only asking State Farm for $20,000 – the difference between his policy limit and what he'd already received. That fit squarely within District Court jurisdiction.Critically, the court characterized Bowens' case as a contract dispute, not a tort lawsuit. He wasn't suing over the accident. He was claiming State Farm breached its insurance contract by refusing promised benefits. Contract claims are evaluated differently for jurisdictional purposes.Maryland's insurance regulations specifically govern UIM claims. The state mandates uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage on every auto policy with minimums of $30,000 per person. The law includes a settlement procedure designed to help injured people receive money quickly without being trapped between competing insurers – a problem that plagued the system before these protections.The statute allows injured persons to accept a liability insurer's settlement and pursue releases without prejudice to claims against their UIM insurer. Importantly, a UIM insurer's consent to a settlement doesn't limit its right to raise liability or damages issues in subsequent litigation, nor does it constitute an admission.By consenting to Bowens' settlement, State Farm waived its subrogation rights and accepted procedural consequences. It couldn't demand circuit court proceedings while consenting to a modest settlement. The court also rejected State Farm's argument about lacking adequate discovery tools in District Court – simplified procedures were intentional, designed for faster, affordable justice.The ruling sends a clear message: UIM insureds can pursue residual claims in District Court when remaining amounts fall below $30,000. For insurers, consenting to a tortfeasor's settlement carries a trade-off. They avoid litigation over liability but accept District Court jurisdiction for any remaining contractual disputes.Related StoriesWashington court slams Farmers Insurance over $21 million verdict falloutErie Insurance faces $1.75 million verdict in Pennsylvania bad faith case
It's only rock and roll (but I like it)
Stadiums are shaking, legends are ageing and the numbers aren't getting easier: inside the actuarial paradox of insuring rock's last giantsInsurance NewsBy Bryony GarlickNov 21, 2025ShareImage from: Raph_PH, CC BY 2.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0>, via Wikimedia Commons AC/DC’s return to Melbourne’s MCG last week - despite frontman Brian Johnson turning 78 and guitarist Angus Young now 70 - was powerful enough to trigger earthquake detection equipment and has become emblematic of the scale and intensity of modern stadium touring. Heritage acts continue to draw vast crowds and generate forces that stretch the traditional boundaries of live-event risk. At the same time, the death of Ozzy Osbourne has reminded the industry of a more personal vulnerability: the advancing age of the artists who still headline the world’s biggest stages. It has revived an old but increasingly urgent underwriting question - how to insure performers whose cultural value remains high even as their risk profile becomes more complex. Are you an insurance innovator? Tell us — we want to hear your storyIn this environment, Mark Hynds, of Rokstone, and Tim Thornhill, of Tysers, outline what sustainable cover for ageing artists truly requires, and why disciplined underwriting remains central to the sector’s survival. A market Under Pressure Hynds argues the core approach has not fundamentally changed. “Fundamentally the market has always tried to be pragmatic about insuring all of the artists who purchase cover,” he said, emphasising the need “to be sensible and mature about it.” Medical underwriting, in his view, is essential to maintaining equity across generations: “It's not fair to take money from younger artists and just be giving it all to older artists because then you're overcharging the younger artists and not charging the older ones enough.” London’s underwriting process, he notes, is long established and conducted transparently. “We seek out medical advice where required from experts. It's a transparent process. It's all done pre-bind.” Artists can then decide on exclusions, buy-backs or the extent of cover required. “The more cover, the more premium.” Experience can also shape risk. Hynds observes that younger artists “don't necessarily understand the rigours of touring so much,” while older acts, with seasoned production teams, tend to structure schedules more carefully. Underwriters, he said, must assess “the entire risk that we're taking on.” You Shook Me All Night Long For Thornhill, AC/DC’s stadium return illustrates the dual nature of modern touring risk. “The main risk considerations would be predominantly twofold,” he said. “Firstly, you have the potential cancellation of the events due to perils like adverse weather and the lack of availability of the venues. And then secondly… the ability of the artist to perform.” The second exposure becomes more involved with older performers. Thornhill explains that brokers “would be looking to get medicals from the band members to understand what their pre-existing medical conditions are,” and that for older acts “we might need full medicals compared to a younger band where we may just need a statement of health.” For high-budget tours, he adds, underwriters must have “the best information possible in order to underwrite the risk.” The seismic vibrations during AC/DC’s Melbourne show, produced by ground-level speakers and thousands of fans bouncing in unison, underline that physical exposures now extend well beyond the stage. Back in (underwriting) Black Self-insurance has become a talking point, but Hynds cautions against underestimating the stakes. “Non-insurance or self-insurance has always been something that's ever present in the contingency space,” he said, and some artists inevitably decide to “back myself a bit more than that.” But major tours often require artists and production teams to commit “tens of millions of pounds” upfront. Without insurance, he warns, many would never happen. “If you couldn't insure your corner shop, there wouldn't be a corner shop,” he said; no-one would risk their life savings “if one fire would burn it and they'd lose it all.” Touring, he argues, operates on the same principle: without cover, “it would be questionable whether there would be so much touring.” Thornhill also sees artists weighing cost against appetite. “We do see some of the older artists do this because the rates… might be too high and they feel like it's not worth it,” he said. Others moderate premium by accepting higher deductibles: “Rather than having a nil deductible on a 15 show tour we might see… a two-show deductible.” Highway to risk appetite Both men agree that sustainability depends on accurate pricing. “It's about charging the right price for the right risk,” Hynds said, ensuring the pool can pay claims when they arise. Thornhill stresses the need for cover to mirror contractual exposure between artists, promoters and venues. For older acts, he said, the process becomes a negotiation to find “an understanding of where that appetite… sits.” The past decade, Hynds adds, has brought heightened accountability and more technology into rating, leaving the sector “more mature than it was,” though profitability pressures persist. For those about to underwrite (We salute you) What is clear is that heritage acts show little sign of slowing down. They continue to fill stadiums, move seismic equipment and, in many cases, outperform younger generations commercially. For insurers, the task is to keep pace with that demand while maintaining a grip on the risk. In rock’s long farewell tour, the music endures, but so does the actuarial challenge.
NY court revives Suffolk County Water Authority carpal tunnel claim
Doctors' addendums push the scales as board's read draws fireLegal InsightsBy Matthew SellersNov 24, 2025ShareA New York appellate panel has reinstated a former Suffolk County Water Authority worker’s carpal tunnel claim, finding the Workers’ Compensation Board overlooked key medical updates that supported a workplace cause. The court reversed the denial and sent the case back for a fresh review. Frank McGann spent 32 years with the Authority, retiring in May 2021 as a senior meter reader. After he left, he reported intermittent tingling and pain in both hands and wrists that had worsened over the prior two years and was diagnosed with bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. His treating physician, Dr. Harold Avella, said the condition was tied to his job. The employer’s orthopedic consultant, Dr. Steven Goodman, initially disagreed but changed his view after reviewing additional records, including EMG results, and re=examining McGann. Are you an insurance innovator? Tell us — we want to hear your storyThe self-insured employer contested the claim. At a hearing, McGann and a manager described day-to-day duties over roughly a six-and-a-half-hour workday: entering data on a keyboard, driving to customer locations for collections, and repeated use of tools to open and close meters and shoot water valves with keys – tasks that require gripping, twisting, and squeezing. The employer also raised Workers’ Compensation Law section 114‑a issues, arguing McGann hadn’t initially told the doctors that he started playing pickleball after retirement. At the employer’s request, the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge directed both physicians to revisit their opinions in light of the testimony about job duties and pickleball. Each submitted an addendum and reaffirmed that McGann’s carpal tunnel syndrome was caused by his work. The Law Judge established the claim as an occupational disease. On administrative appeal, the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed in a May 17, 2024 decision, finding the medical evidence not credibly tied to work. The Board cited gaps in the onset history, uncertainty about how often McGann performed the tasks in question, and the initial lack of disclosure about pickleball. The Appellate Division, Third Department, said the Board went too far. While the Board can weigh evidence and question credibility, it cannot reject uncontroverted medical opinions on causation and replace them with its own view – especially after both doctors updated their reports to include the job‑duty details and the pickleball activity. The court noted that McGann consistently reported intermittent symptoms that worsened over two years before retirement, and that his earlier workers’ compensation claim for bilateral shoulder and elbow injuries did not indicate any link to his later carpal tunnel diagnosis. The court reversed, with costs, and remitted the matter to the Board for further proceedings consistent with its decision. For insurers and self‑insured employers, the takeaway is straightforward: when potential credibility issues surface – like post‑retirement recreational activities – make sure your medical experts explicitly address them. Detailed, on‑the‑record descriptions of the actual tasks performed, particularly repetitive or forceful hand use, can carry significant weight in carpal tunnel cases. Related StoriesCalifornia court blocks WCAB from overruling medical experts in compensation disputesKentucky Supreme Court orders Encova to pay in workers' comp dispute
CFC launches cyber tool to bridge SME protection gap
Specialist is betting that personalised threat reports written in plain business language can unlock a massive untapped marketCyberBy Kenneth AraulloNov 27, 2025ShareCyber insurance specialist CFC has launched a new tool designed to assist brokers in engaging small and medium-sized enterprise clients on cyber risk and expanding their customer base within the SME sector.The Cyber Threat Review reports provide targeted threat analysis to individual businesses rather than generic industry-wide information. CFC's head of global cyber development, Lindsey Maher (pictured above), said that "SMEs have been overwhelmed with reams of stats and details of risks that they can't relate to."Cyber Threat Reviews are generated from ongoing monitoring undertaken by CFC's security team and delivered as point-in-time analyses specific to individual client operations. Each report identifies threats and vulnerabilities with high likelihood of generating insurance claims, translating technical security concepts into business risk language applicable to non-technical audiences.Read more:Cyber insurance gaps exposed as SMBs remain largely unprotectedThis knowledge gap represents a substantial barrier within the SME market. A Munich Re survey found that 28% of companies had never been offered cyber insurance, 26% did not know it existed, and 23% cited confusion over coverage terms, reflecting the distribution and education challenges brokers face when selling to smaller businesses.Despite these obstacles, significant adoption potential exists, with 82% of businesses with 500 or fewer employees currently lacking cyber liability coverage yet 53% of those uninsured organisations indicating they are "very likely" to purchase a policy within the next year.Read more:QBE warns of escalating ransomware risk and pressure on cyber insurance portfoliosThe risk environment underscores the urgency of such protection. Publicly named ransomware victims are projected to surpass 7,000 by 2026, up from 5,010 in 2024, whilst the average cost of individual ransomware incidents rose 17% in the first half of 2025 despite overall claim volumes declining 53%, indicating that attacks are becoming more targeted and costly for affected organisations.Maher said that the reports "bridge the knowledge gap for those who don't speak cyber jargon, delivering a personalised concise report written in day-to-day business language." CFC believes the tool will assist brokers in developing new income streams and increasing cyber insurance adoption rates globally.Cyber Threat Reviews will initially accompany every SME cyber quotation issued by CFC's underwriting team, with broader distribution via multiple trading platforms anticipated.Related StoriesCyber insurance pricing softens - but underwriters aren't backing offCyber insurance gaps exposed as SMBs remain largely unprotected
Cyber insurance market faces volatility as tech outpaces underwriting models
Rapid changes in cyber risk are forcing underwriters into near-constant recalibrationCyberBy Chris DavisNov 20, 2025ShareThe cyber insurance market has become almost unrecognizable from where it was just a few years ago, according to Anthony Dagostino (pictured), president and chief underwriting officer at Avoca Risk. “The market today is ultra fluid,” Dagostino said. “It was probably fluid a couple of years ago, and now it's ultra fluid.” That volatility isn’t cyclical. It’s structural. As cyber threats mutate and expand, insurers are forced into a pattern of short-term rate cuts and aggressive coverage - only to abruptly reverse course after the next wave of claims. “Everybody starts to get very aggressive in coverage and rates,” Dagostino said. “Then something might happen. There's a little bit of a knee-jerk reaction... like we saw with ransomware a few years ago.” Are you an insurance innovator? Tell us — we want to hear your storyHe described a fast-moving, reactionary cycle driven not by long-term loss trends, but by short-term shifts in threat activity. In some years, the lull in claims invites competition and broader coverage. The moment a major event hits - whether systemic or targeted - rates harden, appetite tightens, and underwriting scrutiny returns. Risk appetite fluctuates with attack trends Dagostino has seen the sector from all angles - underwriting, broking, consulting - and now runs an MGA serving clients from small businesses to large enterprises across sectors. From his perspective, the market’s fluctuations are baked into how cyber risk operates. “It just seems to ebb and flow very, very quickly, and it's moving as fast as the technology itself is evolving,” he said. Over the past year, he has noted a rise in tech-enabled underwriting, starting with external scans and expanding into deeper assessments through cybersecurity partnerships. But for all the innovation, one truth hasn’t changed: cyber remains a serious risk for small and midsize businesses, many of whom are still coming online to the realities of digital exposure. “Ransomware is still real, business email compromise resulting in stolen funds is very, very real for small businesses,” Dagostino said. “We see it in real estate. We see it in law firms.” Many of these businesses once viewed cyber insurance as optional. That’s changing. “There is still that need from the small and mid-market, especially in the US...They see value in actually purchasing the assurance,” he said. Insurance struggles to keep up with rapid exposure shifts While the industry has generally kept pace with cyber exposures, there’s a pattern of retrenchment after major events. Dagostino likened it to a two-steps-forward, one-step-back evolution. He pointed to regulatory changes in the early 2000s, and again to the ransomware surge of 2020, as moments that forced underwriters to pause and reassess. “All of a sudden we start to pay a lot of [attention to] ID theft and notifications. So then you tighten up the belt, you revisit underwriting, take a step back, you raise the rates, and then you start moving forward,” he said. He believes that approach is still relevant, but increasingly inadequate given the speed of today’s threat environment. “We’re running pretty fast,” he said. “You see a little bit of systemic events from vendor issues, so more of those vendor aggregation issues.” Still, he doesn’t believe the industry has hit its defining moment. “We haven't really seen that [hurricane-level event] yet, which causes the underwriters to say, ‘wow’,” he said. That moment may still be ahead. “There’s probably something on the horizon,” Dagostino said. “Whether it’s new technology or new evolution in how attacks are done... that would probably give us another ‘aha’ minute to then tighten the belt.” The claim cycle is now real-time One of the key distinctions between cyber and traditional lines is the pace at which underwriters must now adapt. “It really is on a monthly, quarterly basis looking at claims, what were the techniques that the hackers used, what were the vulnerabilities, are we asking the right questions?” he said. He flagged that controls once seen as underwriting gold standards - MFA, encryption, segmentation - may soon become insufficient. A new control could be exploited before insurers even recognize it as a risk. “Somewhere on the horizon there will be a control that has an exploitation that isn't understood,” Dagostino said. “It’s not doomsday... but suddenly we're going to have to re-underwrite.” He pointed to secure DevOps and EDR (endpoint detection and response) solutions as areas that need more underwriting scrutiny. “We talk about that, but I don't think we're really underwriting to that,” he said. Third-party and systemic risks closing in Cyber’s impact doesn’t stop at the policyholder. Increasingly, it hits through dependencies—third-party systems, external vendors, and upstream IT failures. “If you're talking about third party... that paywall has an attack, that has a knock-on detriment to your business,” Dagostino said. “That’s business interruption for a third party.” He drew parallels to contingent business interruption in supply chains, and warned that vendor aggregation risk is growing. “Technology doesn’t have the boundaries or the geographic limitations,” he said. “But there’s still similarities... product recall, aviation. There’s other ones where I think we can definitely learn.” Policyholders not using built-in services While some risks are evolving, others remain frustratingly unchanged. One persistent issue: clients not using the free services built into their policies. “I’ve banged my head against the wall for the last decade,” Dagostino said. “The clients, the policyholders, still don’t understand about all the free services that they get under these policies.” He called out providers like Beazley, Canopius, Chubb, and QBE for investing heavily in tools that remain underused - like phishing simulations, training platforms, and monitoring services. He recently met with small rural hospitals in Virginia, where the disconnect was obvious. “They don’t realize what they can get under the cyber insurance,” he said. “If they utilize the free phishing simulation and training that’s in their policy, you’re going to save these rural hospitals a few thousand dollars per year.” Responsibility for that uptake, he argued, is shared across the value chain. “I think it falls a little bit on the underwriting side to push it more,” Dagostino said. “It very much falls on the broker side... and the fault is also on the policyholder side to actually utilize these things and do it.” High-profile breaches raise broader questions Dagostino is closely watching the aftermath of major breaches in the UK, including incidents involving Marks & Spencer and Jaguar Land Rover. “There’s still some stewards that are lagging and having issues,” he said. “I have a hard time believing that [it’s] UK specific.” To him, these weren’t one-off attacks. They reflected broader weaknesses. “There’s certain vulnerabilities where it was just the luck of the draw the hackers hit them first,” he said. “They could apply to anybody in the world.” Related StoriesCyber insurance at a crossroads as rates fall and growth slowsSelective and devastating
State Farm seeks California auto rate cut after major increase last year
Proposed reduction arrives as competition in the market intensifiesMotor & FleetBy Kenneth AraulloNov 25, 2025ShareState Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. has requested approval to reduce average private passenger automobile insurance rates by 6.2% in California, citing a decline in physical damage losses.The proposed reduction would take effect in the first quarter of 2026, subject to regulatory approval from state insurance regulators.The filing marks a shift in the company's pricing strategy less than a year after implementing a 17.7% rate increase for its independent California private passenger auto program. State Farm attributed the requested reduction to fewer claims, which have lowered both comprehensive and collision loss experience across its customer base.Are you an insurance innovator? Tell us — we want to hear your storyDan Krause (pictured above), senior vice president at State Farm, said in a statement that the proposed reduction reflects "increasingly competitive rates."This statement comes as California's auto insurance market faces intensifying competition. In the third quarter, auto insurance shopping demand in California surged 11% year-over-year, with consumer activity particularly elevated among older policyholders and direct distribution channels, signaling heightened price sensitivity across the market.Read more:Older consumers lift Q3 auto insurance demandDespite this competitive market, the company maintains significant market share in California as the largest personal auto and homeowners' writer in the state. State Farm has also implemented rate reductions in Georgia and Florida as loss trends have improved in those markets.State Farm is one of the top 10 largest insurance companies in Georgia. Read this guide to help insurance brokers review all providers and find the best options for clients statewide.During the third quarter, rate filings in the state also showed considerable variance, with approximately one-third of submissions representing decreases averaging 4.2%, while 35% represented increases averaging 5.1%, and 31% remained rate-neutral.California Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara's office previously approved rate adjustments for State Farm in the property insurance segment, with an administrative law judge's ruling resulting in approval of interim property rate increases ranging from 15% to 38% in May.The divergent rate movements between auto and property insurance reflect different loss experiences across the company's product portfolio, with State Farm adjusting rates to match evolving claims patterns in their respective markets.Related StoriesState Farm cuts auto rates in GeorgiaState Farm cuts Florida auto rates
Allianz Commercial establishes Miami hub to deepen LatAm footprint
Region's low insurance penetration presents significant possibilitiesInsurance NewsBy Kenneth AraulloNov 25, 2025ShareAllianz Commercial will open a Latin America hub in Miami in February 2026, the global insurer has announced.The office will centralize resources and expertise to engage with brokers, clients, and partners across Latin America and the Caribbean, while building on the company's presence in Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, and Colombia.Allianz Commercial plans to expand facultative reinsurance offerings across property, construction & natural resources, financial lines including cyber, marine, and multinational services into markets such as Chile, Peru, Ecuador, and Panama.Are you an insurance innovator? Tell us — we want to hear your storyThe insurer’s expansion reflects broader industry interest in Latin America despite challenging near-term conditions. In its recent insights, Swiss Re projects total insurance premiums in the region will grow 3.8% in real terms in 2025, down from 7.6% in 2024, as geopolitical tensions and inflation pressures constrain economic growth.Read more:Geopolitical tensions and inflation threaten LatAm growthHowever, beneath the slower premium growth lies a significant opportunity for re/insurers: insurance penetration remains below 5% of GDP, yet demand for capacity is rising substantially, driven by recent catastrophe experience and shifting risk management practices.David Colmenares (pictured above, left), commercial managing director for Latin America at Allianz Commercial, said: "The Miami hub represents a strategic investment in our Latin American operations. This office will strengthen our regional capabilities and enable us to deliver enhanced service and technical expertise to our brokers and clients in the region."Shanil Williams (pictured above, right), president, commercial, Americas at Allianz Commercial, said that the Miami office represents a major milestone for the group, with the region characterized as "one of the largest and most mature global commercial insurance and reinsurance hubs."The expansion also comes amid a major financials surge for Allianz SE, with the insurance group reporting strong insurance performance in the third quarter. The company has raised its full-year operating profit guidance to at least €17 billion, reflecting the momentum across its insurance operations.Related StoriesAllianz lifts profit outlook as financials surgeAllianz number one insurance brand once again in Interbrand's 2025 Global Brands List
US shutdown aviation chaos raises fears of spike in workers’ compensation claims
Aviation workers confront heightened risks of physical injury and stress amid a high-pressure periodWorkers CompBy Gia SnapeNov 21, 2025ShareChaos in airline operations triggered by the prolonged US government shutdown has heightened concerns that workers’ compensation claims among aviation-industry employees could rise sharply in the coming months.Earlier this month, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) warned of up to a 10 % cut in air-traffic capacity across 40 major US airports to ease pressure on controller staffing amid the shutdown that began on Oct. 1. An industry trade group told Reuters that over 3.2 million travellers were affected by air traffic controller shortages by early November.The shutdown ended on Nov. 13, after President Donald Trump signed a bill reopening the government.Are you an insurance innovator? Tell us — we want to hear your storySarah Thomas (pictured), managing partner at Jones and Jones, said the aviation workforce has been under “higher-pressure” conditions. With mass flight delays, cancellations, and added staffing issues, insurers and aviation firms alike are bracing for a wave of workplace injury, stress and assault-related claims.“We might see a pop-up of claims just based on this highly pressurized moment,” Thomas said.The anatomy of aviation-workplace claimsWorkers’ compensation exposures in aviation differ significantly from those in typical customer-facing industries, largely because the workplace itself is dynamic, mobile, and high-risk. The most common injuries resulting in claims, according to Thomas, include:Turbulence injuries: Sudden jolts can injure flight attendants or crew members who are not secured.Drink-cart injuries: “The drink cart is one of the heaviest items on the plane,” Thomas noted, and improper handling, especially in tight aisles, can strain backs or shoulders.Public-interaction incidents: Verbal or physical altercations can lead to mental stress claims or bodily injuries.Sinus, ear, and pressure-related injuries: Seasonal illness and cabin-pressure fluctuations can cause ear, sinus, and headache issues.Thomas also highlighted that long hours and unresolved operational disruption increase the likelihood of back-injuries, musculoskeletal strains, and stress-related claims.“With these delays and cancellations… people are working really long hours,” she told Insurance Business. “It could definitely cause an increase in stress claims.”Ground crew are not immune. Thomas noted that “sprains and strains” are prevalent among personnel loading baggage and equipment, especially during peak travel periods (e.g. year-end holidays). Meanwhile, flight crew may face stress claims stemming from turbulence, interactions with passengers and prolonged duty periods.Beyond physical hazards, there is concern that worker exposure to frustrated or aggressive passengers may increase as the shutdown-related travel problems continue.“We have seen [violence] in general,” Thomas said. “It can run the gamut from being on the receiving end of a verbal barrage that causes stress, but we’ve also seen physical altercations.”Implications for insurers and employersFor insurers underwriting aviation workers’ compensation, this disruption raises questions around exposure to both physical injuries and psychosocial claims. Since the pandemic, carrier exposure to latent trauma, workplace aggression and fatigue-driven injury has increased in many public-facing sectors.Employers in the aviation sector should prioritize:Enhanced safety training: Thomas emphasized that prevention “grounded in safety” remains the best mitigant: teaching safe lifting techniques, how to manoeuvre drink carts, correct posture after long hours, etc.Monitoring claims trends: Employers should track new injury types or increases in particular roles or routes, so they can tailor training, rest-break scheduling and job-rotation strategies accordingly.Support for mental-health/stress claims: Given the rise in public aggression, long shifts and operational uncertainty, acknowledging mental-health risks in the workplace is critical.Scheduling and fatigue-management: If delays lengthen duty times or force unplanned reassignments, exposure to injury and stress claims grows.The US government shutdown’s ripple effects have thrust the aviation ecosystem into turbulent territory. Historically, aviation injury claims surge in high-volume travel periods, and this period’s operational disruption may overlay additional risk.“It’s too soon to tell,” Thomas cautioned, “but I do think there’s going to be possibly a spike (in claims) depending on if people were working more hours than they were used to.”Related StoriesHow the "silver tsunami" is driving costlier, longer, and more complex workers' comp claimsWhy tariffs are a hidden threat to workers' comp programs
$16 billion in cyberattack losses - seeing patterns others miss
95% of cyber incidents at SMBs cost between $826 and $653,587CyberBy Emily DouglasDec 01, 2025ShareThis article was created in partnership with Tokio Marine HCC – Cyber & Professional Lines Group. According to The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Internet Crime Complaint Center, in 2024 the FBI received 859,532 complaints of suspected internet crime and reported losses exceeding $16 billion - a 33% increase in losses from 2023 - detailed in their annual Internet Crime Report. As the number of incidents continue to rise, and attacks become more and more sophisticated, a solid defense is the best chance of survival. These defenses, however, can’t be simple or isolated. Instead, they should be multidimensional and collaborative - a perfect blend of preventative and curative approaches in alignment. Tokio Marine HCC – Cyber & Professional Lines Group, a member of the Tokio Marine HCC group of companies based in Houston, Texas, (CPLG) embodies that partnership in the interplay between the Cyber Threat Intelligence (CTI) and Cyber Incident Management (CIM) teams. Speaking to Insurance, Alex Bovicelli, Senior Director of Cyber Threat Intelligence, and Richard Savage, Senior Director of Cyber Incident Management, revealed how real-time information sharing, pattern recognition and a white-glove approach are keeping their insureds safer and smarter about cyber threats. “In the Cyber Incident Management team, we have the opportunity to interact with our insureds in real-time and help them navigate their way through active cyber incidents. We take the initial call, receive the initial information and then provide guidance throughout the length of an incident. [As such], we get firsthand technical understanding about what's going on, and we can share that information in real-time with the Cyber Threat Intelligence team.” ‘Real-time interaction is our biggest advantage’ Because of that instant exchange of data, often facilitated through a secure and persistent communication channel, there’s no need to wait three months for an IT report or the results of some kind of extensive investigation - making it a seamless process for everyone involved. “The real-time interaction is probably [our] best advantage,” added Bovicelli. “When Savage’s team meets with a customer who just experienced an event, his team can ask us in real time, ‘Hey, what did you alert the insured of in the last year and a half?’ Or, ‘Did you see any vulnerabilities or exposures that you alerted the insured on or something that perhaps we should be aware of right now?’ That gives his team the advantage of meeting with the insured and coordinating with the forensics team, already informed about the potential attack vector used by the threat actor.” Imagine a cyberattack as a medieval siege. The walls of the castle are lined with archers with arrows, each ready to ward off any forthcoming attacks from the enemy - that’s the CTI team. However, if those walls are breached and the enemy makes it inside the castle it’s then up to the soldiers on the ground to either defeat them or negotiate a truce - and that’s down to the CIM team. One notable example of how this expert collaboration works occurred during a surge of attacks by the Akira ransomware group in 2023. Here, Savage’s team saw commonality between ransomware events - they were all Cisco ASA WebVPN, a secure and seamless way for teams to connect to their company’s network from anywhere - and they were able to act quickly. “No one knew how they were being compromised - not in the public, not in the wider cybersecurity news cycle,” revealed Bovicelli. However, CPLG’s firsthand approach allowed both teams to quickly realize that there was a pattern there, meaning, they could alert their insureds weeks in advance. It’s that real-time collection of information, being able to put those patterns together, that ultimately helped countless customers. What’s more, their pattern-spotting abilities continued as Akira shifted tactics to targeting SonicWall VPNs. “The Akira group targeted Cisco for a year, and now they've done SonicWall for a year,” said Bovicelli. “[At CPLG, we] can see certain patterns that maybe the industry can't.” This proactive, pattern-based approach to detection differentiates CPLG from more traditional insurance models. “The direct connection that we have to the client is a differentiator,” said Savage. “We’re involved in risk management discussions, pre-breach conversations and active incident response.” Human-first, customer-centric approach Bovicelli is particularly proud of their involvement at the human level. As he told IB, they don’t just automate an alert and tell the insured to patch it – an action required to renew their policy - they also focus on specific technical and high-risk exposures. “We provide assistance to ensure that the patch is applied correctly, eliminating exposure and allowing us to monitor more effectively. [At CPLG], we’re really [offering] a white glove service for all of our customers - and in that sense we’re different from other carriers.” This customer-centric mindset is mirrored throughout the entire process. All first-party incidents are handled internally too - meaning that if an insured has a claim at 3am they’re put through to a person not a chatbot. And beyond immediate service, both teams also scan the horizon for broader ransomware trends where a common misconception prevails time and time again. “A lot of insureds say, ‘Why would they want to attack me? I’m just a small business.’ But it's not about targeting a name - it’s about targeting technology at scale,” added Savage. And it’s a costly mistake for small businesses to make. According to data collected by StrongDM, 95% of cybersecurity incidents at SMBs cost between $826 and $653,587, with 50% of SMBs adding that it took 24 hours or longer to recover from said attack. For Bovicelli it’s a topic he’s been obsessively talking about for two years. As he told IB, large portion of attacks are on smaller companies - those with cyber insurance but less robust controls. And attackers know this. “There’s this dynamic where smaller businesses just aren’t aware that these attacks make up the vast majority of events. They’re more worried about social engineering or heavy reconnaissance needed for targeting when in reality [criminals] might be brute forcing an SSL VPN login page because they know no one's paying attention to it.” Another growing concern here is backup targeting. As Savage warned, backups are being deleted, overwritten and encrypted. The difference between a catastrophic event and a non-catastrophic event “It’s surprising to see in 2025 that companies still don’t have adequately segregated backups to ensure a smooth recovery. A message to any insured - it is essential to have MFA on remote access and limit the external footprint, but should someone get in and affect your data, you have to make sure you have those backups in place.” As Bovicelli aptly put it: “That can be the difference between a catastrophic event and a non-catastrophic event for a company.” Another underreported risk lies in unmanaged personal devices. Say, for instance, a personal laptop without EDR (Endpoint Detection and Response) used for gaming then downloads a bundled PC game pack with malware. If the user logs into their work VPN the credentials are exfiltrated. And the IT team doesn't know because they don't see any traffic coming from a VPN network or from a device that they manage.” What’s more, attackers also use search engine optimization poisoning to plant malware. “They create Trojanized versions of free resources - like a journalist contract template. A user downloads it and it compromises all their browser logins. That’s where people access SaaS or work apps,” Bovicelli added. It seems as if cybercriminals are looking for any small window of opportunity to crawl through, any crack in your organization’s defense to manipulate and breach. For businesses, it’s about investing in cyber insurance as one preventive measure rather than taking the dangerous gamble that you will never be impacted. Looking ahead in this space, both Bovicelli and Savage emphasized the need to stay connected to each other to help customers as best they can. “We meet regularly in addition to our incident collaboration,” said Savage. “We have to keep feeding the machine to get better at prevention and detection.” Bovicelli also pointed to the evolving sophistication of their joint efforts, adding that it’s about knowing how to work with each partner onboarded during an incident to make sure CTI gets what it needs - the raw data. “There’s a ton of threat intelligence out there,” added Savage. “Not all of it is relevant. [It’s about] sorting through it and focusing on the what’s important to us internally - what’s important to our client base - through continued involvement and collaboration.”
Davies bets big on North America – and even bigger on AI
As it prepares to close its biggest deal to date, the firm is also doubling down on agentic and generative AIClaimsBy Gia SnapeDec 04, 2025ShareDavies’ largest-ever acquisition – its deal to purchase SCM Insurance Services, Canada’s largest claims processing and risk solutions provider – comes at a pivotal moment for the UK-based professional services and technology group.While the transaction cements its leadership position in Canada’s insurance services sector, CEO Dan Saulter (pictured) toldInsurance Businessthat the move is inseparable from the company’s wider push into advanced technology and AI.“We don’t see tech and AI as optional,” he said. “They’re an imperative.”Accelerating AI adoption in claimsTechnology and AI investment represent a core pillar of Davies’ Vision 2030. Earlier this year, the firm announced major upgrades to its ClaimPilot platform, including new automation and agentic AI capabilities.Davies is already seeing early gains from applying generative AI to targeted parts of the claims journey, with some processes running up to 10 times faster. The technology, Saulter explained, frees employees to focus on complex and high-value tasks while automation handles simpler, repetitive steps.“Claims businesses that don’t invest in automation are going to lose,” Saulter said. “And we want to win.”But progress comes with hurdles. A major one: the legacy systems accumulated through a decade of acquisitions.“When you buy tens of businesses over 10 years, you inherit their technology,” Saulter said. “You can’t just push agentic AI into everything. You have to sort out the legacy systems first. That’s why we’re concentrating investment in our ClaimPilot product suite.”Part of the urgency stems from the fact that client expectations across both personal and commercial lines have risen sharply. Balancing those expectations with the legal and contractual realities of claims decisions remains a core challenge.“People know how to complain nowadays, in a way they didn’t 20 years ago,” Saulter reflected. “The bar for service is higher.”The North America play: Behind Davies’ SCM dealThe SCM acquisition, expected to close within weeks, brings more than 1,500 SCM employees into Davies, boosting the global workforce to around 9,500 and raising annual revenues to roughly $1.4 billion.More significantly, it gives Davies full nationwide coverage in Canada and adds market-leading claims and risk capabilities to its expanding North American footprint.Canada was the next logical frontier for the fast-growing professional services and technology firm. Saulter said the transaction fits into a broader plan to scale both geographically and technologically.“We were already in Canada to a small extent through forensic accounting, consulting, and technology services,” he said. “But we hadn’t gotten on the ground processing claims, doing the core services we deliver across the rest of North America and Europe. Entering a competitive market like Canada required the right partner, and SCM is the out-and-out number one.”Discussions between the companies date back years, culminating in a structure that enabled SCM’s private equity owners, Warburg Pincus and TorQuest Partners, to reinvest in Davies as minority shareholders.Canada’s scale, culture, and close ties to the London Lloyd’s market make it a natural fit for Davies. Saulter described it as “a large, vibrant insurance market” with more than 40 million people and a strong international footprint.“A lot of international clients in SCM’s business are tied to Lloyd’s, and many of our global clients writing business in Canada want us to have a full suite of services across North America,” he said. “This deal builds out that picture.”What’s next for Davies?While M&A has been a defining feature of Davies’ growth over the past decade, Saulter emphasizes that integration is now the immediate priority. Looking toward 2026, Saulter is most energized by two priorities: integrating SCM and accelerating the ClaimPilot roadmap.“We’ll be very focused on getting the SCM integration done correctly and welcoming our new colleagues,” he said. “We’re not running around today trying to close lots more deals.”Still, Davies’ Vision 2030 plan calls for continued growth through acquisitions and organic expansion. Saulter expects the company to pursue both geographic reach and diversification of services in the medium term.“You’ll see us servicing more countries and adding more solutions in markets we’re already in,” he said. “Canada is a great example. This acquisition expands our on-the-ground services significantly.”Related StoriesDavies taps Adam Warwick as new CIO, expands executive teamPressure building on insurers to overhaul claims process
Stop loss insurance market expands as employers seek protection against high-cost claims
The insurance is becoming more and more essentialInsurance NewsBy Josh RecamaraDec 01, 2025ShareThe global stop loss insurance market is seeing strong growth as organizations increasingly adopt self-funded health plans to manage exposure to high-cost medical claims.Stop loss insurance protects employers by capping their financial liability for catastrophic or unpredictable claims, ensuring that unexpected medical expenses do not threaten organizational stability. Rising healthcare costs, complex treatments, and increased utilization of specialty drugs are driving demand for these products.According to Allied Market Research, the stop loss insurance market was valued at $26.9 billion in 2024 and is projected to reach $113.5 billion by 2034, growing at a CAGR of 15.1%. Specific stop loss insurance remains the dominant segment due to employers’ need to protect against large individual claims. Large enterprises lead adoption, given their greater exposure to high-cost claims, while healthcare organizations continue to drive demand as hospitals and medical institutions face escalating claims and utilization.Insurance drivers and opportunitiesThe market’s expansion is underpinned by the rising cost of healthcare services, broader adoption of self-funded plans, and the need for financial risk management tools. Insurers are leveraging predictive analytics and artificial intelligence to enhance underwriting accuracy, optimize pricing, and tailor policies for individual employer needs.Cloud-based platforms streamline administrative tasks such as policy issuance, claims processing, and regulatory compliance, allowing insurers to deliver more efficient stop loss solutions.Challenges and industry considerationsDespite growth, high premiums for small enterprises, regulatory uncertainty, and variability in claims remain key challenges. Insurers are responding with more flexible policy structures, advanced data analytics, and partnerships with third-party administrators (TPAs) or captive insurance models to reduce risk and improve market access. The complexity of self-funded healthcare plans makes underwriting expertise and robust risk management increasingly important for insurers.Meanwhile, North America and Europe dominate the stop loss insurance market, supported by mature insurance ecosystems and strong regulatory frameworks for employee benefits.Stop loss insurance in the USIn the US, large and mid-sized employers increasingly rely on stop loss insurance to protect against catastrophic claims. Meanwhile, Asia-Pacific and Latin America are growing rapidly, fueled by rising healthcare costs, increased employer-sponsored insurance adoption, and digital distribution channels.Major insurers in the stop loss market include HM Insurance Group, Berkshire Hathaway Specialty Insurance, Nationwide, Sun Life, Tokio Marine HCC, Swiss Re, Voya Financial, Liberty Mutual, Cigna, and Zurich North America.Notable strategic actions include Nationwide’s 2025 acquisition of Allstate’s employer stop-loss segment and Prudential Financial’s launch of tailored stop loss products for self-funded employer plans, emphasizing flexible coverage and competitive pricing.Related StoriesMedical stop loss claims for COVID more than double – reportUnderstanding medical stop loss insurance
State Farm cuts auto rates in Georgia
Fraud crackdown and tort reforms drive declining auto rates in the regionMotor & FleetBy Insurance BusinessNov 21, 2025Share.main_content .h1,.main_content h1{font-size:32px}.main_content .h2,.main_content h2{font-size:24px}.main_content .h3,.main_content h3{font-size:18px}.main_content .h4,.main_content h4{font-size:16px}State Farm has received approval for another personal auto rate reduction in Georgia - this time by 3%.The Office of the Commissioner of Insurance and Safety Fire confirmed that State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.’s latest filing brings the company’s average auto rate decrease in the state to 10% over the past year.State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. also received approval for a 1.5% personal auto rate cut, according to Best’s State Rate Filings. Together, these reductions are expected to ease costs for more than 2.12 million Georgia drivers.Are you an insurance innovator? Tell us — we want to hear your storySince December 2024, State Farm estimates that lower rates have saved policyholders roughly $400 million annually - about $190 per insured vehicle.Impact of reforms and lower claimsInsurance and Safety Fire Commissioner John King said the lowering rates are due to the state’s aggressive fraud prevention efforts and sweeping tort reforms signed into law in April.The reforms introduced tighter rules on third‑party litigation funding, capped attorney fee recoveries, and modernized standards for medical billing and negligent security liability. "I promised on day one that I would not only fight for Georgia families to have coverage options, but affordable options at that," he said.King added that the state's work has led to a more balanced and sustainable insurance environment. "We're going to continue fighting to position Georgia as a national leader in affordable coverage, marketplace stability and strong protections for families,” he said.In a statement, State Farm senior vice president Allyson Watts attributed less costly physical damage claims for the lower rates in Georgia. "We are pleased to help our customers save money by offering increasingly competitive rates, combined with the personalized attention of our local agents and first-rate customer service," she said.State Farm Group remains Georgia’s largest private passenger auto insurer, commanding a 24.8% market share in 2024, ahead of Progressive, Allstate, Berkshire Hathaway, and USAA.State Farm is one of the top 10 largest insurance companies in Georgia. Read this guide to help insurance brokers review all providers and find the best options for clients statewide.Related StoriesNo additional oversight needed for Georgia's insurance affiliate agreements – commissionerAuto insurance affordability in Georgia a growing concern, IRC says
New York court strips GEICO's authority to deny no-fault claims
Find out how a $390k kickback scheme between an acupuncturist and unlicensed people changed no-fault rulesLegal InsightsBy Matthew SellersNov 26, 2025ShareA New York Court of Appeals decision limits insurer authority to deny no-fault claims over alleged healthcare provider misconduct, reshaping fraud-fighting strategies across the industry.That's the practical upshot of a ruling handed down November 24, 2025, in Government Employees Insurance Company v. Mayzenberg. The decision significantly constrains how insurance companies can fight fraud in the state's no-fault auto insurance system and marks a departure from what some in the industry had hoped would be a stronger tool for combating misconduct.Are you an insurance innovator? Tell us — we want to hear your storyGEICO sued Igor Mayzenberg, a licensed acupuncturist in New York, over what it considered a blatant scheme to extract millions in fraudulent reimbursements. From 2015 to 2017, Mayzenberg allegedly paid roughly $390,000 to unlicensed individuals in exchange for patient referrals. Those individuals would call him each month, demand a payment amount with no documentation, and Mayzenberg would comply. They essentially controlled which patients received treatment. In return, GEICO received bills totaling nearly $4.9 million for acupuncture services. A federal district court found the evidence straightforward. There was no genuine dispute about the kickback scheme.GEICO wanted to deny reimbursement for all pending claims based on a state regulation requiring providers to meet licensing requirements to get paid. The insurance company argued that Mayzenberg's misconduct violated professional conduct standards, making him ineligible.The Court of Appeals saw things differently. In a 6-1 decision, the majority said insurers cannot unilaterally decide that a provider has committed misconduct serious enough to withhold payment. That authority belongs to state regulators, specifically New York's Board of Regents, which oversees professional licensing and discipline. Justice Rivera explained the concern: if insurers could deny claims whenever they suspected professional misconduct, they could delay payments based on mere allegations. New York's no-fault system, enacted in 1973, was designed to get money to accident victims quickly, without litigation delays. Giving insurers power to make unilateral misconduct determinations would defeat that purpose.The court also noted that New York law lists roughly 50 different types of professional misconduct, ranging from serious violations to trivial ones. If insurers could deny claims over any of these, they would have enormous leverage to delay payment, undermining the entire system.The decision does leave one pathway open for insurers. If a provider has effectively surrendered control of their medical practice to unlicensed individuals, insurers can challenge those claims. This distinction matters because it preserves insurers' ability to address the most egregious arrangements while preventing them from weaponizing minor professional violations.Beyond that carve-out, insurers retain other tools. They can deny claims if services were medically unnecessary. They can report suspected fraud to state regulators, who have authority to temporarily prohibit providers from billing for up to 90 days and permanently deauthorize them if the Board of Regents determines misconduct occurred. Insurers can also sue for unjust enrichment or damages.Chief Judge Wilson dissented sharply, arguing that Mayzenberg's scheme was functionally identical to fraud the court had previously condemned. When non-licensed parties have financial stakes in referrals, they have incentives to refer unnecessary cases, inflating costs and raising insurance premiums for all New York drivers.For insurers operating in New York, the decision establishes a clear boundary: you cannot deny claims based on professional misconduct allegations alone, unless that misconduct involves actual surrender of control to unlicensed parties. You must work through the state's regulatory apparatus, which means filing reports and waiting for investigations. It slows down response to suspected fraud but reinforces that New York's no-fault system prioritizes speed of payment over insurer discretion. Whether that arrangement effectively prevents fraud is ultimately a question for policymakers.Related StoriesGEICO accuses Florida clinics of orchestrating $1.3 million PIP fraud schemeProgressive faces Michigan court challenge over auto policy exclusions
Why auto dealerships face a perfect storm of risks
Brokers and agents must protect dealership clients in a new era of exposureMotor & FleetBy Gia SnapeDec 03, 2025ShareWhen CDK Global, a leading dealer management software provider, was hit by a ransomware attack in June 2024, roughly 15,000 customers across North America were forced back to pen-and-paper and improvised workarounds during a critical sales window. Dealerships lost more than $1 billion to the outages, according to industry reports.Over a year later, risks facing US auto dealerships – from cyber extortion and data theft to vandalism and staffing gaps – are converging into a “perfect storm,” according to Rajni Kapur (pictured), CEO of All Solutions Insurance, a California-based agency specializing in auto dealer and garage coverages.Kapur spoke withInsurance Businessabout how the CDK incident has hardened attitudes on cyber risk and what agents and brokers should be doing now to protect dealer clients.CDK attack becomes a cyber wake-up callThe silver lining in the CDK Global attack, which created weeks of operational paralysis for dealerships, is that it led to a sharp rise in cyber awareness.Since that event, dealerships have been taking more precautions around their cybersecurity, implementing encryption for financing documents, and conducting phishing training for staff,” according to Kapur.“I’ve also seen more dealerships opting for cyber liability coverage, which they didn’t always prioritize before,” she noted.Carriers have tightened their underwriting stance for dealerships. Detailed cyber applications, mandatory multi-factor authentication, required employee training schedules, and limited access to sensitive customer information have become standard.In some cases, Kapur said, carriers are conducting direct calls with dealership cyber managers to confirm compliance. “If (dealerships) don’t implement the required measures, the policy may be cancelled,” she added.High-value EVs increase theft severityWhile cyber attacks can compromise vehicle systems, Kapur noted that cyber-related schemes are primarily aimed at customer financial data rather than vehicle theft.Physical theft, however, remains a significant and growing exposure, particularly for electric vehicles and other high-value models.Popular models from brands such as Kia, Hyundai, and Cadillac have been common targets, along with high-demand EVs and catalytic converter thefts. “These claims can be quite hefty,” Kapur noted.Key control is a central point of failure she sees across the industry. On a busy lot, Kapur said, keys can be misplaced, which allows unauthorized test drivers to take vehicles and flee the scene.Brokers and carriers are advising clients to move to locked, access-controlled key cabinets that track employee key usage, restrict access to high-value models, eliminate unauthorized test drives, and position high-value inventory in secure or indoor areas.Motion sensors and increased nighttime security patrols are also recommended.Carriers are increasingly intolerant of repeated theft losses. While a single incident may be acceptable, “if it continues to happen, brokers and carriers don’t like it,” Kapur said. Repeated losses may result in non-renewal or reduced terms.Holiday foot traffic driving theft and collision lossesWhile winter weather traditionally tops the loss tally for many dealerships, Kapur said theft and vandalism now rival natural perils as leading causes of claims. Holiday-season foot traffic presents an especially challenging exposure as bad actors take advantage of crowds to gain access to vehicles.The uptick in customer visits also drives more test drives, more on-lot vehicle movement, and, in turn, more collision activity. Employee-caused damage during vehicle shuffling (already a perennial issue) is rising amid tight staffing and less experienced personnel. At the same time, slip-and-fall exposures also increase with heavier foot traffic.Weather remains a constant seasonal risk, with storms bringing wind damage, flooding, hail, roof leaks, and fallen debris that can affect both open-lot inventory and indoor showroom units.Tips for commercial brokers and agentsAmid tightening markets and heightened exposures, dealerships must prioritize thorough coverage reviews and strong risk management. For agents and brokers, rigorous cyber and key control practices are now essential in protecting auto dealer clients.Kapur urged fellow agents to revisit auto dealer portfolios and verify that foundational coverages reflect current exposures.Dealer’s open lot coverage remains “one of the most important” protections, she said, addressing losses stemming from weather, theft, vandalism, and on-lot collisions. Ensuring vehicles are insured to value, particularly the highest-valued units, is also critical.Garage liability and garage keepers liability are also essential. Kapur noted frequent oversights in garage keepers coverage, especially the need for “direct primary” protection to ensure customer vehicles in the dealership’s care are covered for weather or collision events.For larger lots with higher inventory levels, Kapur recommended umbrella limits between $2 million and $5 million, and up to $10 million for the largest operations.“When we review existing policies, we often find missing pieces,” Kapur said. “We then recommend that the dealership add whatever is missing so their coverage is as complete as possible.”Related StoriesAuto dealerships facing rising transit losses amid theft 'epidemic'Supply chain attacks are on the rise – how can brokers help?
Industry groups back California Commissioner's insurance reform
Delays, outdated regulations push groups to demand change in the state’s rate approval processInsurance NewsBy Insurance BusinessNov 21, 2025Share.main_content .h1,.main_content h1{font-size:32px}.main_content .h2,.main_content h2{font-size:24px}.main_content .h3,.main_content h3{font-size:18px}.main_content .h4,.main_content h4{font-size:16px}A broad coalition of consumer and industry groups has rallied behind Commissioner Ricardo Lara’s insurance reforms, citing the urgent need to address delays and rising costs in California’s market.In a letter addressed to the commissioner, the coalition said the ‘long overdue’ reforms are crucial to deliver three key outcomes for the state’s insurance market:Timely reviews for rate filingsConsumer-centric regulatory process to curb abusers who profit from delaysMarket stability to help insurers remain on the state and provide more coverage options for consumersAre you an insurance innovator? Tell us — we want to hear your story“California’s insurance market is in crisis. As insurers scale back or exit the state’s insurance market, access to coverage and consumer choice is evaporating - not only for homeowners, but also for small businesses, farmers, builders and housing providers we represent,” the letter read.“This crisis has halted new affordable housing developments and home construction, forced lenders to walk away from projects, put family farms at risk, and left too many communities and businesses without insurance coverage.”According to Department of Insurance data, rate filings without third-party intervention took an average of 256 days to review in 2024. When intervenors were involved, the process stretched to nearly 529 days - almost a year and a half, a sharp departure from the 60-day approval period Proposition 103 envisioned.“At the heart of this crisis is a broken rate approval process - made worse by a flawed intervenor process that Consumer Watchdog wrote into Proposition 103 for its own benefit,” the letter said.“When Consumer Watchdog delays rate approvals for its own financial gain, insurance premiums fail to reflect the true cost of covering claims.“This leads to shrinking access to coverage and increased costs for consumers, further straining California’s already struggling insurance market.”Calls for accountability and stabilityAmong the list of signatories was Shannon Douglass, president of the California Farm Bureau, who highlighted the strain on wildfire‑prone communities. “The process has delayed rate approvals and driven up costs, making it harder for farmers, ranchers and families to secure coverage,” she said.Robert Moutrie of the California Chamber of Commerce underscored the broader economic impact, warning that rising insurance costs are hurting employers across the state. “California’s insurance costs are hurting businesses just like they’re hurting homeowners and drivers,” he said.Meanwhile, Jill Epstein, CEO of the Independent Agents & Brokers of California, pointed to the burden on families and communities. “These reforms are a critical step toward restoring competitive health and stability to the state’s insurance market and ensuring Californians have multiple good options for securing the coverage they need,” she said.For her part, Debra Carlton, executive vice president of the California Apartment Association, emphasized the consequences for housing affordability. “The affordable housing crisis is exacerbated when timelines for insurance approvals drag on, increasing costs that hurt California families,” she explained.Here’s a list of the signatories of the letter:Jill Epstein, CEO —Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of California Dan Dunmoyer, President and CEO —California Building Industry AssociationRob Moutrie, Senior Policy Advocate —California Chamber of CommerceDebra Carlton, EVP of State Government Affairs —California Apartment AssociationSanjay Wagle, SVP of Governmental Affairs —California Association of REALTORS®Brooke Armour, Executive Vice President —California Business RoundtableMatt Dias, President and CEO —California Forestry AssociationTom Freeley, CEO —California Association of Community ManagersPeter Ansel, Director of State Policy Advocacy —California Farm Bureau Federation Michael D’Arelli, Executive Director —American Agents AllianceLouie A. Brown, Jr., Legislative Advocate —Community Associations Institute – California Legislative Action CommitteeSteven Pettersen, President and CEO —Western Insurance Agents AssociationJenna Abbott, Executive Director —California Council for Affordable HousingSusan Milazzo, CEO —California Mortgage Bankers AssociationCheryl Marcell, Executive Director —Housing Contractors of CaliforniaRobert Rivinius, Policy Director —Family Business Association of CaliforniaTim Taylor, California Policy Director —National Federation of Independent Business – California (NFIB)Matthew Hargrove, President and CEO —California Business Properties AssociationRay Pearl, Executive Director —California Housing ConsortiumDaniel Hartwig, President —California Fresh Fruit AssociationKirk Wilbur, Vice President of Government Affairs —California Cattlemen’s AssociationTracy Hernandez, Founder and CEO —Los Angeles County Business FederationAdrian Covert, SVP of Public Policy —Bay Area CouncilTimothy Jemal, CEO —NAIOP SoCaRelated StoriesCalifornia ballot battle heats up over insurance consumer protectionLara struggles to reform California insurance market
Baldwin, CAC to combine in transformational $1-billion deal
The combination will surpass $2B in revenue with deepened specialty and middle-market strengthsInsurance NewsBy Insurance BusinessDec 02, 2025ShareThe Baldwin Group has agreed to merge with CAC Group in a landmark transaction that will combine two fast-growing US brokerages into what is expected to become the largest majority colleague-owned, publicly traded insurance broker in the country.In an announcement, Baldwin revealed that the transaction includes $1.026 billion in upfront consideration, split between $438 million in cash and 23.2 million Baldwin common shares valued at $589 million.The deal also features up to $250 million in performance-based earnouts and a $70 million deferred payment, further expanding the potential value of the merger. The companies expect the deal to close in the first quarter of 2026, subject to regulatory approvals.The merger brings together Baldwin’s national middle-market distribution footprint with CAC’s fast-growing specialty expertise. Together, the combined entity is projected to generate more than $2 billion in gross revenue and over $470 million in adjusted EBITDA in 2026.Baldwin said the transaction is expected to be over 20% accretive to 2025 adjusted EPS, excluding one-time costs, and will be net-leverage neutral at closing, supporting the firm’s balance sheet strategy through 2028.Deepening specialty expertise driving mega M&A dealsCAC brings a robust portfolio of specialty capabilities, expanding Baldwin’s Insurance Advisory Solutions segment into sectors such as natural resources, private equity, real estate, senior living, education, and construction.On the product side, CAC enhances Baldwin’s offerings in financial lines, transactional liability, cyber, and surety, supported by CAC’s proprietary data and analytics platform.The combined platform will also integrate Baldwin’s reinsurance, MGA, and technology operations, giving specialists more distribution and product development capabilities.Together, the firms will have nearly 5,000 colleagues across all major US markets, serving clients through retail, specialty, MGA, and reinsurance channels.Trevor Baldwin, CEO of The Baldwin Group, called the merger a major milestone.“This is a transformational moment for The Baldwin Group,” he said. “By uniting CAC’s deep specialty capabilities with Baldwin’s scale and diversified platform, we create a stronger, more balanced organization that delivers exceptional solutions for clients and unmatched opportunities for colleagues.”CAC Group CEO Erin Lynch framed the move as an acceleration of the company’s specialty-driven growth model.“Coming together with Baldwin gives us the scale and infrastructure to accelerate everything that makes CAC distinctive,” Lynch said. “This merger positions us to deliver more for clients and create expanded opportunities for colleagues, while staying true to the values that have fueled our growth.”Baldwin will host a webcast and conference call at 8:30 am ET on December 3 to discuss the transaction.Where does the Baldwin-CAC merger stack up against national brokers?From a scale perspective, the merged Baldwin-CAC entity will still sit well below the global mega-brokers but firmly within the upper tier of US intermediaries.Marsh McLennan, Aon, Arthur J. Gallagher, and WTW continue to dominate the global broker rankings, with 2024 revenues of roughly $24.5 billion, $15.7 billion, $11.3 billion, and $9.9 billion, respectively, according to recent filings. Alliant, Hub International, Brown & Brown, Acrisure, Lockton and Howden each report multi-billion-dollar brokerage revenue as well.By contrast, Baldwin has reported around $1.39 billion in US brokerage revenue in 2024. CAC has separately disclosed that its revenues grew to approximately $263 million in 2023 and are expected to approach $295 million for 2024..main_content .h1,.main_content h1{font-size:32px}.main_content .h2,.main_content h2{font-size:24px}.main_content .h3,.main_content h3{font-size:18px}.main_content .h4,.main_content h4{font-size:16px}
Michigan auto insurance premiums down 18.8% five years after no-fault reform
Analysis credits sharp declines to policyholders choosing limited or no PIP medical benefitsMotor & FleetBy Kenneth AraulloDec 04, 2025ShareAverage personal auto insurance premiums in Michigan fell 18.8%, or $357, in the five years after the state’s no-fault reform, according to a legislatively commissioned study released by the Michigan Department of Insurance and Financial Services.The analysis, conducted by Milliman, focused on private passenger cars, SUVs, trucks and vans, and did not include classic or antique vehicles.DIFS said several trends have emerged since the May 2019 reforms, including an initial period of access-to-care issues that appears to have eased as the market adjusted, courts issuing decisions and regulators processing consumer complaints.Michigan remains the only state where drivers can still elect unlimited lifetime medical benefits after a crash, DIFS director Anita Fox said, while the reform created new coverage levels that can reduce premiums.Gov. Gretchen Whitmer said in a statement that the no-fault overhaul “shows that when we work together, we can make a real difference.” She has framed the law as aimed at improving both affordability and choice for Michgan policyholders.Milliman reported that personal injury protection premiums dropped 44.7% following the reforms. The consulting firm attributed much of that decline to policyholders selecting limited or no personal injury protection medical coverage in place of the traditional unlimited option.Read more:Michigan lawmakers weigh new deductible rules for auto insurersPolicyholders who opt out of unlimited PIP coverage also avoid the Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association assessment on anticipated new claims, which stood at $70 per insured vehicle at year-end 2024. The study noted that even drivers who kept unlimited PIP saw premium reductions tied to the new medical fee schedule and changes to the order of priority for paying claims.Milliman said the MCCA has taken on some post-reform claims that were previously shared with auto insurers. Under current rules, MCCA reimburses no-fault carriers for PIP medical claims that exceed $675,000 on policies with unlimited lifetime coverage.The study found that MCCA assessments for anticipated new claims increased in the years leading up to the 2019 law change but have since fallen by $142 per insured vehicle. At the same time, anyone injured in a Michigan crash now seeks PIP benefits through the Michigan Assigned Claims Plan rather than another driver’s insurer.Michigan’s evolving regulatory landscapeAgainst that backdrop, lawmakers are considering further adjustments that could influence how drivers share costs with insurers.House Bill 5030, introduced in September, would require personal protection insurance deductibles to be offered in $1,000 increments, with the maximum deductible linked to the average amount paid in PPI benefits for motor vehicle accidents in the prior year, potentially reshaping deductible structures and premium calculations if it becomes law.Read more:Michigan bill demands insurance agents disclose exactly who they representPolicymakers are also looking at distribution and sales practices as the no-fault market evolves. House Bill 4854 would require insurance agents to disclose exactly whom they represent before selling or negotiating coverage in Michigan, adding a defined transparency and compliance step for producers and clarifying whether an agent is acting on behalf of the insurer or the insured in each transaction.Average bodily injury premiums in Michigan rose significantly in 2021, Milliman said, then stayed relatively flat through 2023 before increasing again in 2024, a pattern the firm linked in part to COVID-19-related delays in court proceedings and claims litigation.DIFS reported that the 2019 reforms have also reduced the state’s uninsured motorist rate gap relative to the national average, narrowing it to 3.9% from 5.4% before the law took effect.Related StoriesMichigan lawmakers weigh new deductible rules for auto insurersMichigan bill demands insurance agents disclose exactly who they represent
Cyber market stabilizes, but risk and exposure still escalating
Evolving threats, board scrutiny, and pricing gaps keep the sector under pressureCyberBy Chris DavisDec 02, 2025Share.main_content .h1,.main_content h1{font-size:32px}.main_content .h2,.main_content h2{font-size:24px}.main_content .h3,.main_content h3{font-size:18px}.main_content .h4,.main_content h4{font-size:16px}The cyber insurance market may have cooled from its peak volatility, but the risks haven’t gone anywhere. “The state of the cyber market is stabilizing post a very hard market cycle,” said Ben Zviti (pictured), president of ANV Cyber. “But volatility still remains due to increased regulatory scrutiny, as well as the evolving threats and longer tail third party claims.”Threat actors have become faster, smarter, and harder to predict - and they’re hitting all corners of the business world. “It’s a game of cat and mouse between the threat actors and the IT professionals,” said Zviti. With digital infrastructure now embedded into every layer of enterprise operations, cyber exposure has become constant - and increasingly systemic.Cyber moves from IT to the boardroomCyber is no longer a technical or back-office problem. It's a strategic threat - one that boards and executives are now treating as a top-line risk. “Cyber risk is completely a board-level concern today,” said Zviti. “It has now exceeded to number one at the C-suite level.”That elevation comes with new expectations. Organizations investing in their information security want to see that effort recognized by the market. “Every day is a continuation in the cyber security journey,” Zviti said. “The more investment they put into their information security, the more recognition by the insurance market is expected.”Insurers, in turn, are incentivized to support clients in building cyber resilience - not just transfer risk. “We, as an industry, need to help our clients become more cyber resilient and cyber ready to help thwart the bad guys,” he said.Cyber exposures cut across product linesCyber risk doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It crosses into multiple lines - D&O, E&O, media, even crime/fidelity - and triggers more than just technical incidents. “Cyber threats impact all facets of business whether it’s business interruption, theft of funds, theft of data, the operability and viability of a business, their reputation,” Zviti said.A single attack can activate several insurance policies, each carrying different timelines and consequences. “A cyberattack can trigger multiple lines of coverage and how you respond to a cyberattack in the immediate moments is really what dictates the knock-on effects,” he said. “Directors and officers will be looked at with 20/20 hindsight as to how they handle the cyber event.” This is why robust table top exercises are a crucial component to good cyber hygiene.Coverage gaps, AI threats and the speed of changeEmerging risks - including AI-driven threats like deepfake scams - are adding complexity to underwriting. Zviti recalled a recent example: “A deep fake videocall displaying an AI-generated CFO was used to convince a bank branch employee to transfer $25 million to fraudsters. I was amazed at how sophisticated the threat actors have become.”Threat actors, he stressed, don’t discriminate by size or sector. “They’re agnostic to the types of victims they go after - large enterprise, small business, for-profit, nonprofit, government entities. They’re looking for the weakest link to exploit.”The rise in third-party dependencies has also widened exposure. Increased reliance on vendors and cloud platforms has added “a greater lack of awareness of all the different moving parts,” he said. That’s where the insurance market can deliver more than indemnity - by closing visibility gaps and reinforcing weak links through risk services.“Everyone is aligned in making sure that buyers of insurance are the most protected they can be,” said Zviti. That includes pre-breach support like incident response testing, MDR licenses, and tabletop exercises.The market’s ability to respond is being tested daily. But Zviti pointed out that cyber insurance has evolved into the most agile segment of the industry. “It’s the most agile product and most agile facet of the insurance space that I’ve seen in my career,” he said.Affordability, aggregation, and the road aheadLooking forward, systemic risk and affordability are emerging as key challenges - especially in the large enterprise segment. “Systemic aggregation risk, migrations to the cloud and software dependencies… may create correlated exposures,” Zviti said.At the same time, the pricing of cyber insurance is under pressure. With an eye towards pricing stabilization, Zviti reflects “the affordability of the coverage versus the coverage breadth - you know the saying, you get what you pay for,” he said. “How do you bridge that gap between the spend and actually what you’re buying, both for the large and small businesses? The key is to partner with markets that know how to understand and underwrite exposure while offering services to make buyers more resilient.”Related StoriesWhy this soft market could be the most dangerous yet for cyber insuranceCyber insurance at a crossroads as rates fall and growth slows
Universal child care rollout reshapes risk and insurance considerations for providers
Expansion pressures expose facilities to evolving safety and staffing challengesInsurance NewsBy Gia SnapeDec 02, 2025ShareNew Mexico’s launch of the nation’s first universal child care program is reshaping the operational and risk landscape for child care providers, prompting insurers and brokers to prepare for a wave of new exposures.With demand expected to surge as families gain access to no-cost infant and toddler care, providers across the state are expanding capacity, upgrading facilities and onboarding new staff at a rapid pace. Those shifts are creating “a very dynamic risk environment,” said Allison Elzer (pictured), managing director of risk solution services, at Markel.“New Mexico is moving from a relatively standard system to one that includes additional types of child care services,” she said. “We’re seeing licensed centers, licensed homes, and newly registered homes all brought under the same umbrella of funding and oversight. Each of those comes with different exposures that we need to understand.”Expanding the child care provider landscapeSince November 1, New Mexico has made child care available to all residents. The state slashed income eligibility requirements for its child care assistance program and continued waiving family copayments. Families can access these benefits through the state's Early Childhood Education and Care Department (ECECD).Under the new model, licensed centers and licensed home-based programs (i.e., those caring for four or more children) will now be joined by registered homes, which can care for up to four children. That shift means more inspections, more training, and potentially significant facility upgrades.“The state is going to have entities coming in, evaluating locations, and confirming they meet new standards,” Elzer said. “We anticipate that some providers will be required to upgrade playgrounds, fencing, latching mechanisms, surfacing… physical things that are critical to safety.”New Mexico is offering grants and low-interest loans to help providers modernize facilities, but not all operators may qualify. For insurers, the uncertainty around which providers can meet these new standards is a central concern.From Markel’s standpoint, Elzer said, “We need to know that the provider can manage a facility safely. Our team works directly with insureds to help them understand what good risk mitigation looks like, but the pace of change in New Mexico means some providers will be climbing a steep learning curve.”The state expects to add 5,000 early childhood professionals to meet demand, creating new workforce and supervisory risks.“Turnover is already one of the biggest exposures in child care,” Elzer noted. “When you bring in new people quickly, you risk gaps in training and oversight. Historically, incident frequency increases whenever a facility has a large number of new staff.”Providers will need to closely monitor child-to-teacher ratios, which may tighten as enrollment grows. And as some operators look to expand their footprint to accommodate additional children, construction and renovation projects will introduce further exposures, including contractor risk and compliance issues.Child care risk management: Facility safety remains front and center, but emerging risks aboundEven with structural support from the state, child care providers still face traditional liability issues, particularly around playgrounds and internal safety systems. According to Elzer, playground surfacing depth, gate-latch mechanisms, and door controls remain hotspots for claims.Another sensitive but critical area is abuse risk. Abuse coverage is commonly excluded across the care sector, and child care is no exception.“It’s essential for operators to understand what is and isn’t covered,” Elzer emphasized. “Thorough background checks (on staff) and training are key to reducing these risks.”One of the most commonly underestimated risks for these facilities, however, is cyber liability. As more providers adopt digital enrollment systems, communication apps, and automated billing tools, exposure to data breaches and privacy incidents grows.“Most child care providers don’t think of themselves as cyber targets,” Elzer said. “But with expanded access and technology-driven systems, personal data risk absolutely increases.”Insurance market tightens around a complex segmentChild care has long been a challenging class for insurers. “To write this business well, you need a deep understanding of the licensing structure, the physical exposures, the abuse exposures,” Elzer said, noting Markel’s extensive experience insuring this segment. “We rely on touchpoints throughout the policy period to make sure programs remain strong.”That support will be increasingly important as New Mexico’s model matures and if other states follow suit. Elzer warned that as state standards become more prescriptive, courts may begin to treat them as the “new normal,” even for providers outside those programs. “If state-funded providers are held to higher standards, others could find themselves measured against the same expectations, which could introduce liability," she said.For operators preparing to scale up, Elzer offered several recommendations:Strengthen onboarding protocols. “Don’t start staff before they’re fully trained,” she said.Prioritize facility maintenance. Fix broken gates, locks, and playground surfaces immediately.Use checklists and audits. Structured oversight helps reduce common safety lapses.Evaluate cyber needs. Coverage gaps here can be costly and are often overlooked.Leverage state programs. “Take advantage of training and business support,” she said. “These resources can help stabilize operations during rapid change.”As universal child care takes root in New Mexico, insurers and providers alike will be navigating unfamiliar terrain. But with strategic risk management and sustained investment in training and safety, providers can position themselves for long-term success in this evolving landscape.Related StoriesCommunity associations face new wave of liability risks as tech and compliance collideNavigating the liability capacity crunch for social service providers
'A multibillion-dollar platform in motion': United Risk hits top-five MGA status
'We've built one of the strongest management teams in the business'ClaimsBy Emily DouglasNov 24, 2025ShareThe following article was written in association with United Risk.Just two years after its launch in 2023, United Risk has rapidly emerged as one of the world’s top five Managing General Agents (MGAs).In a recent interview, Chairman Jamie Sahara issued an update on the firm’s global growth, operational scale, and strategic leadership expansion, laying out a confident vision for continued momentum through 2026.“We are now on the ground in nine countries across four continents, with major offices in key insurance centers including New York, Bermuda, London, Paris, Dubai, Singapore, and Sydney. Each has been a source of our dramatic growth as we have continued to strengthen our relationships with the more than 30 insurers we represent, further enabling our experienced underwriting team to command a loyal and productive broker base.”‘We’ve built one of the strongest management teams in the business’United Risk currently operates 25 property and casualty underwriting programs and employs nearly 600 professionals worldwide. The company’s ability to scale rapidly and secure strategic partnerships has been central to its positioning as a significant global MGA. In addition to growth figures, Sahara announced that two new programs are set to launch by year-end, expanding United Risk’s portfolio and enhancing its market reach.To support this trajectory, United Risk also introduced a strengthened leadership team with four key appointments. Hayden Smith has been promoted to Chief Executive Officer of United Risk worldwide. Andrew Lucas has been appointed General Counsel, Gregg Holtmeier joins as Chief Commercial Officer (CCO), and Patrick Watson takes on the role of Chief Operating Officer (COO).“With the addition of Andrew Lucas, Gregg Holtmeier, and Patrick Watson, we’ve built one of the strongest management teams in the business,” Sahara said. “Our insurance entrepreneurs have the supporting infrastructure to readily capture market share, standing upon our financial, operational, and philosophically forward-looking corporate culture.”Sahara noted that the expanded C-suite marks the completion of a leadership build-out aimed at providing robust support across all verticals of the business. Here, he emphasized the collaborative efforts of current team members who had taken on multiple responsibilities during the company’s initial growth phase. Among them, Rick Christofer, who Sahara credited for his ability to manage key broker and underwriter relationships while supporting capital partner development.“With Gregg now focused on capital providers such as reinsurers, insurers, and sidecar capacity, Rick can concentrate fully on our relationships with underwriters, agents, and brokers - which alone is a really big job,” Sahara added.As United Risk enters its third year, the company appears poised for further expansion, leveraging a deep bench of insurance expertise and global infrastructure. Sahara closed by reiterating the firm’s commitment to building a multibillion-dollar, multinational insurance platform rooted in entrepreneurial execution and institutional scale.“We applaud our entire esteemed leadership team and welcome Andrew, Gregg, and Patrick to United Risk,” said Sahara.Meet the teamMr. Hayden Smith, United Risk’s CEO, previously served as VP of M&A at Enstar Group and earlier as head of Ceded Reinsurance for StarStone (a global specialty carrier jointly owned by Enstar and Stone Point Capital). Before entering the world of insurance, Hayden enjoyed a successful professional athletic career in both Rugby (English Premiership, Saracens) and American football (NFL, New York Jets). Hayden holds a BSc in Finance and an MBA from the University of Chicago Booth School of Business.Mr. Rick Christofer, United Risk’s President, previously served as a Specialty Product Executive at AIG Private Client Group. Earlier in his career, Rick held roles at Guy Carpenter, General Reinsurance, and The Hartford. Rick holds a BA in Economics from the University of Notre Dame where he played varsity soccer for four years.Mr. Andrew Lucas, United Risk’s General Counsel, was formerly a partner at Clyde & Co LLP, advising insurance-sector clients on a wide variety of companies-market and Lloyd’s matters, including mergers and acquisitions, as well as commercial, corporate governance, and regulatory matters.Mr. Alexander Amezquita, United Risk’s Chief Financial Officer, was previously CFO at Herbalife (NYSE: HLF; ~$5bn global revenue). Prior to Herbalife, Alex was an investment banker focused on mergers and acquisitions at Moelis & Company (NYSE: MC) and Centerview Partners. Alex began his investment banking career working in the M&A group at Merrill Lynch, and holds an MBA in Finance from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, and both Master’s and Bachelor’s degrees in Electrical and Computer Engineering from Carnegie Mellon University.Mr. Gregg Holtmeier, United Risk’s Chief Commercial Officer, most recently served as Chief Strategy Officer at BMS, where he played a pivotal role in redefining the firm’s reinsurance arm, overseeing significant operational and strategic enhancements including leadership of the MGA practice and the development of new capacity and capital solutions. Previously, Gregg served as Global Head of Casualty for JLT Re. Gregg holds a BA in Economics from Swarthmore College.Mr. Patrick Watson, United Risk’s Chief Operating Officer, brings more than 21 years of experience in insurance company operations, including sales and product development, giving him a comprehensive understanding of how to scale complex organizations while maintaining agility and discipline. Previously, Patrick held leadership positions at Applied Underwriters, most recently as Director of Program Development, where he played a key role in building operational infrastructure and process efficiencies for MGAs across the Property and Casualty marketplace. Patrick holds a degree in Accounting from the University of Nebraska.Find out more about United Risk here.
Energy insurance market outlook: Property softens while casualty stays disciplined
Insurers are seeing divergent conditions across P&C linesInsurance NewsBy Josh RecamaraNov 30, 2025ShareAs the energy sector evolves, insurers are seeing divergent conditions across property and casualty lines, shaping coverage options, pricing and risk management strategies for 2026. According to Amwins'State of the Market Report: A Focus on the Energy Marketplace, property markets are broadly softening due to abundant capacity, while casualty markets remain constrained by rising claims severity, litigation costs and social inflation.Downstream property insurance softensThe downstream energy property market has experienced consistent rate reductions even after early 2025 losses at PBF Energy’s Martinez and Varo Energy’s Bayernoil facilities. Insurers are offering larger line sizes and incentives such as long-term agreements and no-claims bonuses.However, underwriters are increasingly scrutinizing safety procedures, vendor qualifications, and risk management frameworks, reflecting lessons from recent loss events.Power and renewables coverageInsurers remain active in power and renewables, providing coverage for established technologies like battery storage and solar installations. On the other hand, new or untested technologies faced limited capacity and stricter terms. Insurers are also leveraging AI-driven modeling and advanced analytics to underwrite these exposures, requiring detailed submissions from insureds to secure optimal terms and pricing.Midstream and upstream risk managementMidstream property markets saw selective rate relief for high-quality, well-managed assets, while loss-affected risks face stricter underwriting.Casualty insurers continue to manage volatility through tighter appetites, higher attachment points, and careful limit deployment, particularly in litigation-prone jurisdictions like Texas and Louisiana.Meanwhile, upstream casualty coverage relied on multi-carrier placements to manage reduced market participation, maintaining stability through disciplined underwriting and reinsurance support, according to the report.Professional and cyber linesD&O coverage remains stable with competitive capacity, while cyber insurance showed flat or slightly declining premiums, reflecting improved claims experience and underwriting practices.Ransomware and class action privacy exposures persist, but capacity and competition outweigh claim volatility in most cases.London continues to anchor complex, international energy placements, offering capacity and competitive pricing for property and casualty risks. Property markets have entered a softening phase, while casualty underwriters maintain caution around emerging risks, including PFAS and cyber exposures.Insurance implicationsInsurers must balance capacity deployment with disciplined underwriting, especially in casualty lines. For insureds, understanding shifting coverage conditions, evolving risk assessments, and enhanced underwriting scrutiny is essential.Strategic engagement with brokers and specialized underwriting teams will remain critical to securing optimal terms and maintaining portfolio resilience in 2026.Related StoriesHealthcare insurance market faces rising claims and capacity challenges - reportCyber insurance looks for stability as AI heightens risks