Under Florida law (Statutes 627.066 and 627.915), insurers that earn excessive profits must disclose those gains using a state-specified form. If profits exceed the allowable threshold, the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation (OIR) can mandate that companies return excess earnings to policyholders through cash payments or renewal discounts. The process is informally known within the industry as “regurgitation.”

The law provides a detailed formula for calculating excessive profits. An insurer is considered to have earned excess profits if its underwriting gain over the three most recent calendar-accident years surpasses its expected profit by more than 5% of earned premiums over the same period.

To determine this underwriting gain, the law specifies that insurers must subtract from their earned premium: incurred losses and loss adjustment expenses (as of the following March 31, projected to an ultimate value), along with administrative and sales expenses, plus any applicable policyholder dividends.

Progressive declined to comment on the situation. However, the company’s SEC filing emphasized that the final outcome won’t be known for some time due to several variables, including the impact of the 2025 hurricane season on loss reserves. More clarity is expected by the end of the year.

Florida’s property insurers also face statutory profit limitations—usually around 4.5%, according to regulatory standards and former state officials. However, property insurance companies often shift profits to affiliated entities such as managing general agents or subsidiaries, a practice that has drawn criticism from lawmakers and consumer advocates in light of recent premium hikes.

In contrast, auto insurers in Florida generally lack the flexibility to reallocate profits through affiliates, a former insurance regulator noted.

Progressive and other leading auto insurance providers in Florida have benefited from reduced claims costs in 2024, thanks in large part to legal reforms passed in 2023. These reforms eliminated one-way attorney fees and curbed abusive litigation practices, leading to substantial savings.

As a result, the state’s top five auto insurers filed for an average rate reduction of about 6% this year, a move recently highlighted by Florida’s insurance commissioner.

Still, the rate cuts might not be sufficient to keep Progressive below the statutory profit ceiling.

“Despite these actions, it is possible that our profit for personal auto in Florida for the 2023 to 2025 period will exceed the statutory profit limit that a Florida statute imposes on the profit that any insurance group can earn on personal auto insurance over any three-calendar-year period,” Progressive stated in its SEC filing.

Instances of Florida regulators finding excessive profits are relatively rare. The most recent occurred in June 2025, when Commissioner Michael Yaworsky signed a consent order requiring California Casualty Insurance Co. to issue $341,500 in refunds or renewal credits to its policyholders. Prior to that, in 2021, the OIR ordered Nationwide Mutual Insurance to return $11.5 million in excess profits on auto policies.

Progressive’s filing did not specify how much could potentially be refunded, but given the company’s strong financial performance since the 2023 reforms, the total could be significant. Notably, other major publicly traded auto insurers operating in Florida did not reference excess profit concerns in their recent disclosures.

While Florida imposes these kinds of profit caps, not every state does. For example, New Jersey limits auto insurance profits using a modified “Clifford Formula,” generally allowing returns of around 3.5%, based on a range of financial and actuarial criteria.

In a blog update posted late Wednesday, the tech giant revealed that the hacking group it calls “Storm-2603” is using the existing SharePoint vulnerability to distribute ransomware — a malicious tool that encrypts systems or files, demanding payment in cryptocurrency for their release.

This shift signals a notable escalation in the scope of the campaign, which was initially focused on gathering intelligence and stealing data. Dutch cybersecurity company Eye Security reports that the number of compromised organizations has jumped to over 400 — a fourfold increase from the 100 confirmed earlier this week.

However, that figure could be significantly underestimated.

“There are likely many more victims, as not every intrusion leaves behind forensic evidence we can track,” explained Vaisha Bernard, chief hacker at Eye Security, which was among the first to detect signs of the attacks.

Most of the affected entities have not yet been named. Still, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) confirmed on Wednesday that one of its servers had been breached.

“We’ve isolated additional systems as a precaution,” said an NIH spokesperson. The incident was initially reported by The Washington Post.

Several media outlets suggest the breach could impact a broader set of U.S. government agencies. According to NextGov, citing multiple sources, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and between five to a dozen other federal organizations may also have been targeted.

Politico, referencing two unnamed U.S. officials, also reported that multiple government institutions were likely compromised during the campaign.

At this time, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), which operates under DHS, has not responded to inquiries. Microsoft has also not provided further clarification regarding the ransomware aspect of the breach or which agencies may have been affected.

The attacks trace back to Microsoft’s incomplete patching of a critical SharePoint vulnerability. The flaw triggered a wave of exploitation efforts by various threat actors once it became publicly known.

Both Microsoft and Google’s parent company, Alphabet, have previously named Chinese-linked hacking groups as participants in exploiting the flaw. However, Chinese authorities have denied any involvement in the incidents.

Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves announced the initiative as part of the newly released Financial Services Growth & Competitiveness Strategy, which outlines a suite of reforms aimed at strengthening the UK’s financial services landscape. The goal is to make captive insurance – a form of self-insurance used by corporations to manage risk – more accessible and appealing within the UK, including through the introduction of protected cell companies (PCCs).

Risk and reinsurance specialist Aon responded swiftly, revealing plans to establish a captive management business headquartered in the UK to support the new framework.

According to Aon, the UK is positioning itself to become “a compelling alternative” to current leading captive domiciles such as Vermont, Bermuda, the Cayman Islands, Guernsey, and others.

However, regulatory structures still need to be developed. HM Treasury’s document outlines a public consultation on proposed rules for captives scheduled for summer 2026, with full implementation of the new regulatory framework targeted for mid-2027.

Ciaran Healy, Aon’s global captives leader, stated that well-crafted regulation could drive interest from UK firms that have not yet explored the captive route, and may even encourage existing offshore captives to consider relocating to the UK.

Healy welcomed the Chancellor’s commitment, calling it “a major step in putting the UK on the global captive map.” He emphasized that captives have become an integral part of corporate risk financing strategies since their inception in the 1960s, and that London’s reputation as a global insurance hub makes the UK a natural choice for such a regime.

Marsh Applauds Development

Marsh, part of Marsh McLennan, also expressed support for the government’s plan. The firm noted that captive insurance provides organizations with more control and flexibility over their risk strategy while helping reduce overall costs.

Marsh highlighted the potential of new captive structures, such as PCCs, which can lower barriers to entry for smaller and medium-sized enterprises. Chris Lay, CEO of Marsh McLennan UK and a longstanding advocate for a UK captives regime, praised the decision, calling it a significant enhancement to the UK’s full-service insurance offering.

Lay added that ensuring the UK captive framework is both innovative and as seamless as those in competing jurisdictions will be critical to its success.

McGill and Partners Perspective

Stephen Cross, CEO of McGill and Partners Europe, welcomed the move as a much-needed opportunity for large UK corporations to explore domestic captive options, cutting down on overseas travel for busy executives.

While the framework is still under development, Cross believes it will not only enable UK-based formations but also support the re-domestication of existing captives. He noted that Lloyd’s of London could become a major beneficiary by pairing its fronting services with the new regime—a synergy he described as highly advantageous.

EY: Benefits for UK-Headquartered Groups

EY’s UK Insurance Leader, Martina Neary, said that the new captive regime would help align regulatory and tax domiciles for UK-based multinationals, reducing complexity and improving access to the market. She acknowledged the potential hurdles involved in navigating the new environment, but emphasized the significant long-term opportunities for businesses.

Widespread Industry Endorsement

The announcement also received enthusiastic support from key industry associations, including the International Underwriting Association (IUA), the London Market Group (LMG), and the London & International Insurance Brokers’ Association (LIIBA).

IUA Sees Strategic Opportunity

Chris Jones, CEO of the IUA, called the move a chance for the UK to emerge as a leading jurisdiction for captive insurance. He underscored the importance of a clear and stable regulatory regime, which would foster investor confidence, drive inward investment, and support the creation of high-value jobs.

Jones said the proposal has already attracted notable interest and confirmed the IUA’s intent to collaborate with the government on promoting the initiative.

LMG: Captives a Growing Global Force

Sean McGovern, Chair of the LMG, framed the move as critical to maintaining London’s role as a global center for risk management. With captive premiums projected to reach US$161 billion by 2030 and other European countries like France and Italy introducing their own regimes, McGovern said the UK’s entry into this growing market is both timely and essential.

LMG CEO Caroline Wagstaff added that the consultation on PCCs offers significant promise for UK firms of all sizes. She commended the clear timetable for implementation, which she said will help stakeholders prepare for success.

LIIBA: A Welcome Addition

Christopher Croft, Chief Executive of LIIBA, said the UK captive regime will provide an important new option for brokers and their clients. He cautioned that the success of the initiative will depend on a supportive regulatory culture that prioritizes implementation as much as policy design.

“This development helps solidify London’s place as the global hub for risk management,” he concluded.

These credit ratings reflect the group’s very strong balance sheet, adequate operating performance, a limited business profile, and suitable enterprise risk management practices. However, the shift in outlook to negative stems from continued underwriting volatility experienced over the past five years, largely due to significant adverse reserve development during that time.

Despite achieving overall positive total returns supported by solid investment performance, the group’s underwriting results over the five-year period have been consistently unprofitable. The adverse claims development is the result of several contributing factors.

One of the primary challenges was the disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, which delayed normal claims processing and led to a backlog and subsequent surge in claims once restrictions eased. Additionally, the group’s quick expansion into, and subsequent withdrawal from, the parcel delivery insurance segment also led to unexpected increases in claims frequency, as online shopping activity surged during the pandemic.

More recently, the group encountered difficulties stemming from a third-party administrator (TPA) in California that failed to meet the group’s claims handling and reserving standards. In response, the group ended its relationship with the TPA, according to AM Best.

Beyond the deterioration in loss experience, the company is also facing elevated underwriting expenses. While its expense ratio has seen some improvement, it still remains above the workers’ compensation industry benchmark. This has left the group with limited ability to absorb unexpected losses, particularly given the recent uptick in claims volatility.

AM Best noted that further negative rating actions could be taken if the group’s underwriting or operating results continue to lag behind comparable insurers, or if key balance sheet metrics deteriorate to a point that no longer supports a “very strong” assessment. Conversely, an upgrade in outlook could occur if the group demonstrates consistent, improved underwriting and operational performance with reduced volatility.

The complaint, submitted in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia—where Aflac maintains its corporate headquarters in Columbus—was brought on behalf of lead plaintiff Martha Graham, a policyholder residing in Union Springs, Alabama. The case is being spearheaded by Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles P.C., a high-profile Montgomery-based law firm known for major civil litigation, and co-led by former Alabama Lieutenant Governor Jere Beasley.

Negligence Alleged in Data Security Practices

According to the lawsuit, Aflac either negligently or deliberately failed to take proper cybersecurity precautions. The complaint argues that the company did not follow industry best practices or heed well-known government and private-sector recommendations for data protection, thereby exposing its systems to unauthorized access.

“Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by knowingly, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to take adequate and reasonable measures to ensure its data systems were protected against unauthorized intrusions,” the complaint alleges.

The incident, disclosed by Aflac just days before the suit was filed, reportedly involves a sophisticated hacking campaign attributed to a cybercriminal group known as Scattered Spider. This group is believed to be behind a string of coordinated attacks targeting the insurance and financial services sectors.

Delay in Notification Criticized

One of the most serious criticisms outlined in the lawsuit is Aflac’s delay in notifying its customers about the breach. The complaint accuses the company of withholding essential information, such as the exact date the cyberattack occurred, the timeline of its internal investigation, and the specific vulnerabilities that were exploited by the attackers.

“The notice provided by Aflac omitted critical facts, including when the data breach occurred, the length of time the attackers had access to the system, and what corrective actions the company took to address the breach,” the filing states. “Aflac failed to inform policyholders for more than a week after discovering the intrusion, leaving customers in the dark and vulnerable to further harm.”

In response to the breach, Aflac is offering affected individuals free credit monitoring services, identity theft protection, and related security tools for a period of 24 months. An Aflac spokesperson declined to comment on the lawsuit directly but shared a customer service number—855-361-0305—for those seeking assistance or information about the incident.

Claims for Damages and Broader Industry Concerns

The lawsuit seeks both compensatory and punitive damages, arguing that the compromised data may be used for a wide range of fraudulent activities. These include unauthorized credit card applications, fraudulent loans, illicit access to government benefits, and tax refund theft—each of which can result in long-term financial and emotional damage for victims.

“By failing to secure the private information of its customers, Aflac has placed them at serious and ongoing risk,” said the plaintiff’s attorneys. “This breach could have been prevented if the company had implemented industry-standard data protection protocols.”

The filing also references cybersecurity best practices recommended by federal agencies and Microsoft’s Threat Protection Intelligence Team. These include multi-factor authentication, endpoint detection and response systems, regular penetration testing, and employee cybersecurity training. The plaintiffs argue that Aflac failed to implement or enforce these measures in a meaningful way.

Wider Legal Trend

This lawsuit is part of a broader wave of litigation in the aftermath of major data breaches, as more consumers and advocacy groups demand accountability from corporations that store personal and financial data. Over the past several years, dozens of class actions have been initiated following similar cybersecurity incidents, with varying outcomes.

Legal experts note that companies can face significant reputational and financial repercussions if found to have been lax in their data security responsibilities. Courts are increasingly scrutinizing whether companies acted reasonably in protecting user data and in how promptly and transparently they responded to cyber incidents.

Next Steps

As of now, Aflac has yet to file a formal response to the class-action complaint. Legal analysts anticipate that the case could prompt further inquiries into the insurer’s cybersecurity practices and may even set a precedent for how courts interpret data protection obligations under federal and state consumer protection laws.

Policyholders and others affected by the breach are encouraged to monitor their credit, report any suspicious activity, and consider enrolling in the company’s offered identity theft protection program while the litigation unfolds.

The Section 899 measure had been viewed by UK businesses as a potential retaliatory tax, which could have strained their operations in the United States. Lloyd’s expressed its gratitude toward the UK government’s efforts, particularly Chancellor Rachel Reeves, who collaborated with G-7 finance ministers to secure the removal of this provision.

Sir Charles Roxburgh, Chair of Lloyd’s, commended the leadership, saying, “We are extremely grateful to the Chancellor for her work alongside G-7 Finance Ministers, which led to the announcement from the United States Treasury and Congress that Section 899 will no longer be part of the reconciliation bill. This outcome will have a positive impact not only on Lloyd’s business but also on all UK companies with a presence in the U.S., facilitating continued international investment and benefiting U.S. businesses and local communities.”

Lloyd’s, which has been a key player in providing insurance capacity to the U.S. market for over a century, emphasized its ongoing commitment to supporting the U.S. economy. Roxburgh continued, “The United States remains our largest market, and we are pleased to continue our long-standing relationship by contributing to the nation’s economic growth.”

With Section 899 now removed from the so-called “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (OBBBA), the UK government and its G-7 counterparts can shift focus to developing a comprehensive strategy for global tax reform. The next steps will center on implementing a global minimum tax and addressing aggressive tax avoidance, all without the threat of retaliatory tax measures looming over negotiations.

Rachel Reeves, the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer, expressed her relief following the development, saying, “I will always fight for the best interests of British businesses. Today’s agreement brings much-needed stability and certainty to those who had voiced concerns about the potential impact. With the removal of Section 899, we can now continue the work of ensuring a fair and equitable global tax system, free from threats of retaliation.”

The UK Treasury’s statement also highlighted that the G7 nations are aligned on the need to tackle aggressive tax avoidance while maintaining a level playing field in international business. The removal of the retaliatory tax provisions will allow for more productive dialogue on global tax reforms, which could eventually culminate in a multilateral agreement.

A major element of these global tax reforms is the OECD’s Pillar 2, which seeks to establish a minimum global corporate tax rate of 15%. This initiative, which was agreed upon by OECD members in October 2021, has yet to be fully enacted by the U.S., adding further complexity to the global tax landscape.

Rain Newton-Smith, Chief Executive of the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), also weighed in on the matter, stating, “The commitment of the U.S. to remove retaliatory tax measures brings much-needed clarity for UK-based multinational businesses. There are no winners in a tax standoff, and avoiding disruptions to the flow of investment, finance, and jobs across the Atlantic is beneficial to both economies.”

However, Newton-Smith pointed out that uncertainty remains, particularly with the reconciliation bill’s final passage still pending and other possible actions by Congress. The UK’s Digital Services Tax is also under scrutiny, adding to the complexity of the situation.

Looking to the future, Newton-Smith stressed the importance of rebalancing global tax rules through multilateral agreements. “It is critical that we establish a global tax framework that simplifies the system, reduces compliance burdens, and ensures UK companies remain competitively positioned in a fair and transparent market.”

This moment provides a key opportunity for the OECD to address long-standing issues in the global tax system, creating a simpler, fairer regime for multinational businesses.

Carrie Musselman, 48, of Eureka, Illinois, was sentenced on June 24, following a jury trial that resulted in her conviction on one count of healthcare fraud and five counts of wire fraud. The sentence was handed down by Senior U.S. District Judge Michael M. Mihm in a federal court proceeding that emphasized the extensive financial harm Musselman’s actions inflicted on public and private health insurers.

According to evidence presented by prosecutors, Musselman engaged in a years-long fraudulent billing operation that ultimately resulted in the theft of more than $2.5 million from Medicare and twelve other insurance carriers. Over the course of the conspiracy, Musselman manipulated the billing system to maximize reimbursements from insurers by deliberately misrepresenting the nature of the services provided at her clinic.

Among the core elements of the scheme, Musselman routinely submitted false claims indicating that medical procedures were performed by licensed physicians, when in fact they had been carried out by mid-level providers such as nurse practitioners or physician assistants. These false attributions triggered higher reimbursement rates due to the way medical billing codes are structured—resulting in substantial overpayments that Musselman was not entitled to receive.

In addition, Musselman submitted fraudulent claims for services that were never actually administered to patients. One recurring example involved supposed allergy treatments: she falsely claimed that patients received allergy injections, which are typically reimbursed at a higher rate. In truth, those patients were sent home with oral drops that lacked approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. These oral substances were classified as “experimental” treatments and had not been scientifically validated for efficacy or safety.

The government presented compelling evidence during the sentencing hearing to show that Musselman knowingly and repeatedly exploited the healthcare system for personal financial gain. Prosecutors emphasized that her actions were not the result of clerical errors or isolated incidents, but rather a systematic and deliberate effort to mislead insurers and profit from false claims.

“The submission of false claims undermines the integrity of our federal healthcare system,” said Linda T. Hanley, Special Agent in Charge of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General. “Healthcare professionals who put profit above patient care and honest billing will be held accountable.”

The investigation into Musselman’s activities was jointly conducted by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Inspector General, Office of Investigations, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Springfield Field Office. Their coordinated efforts led to the successful prosecution of the case.

Assistant U.S. Attorneys Douglas F. McMeyer, Bryan D. Freres, and Grace J. Hitzeman represented the government throughout the trial and sentencing phases. The prosecutors stressed the broader implications of healthcare fraud, noting that such schemes increase costs for taxpayers, undermine trust in the medical profession, and divert resources away from legitimate patient care.

Musselman will serve her 20-month prison sentence in a federal facility, and upon release, will be required to repay more than $2.3 million in restitution to Medicare and the affected insurance providers.

According to Clyde Bernstein, Head of Placement Technology and Trading Analytics at Aon, the new tool is a major leap forward in how brokers harness real-time market intelligence. “Aon Broker Copilot empowers our brokers to lead with insight that’s deeply informed by client priorities and dynamic data streams,” said Bernstein. “We’re now able to systematically capture and structure information from every submission—whether quoted, bound, or declined—giving us unparalleled visibility into market pricing, carrier appetite, and shifting sentiment. This translates to more agile, informed decisions and faster, smarter client outcomes.”

The platform is initially being rolled out to Aon’s U.S. National Property team and the London Global Broking Centre’s Property division. Aon has plans for a broader global rollout, expanding to additional lines of business and international regions throughout 2025 and 2026.

At the heart of Aon Broker Copilot is its ability to aggregate and standardize submission data—regardless of whether a quote is taken up—creating an extensive and structured dataset that offers a new lens into global insurance market behavior. Unlike traditional methods that rely on anecdotal feedback or only bound deals, this approach ensures brokers are equipped with actionable intelligence reflecting the full spectrum of market activity. This insight empowers clients with more transparent and data-backed risk placement decisions, especially crucial in today’s complex and fast-evolving risk landscape.

The platform is proprietary and patent-pending, and it seamlessly integrates with Aon’s existing Risk Analyzer tools. This integration allows brokers to craft more comprehensive, strategic submissions and engage with carriers using deeper, data-enriched insights—enhancing negotiation power and improving client outcomes.

“As risk challenges become more multifaceted and global in nature, the ability to combine human expertise with AI-driven intelligence at scale is rapidly becoming a competitive necessity,” said Joe Peiser, CEO of Commercial Risk at Aon. “Aon Broker Copilot is a critical part of our broader digital transformation—one of the most ambitious efforts underway in the insurance brokerage industry. This platform signifies a new era in predictive broking, enabling our teams to work with enhanced precision, consistency, and foresight to deliver better, faster solutions for clients worldwide.”

Peiser emphasized that the insurance sector is undergoing a fundamental transformation, and tools like Aon Broker Copilot represent how leading firms must evolve—leveraging cutting-edge technology to stay ahead in an increasingly data-driven and competitive environment.

One suit has been brought by Neil Plascencia, a customer based in Illinois, while the other was filed by Amy Haas, a former employee from Wisconsin. Both plaintiffs allege that Erie failed to adequately protect their personally identifiable information (PII), and each is seeking $5 million in damages.

According to both legal complaints, a ransomware group infiltrated Erie’s information systems on June 7, resulting in a data breach.

Although not officially confirmed, Google’s Threat Intelligence Group has linked the incident’s timing to cybercriminal group Scattered Spider, which has previously targeted retailers in the U.S. and U.K. Google has recently cautioned that the group may now be turning its focus toward the insurance industry.

Erie has yet to publicly confirm a ransomware attack or data breach. The company has only disclosed that on Saturday, June 7, its cybersecurity team detected unusual activity on its network and responded immediately to secure its systems and data. The disruption has left Erie’s systems offline since that date, affecting its phone lines, email, and digital services.

Plaintiff Plascencia claims he received an email from Erie in June informing him that his PII had been exposed as a result of the incident.

In its latest public statement on June 14, Erie Insurance reported that it was making “steady progress” in restoring its IT systems. However, it has not provided any new details regarding the nature, cause, or extent of the breach.

“Our teams—working in partnership with top cybersecurity professionals—are continuing to work around the clock to bring services back online for our customers, agents, and employees. While we are confident in the actions we’re taking, the process is complex and requires time. We thank you for your patience and understanding,” the company stated in its June 14 update.

A company spokesperson noted that Erie does not comment on active legal matters.

The Florida Department of Financial Services (DFS) provided data to Insurance Journal indicating that complaints from homeowners and other residential policyholders across 326 insurance companies rose from 10,219 in 2020 to over 23,400 in 2024. If the current pattern holds, 2025 could see that number surpass 31,000—bringing the total to nearly 95,000 complaints since 2020.

Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Co., one of Florida’s largest private insurers, received the highest volume of complaints—roughly 16,170 over the five-year period. That’s far more than Citizens Property Insurance Corp., Florida’s largest property insurer by policy count, despite Citizens holding around 200,000 more policies than Universal.

American Integrity Insurance and State Farm Florida Insurance followed with approximately 4,700 complaints each. Heritage Property & Casualty Insurance and Security First Insurance rounded out the top six, with around 3,900 and 3,600 complaints, respectively.

The complaint data covers most types of residential policies: homeowners (HO), condominium unit owners, dwelling fire, renters, mobile homes, windstorm, and flood insurance. About 88,000 of the complaints were related to HO policies. The bulk of these were claim-related issues, while a smaller number pertained to premiums, agents, or adjusters. DFS did not release specific details or descriptions of the complaints.

Even with questions surrounding the nature of the data, many within the industry agree that policyholder frustration is increasing. Factors such as rising premium costs, media coverage highlighting denied or underpaid claims, and concerns about insurers shifting profits contribute to the growing discontent. Additionally, new laws limiting lawsuits—enacted in 2023—may have prompted more consumers to seek out-of-court options, thus raising complaint counts. Over the past four years, three major hurricanes have caused widespread flood and wind damage, further intensifying the strain on insurance claims processes.

“Flooding events like Helene and Milton in 2024 were also wind events,” explained Charles Nyce, chair of the Risk Management and Insurance Department at Florida State University. “Homeowners often don’t realize that wind-driven water damage is considered flood-related and isn’t covered by typical homeowners insurance, which complicates claims and leads to more complaints.”

The topic drew renewed attention in February when Florida Insurance Commissioner Michael Yaworsky issued a warning to insurers, particularly those handling flood insurance, citing an uptick in consumer complaints. He stressed that improperly denying storm claims due to concurrent causation would not be tolerated. This prompted Insurance Journal to request DFS’s full complaint records.

The DFS data confirms that while flood insurance complaints have been increasing annually, they still totaled just over 500 from 2020 to 2024. However, by early April 2025, flood-related complaints were already spiking and may exceed 470 by year’s end.

The bulk of complaints still focus on standard residential policies. Universal’s complaints, for instance, fluctuated but rose from 1,525 in 2020 to 3,866 in 2024.

Universal’s general counsel, Travis Miller, questioned the integrity of the figures, arguing that they don’t accurately reflect consumer dissatisfaction. He noted that Florida’s complaint data includes mediation cases and basic assistance inquiries—categories not typically considered formal complaints in other states.

Although mediation often begins due to consumer dissatisfaction, Miller pointed out that litigation—which often starts similarly—is not included in the complaint totals.

Without counting mediation, DFS’s figures show a much smaller increase in complaints: from about 4,000 in 2020 to 4,250 in 2024. If current trends continue, 2025 may see nearly 7,600 such cases. However, DFS doesn’t track how many complaints end up in both mediation and litigation, leading to potential double-counting.

“We don’t know of any other state where consumer dispute resolution processes like mediation are lumped in as complaint data,” Miller said. “It creates a misleading impression of Florida’s insurance landscape, which we have to explain repeatedly to out-of-state regulators and organizations.”

DFS did not fully justify including mediation in the totals. “Mediation is part of the consumer assistance service offered by the Division of Consumer Services,” said William Patrick, DFS’s deputy communications director. “Litigation, on the other hand, is a court matter in which the Department does not intervene.”

Many calls from policyholders are resolved by the department without needing to escalate the issue, Patrick added.

The DFS also tracks “violation letters,” issued when a complaint suggests an insurer may have broken the law. These rose steadily from 2020 to 2023 but have since declined.

By contrast, other Southern states report fewer complaints. Georgia, with about half Florida’s population, handles around 10,000 to 11,000 insurance-related complaints annually. Texas, which has about one-third more people than Florida, reported roughly 5,500 complaints involving residential insurers in 2024—up from just over 2,000 in 2020.

Miller also claimed Universal’s internal metrics suggest a drop in “true” complaints from 2021 to 2024, although he didn’t share specific figures. He emphasized that many entries in the DFS data are minor issues, like consumers requesting a contact number for their insurer.

Nyce pointed out that comparing Universal to Citizens may not be appropriate. “Citizens dominates the tri-county region around Miami, where recent hurricanes haven’t hit,” he explained. “Most storms have struck the Gulf Coast and Panhandle, where Citizens has less presence. So companies with higher market shares in those areas naturally face more claims and potential complaints.”

Miller and other industry representatives questioned whether it’s realistic for major insurers—many with solid reputations for claims handling—to experience such sharp increases in real complaints. He noted that scrutiny by regulators and lawmakers has pushed many companies to improve claim processing and timeliness.

Additionally, many insurers, including Universal, now focus on tracking lawsuits as a more accurate measure of customer dissatisfaction. Since lawmakers ended one-way attorney fees and tightened bad-faith claim standards in late 2022, litigation against insurers in Florida has dropped significantly.

Given the tumultuous changes in Florida’s insurance environment over the past decade, a rise in complaints isn’t surprising, experts say.

“With legislative changes, insurers might be stricter during the claims process, resulting in more complaints,” Nyce said. “Add in more storm damage, more complex claims involving both wind and water, and rising premiums—naturally, consumers are going to be more dissatisfied.”

Until homeowners feel that their insurance premiums reflect fair value, he added, complaints will likely keep coming.

The upgraded ratings reflect AM Best’s evaluation of Midwest’s overall financial position, which is characterized by a very strong balance sheet, robust operational results, a narrow but stable business profile, and sound enterprise risk management (ERM) practices.

A major contributing factor to the favorable balance sheet assessment is the group’s exceptionally strong level of risk-adjusted capitalization, as determined by Best’s Capital Adequacy Ratio (BCAR). This indicates a solid capital buffer relative to the risks it undertakes. AM Best further noted that Midwest’s capital base is strengthened by consistent operational profitability and a diversified, well-managed investment portfolio. This portfolio generates reliable net investment income, and when combined with historically favorable reserve development trends, ample liquidity, and strong cash flow generation, supports the group’s “very strong” financial foundation.

The group’s operating performance rating has also been enhanced, moving from “adequate” to “strong.” This improvement is supported by continued profitability within the underwriting segment and a growing contribution from investment returns. Midwest’s performance metrics have consistently surpassed those of the broader workers’ compensation insurance sector over both five-year and ten-year periods. This outperformance has played a critical role in the group’s ability to grow its policyholder surplus organically. Notably, the company has achieved superior return-on-equity (ROE) and return-on-revenue (ROR) ratios when compared to its industry peers during the past five years.

While Midwest maintains a narrow business focus as a monoline provider specializing exclusively in workers’ compensation insurance, it does so through partnerships with small to mid-sized independent agencies. This targeted strategy results in moderate concentration risk, as the company operates within a specific line of business and is potentially more vulnerable to evolving market dynamics. These may include competitive challenges in specific geographic markets or shifts in legislation, regulation, or judicial interpretation. Nonetheless, this risk is partially offset by Midwest’s strategic emphasis on responsiveness and service to its local agency partners, ensuring strong relationships and adaptability in the face of external changes.

Michael Anthony Owen, Jr., previously a Prince George’s County police officer, admitted guilt to charges of record falsification. Jaron Earl Taylor, who formerly served with the Anne Arundel County Police Department, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud.

According to their plea agreements, from August 2018 through February 2020, Owen and Taylor collaborated with other officers—Candace Tyler, Conrad D’Haiti, and Davion Percy—as well as additional participants, in a fraudulent scheme designed to have insurance companies cover the remaining loan balances on vehicles that the conspirators no longer wanted.

Authorities stated that the group submitted false reports of stolen or damaged vehicles to insurance providers in order to collect funds or to avoid paying off remaining balances on depreciated cars. The participants exploited their roles as police officers to support one another’s fraudulent claims by generating fictitious police reports. These fake reports were then presented to insurers to validate the fraudulent claims and to hinder or mislead any ensuing investigations, per court records.

In one instance, in August 2018, Owen and Taylor orchestrated the staged theft of Taylor’s Chevrolet Tahoe. Following a phony police report, the two stripped the SUV and abandoned it deep within a wooded area on Maryland state property near Largo. Taylor submitted a false insurance claim to United Services Automobile Association (USAA), which subsequently paid out $38,670.

In another case in January 2020, Owen helped D’Haiti evade a loan obligation on a Jaguar XKR. Together with D’Haiti and Percy, Owen planned a fake vehicle theft. On January 4, D’Haiti parked the Jaguar behind the Marlow Heights Shopping Center, where Percy was serving as police chief.

D’Haiti paid Percy $350 to arrange for another accomplice to tow and severely damage the vehicle to simulate a total loss. Tyler then submitted a false police report, which D’Haiti used to file a claim with Liberty Mutual Insurance. The insurer paid the vehicle’s lienholder, Navy Federal Credit Union, $17,585 based on the fraudulent claim.

Also in January 2020, Owen and Taylor assisted in disposing of an Infiniti sedan to help a co-conspirator, who was deployed overseas, escape making future payments. The co-conspirator transferred $1,000 to Taylor through CashApp to fake the theft. Taylor forwarded the funds to Owen, who filed a false theft report with the Prince George’s County Police Department.

In truth, the group relocated the car to the top level of a parking structure at an apartment complex in Camp Springs, Maryland. They attempted to hide the car’s identity by removing its license plates and attaching different ones registered to another vehicle. The owner then filed a claim with GEICO, which ultimately denied the claim on the basis of fraud.

The guilty pleas were jointly announced by U.S. Attorney Hayes, FBI Special Agent Amanda M. Koldjeski, and Prince George’s County Police Chief Malik Aziz.

Owen faces up to 20 years in federal prison, while Taylor could receive up to three years, depending on the court’s acceptance of the plea agreement.