Late last week, Citizens reported that October takeouts and policy assumptions by private insurers lowered its total policies to roughly 560,000 — a level last seen in spring 2021, before a surge in litigation and multiple insurer failures expanded the company’s exposure.

With this decline, Universal Property & Casualty Insurance and State Farm Florida Insurance are now the state’s top property carriers. Universal reported 561,546 policies in Florida at the end of September, while State Farm had 646,429 policies as of the end of August, according to Florida regulators.

Citizens’ current policy total is about 40% below its peak of 1.3 million policies in September 2023, just before Florida enacted reforms limiting one-way attorney fees and reducing incentives for excessive claims litigation. The smaller Citizens footprint indicates more policyholders are returning to private insurers as premiums drop, reflecting the impact of legislative changes and the state’s depopulation program. Officials say these trends point to a stabilizing market.

A Citizens spokesperson called the numbers “significant,” noting that roughly 199,000 policies were transferred through takeouts in October.

Participation in takeout programs has increased in recent months. In the first half of the year, the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation (OIR) approved takeout offers for about 1.2 million Citizens policies, though only 200,000 were accepted. This fall, nine insurers were approved for 368,947 takeouts, with over half completed in October. The largest shares went to Slide Insurance and Manatee Insurance Exchange.

These changes come amid broader signs of improvement in Florida’s insurance market. Security First Insurance recently announced one of the largest statewide homeowners rate reductions in three years, while auto insurers are also benefiting: State Farm reported a 10% average cut in personal auto premiums in Florida, continuing a trend of rate decreases this year.

Overall, the data show Florida’s property insurance market is stabilizing, with Citizens shrinking and private insurers gaining strength.

The insurer has filed for “winding-up” in Bermuda’s Supreme Court and simultaneously submitted a Chapter 15 petition in U.S. bankruptcy court in New York, requesting that the Bermuda liquidation be recognized.

Though Northeast stopped issuing new policies in December 2017 and began winding down its existing liabilities, it now reports being unable to meet obligations on policies written before that date.

By June 2025, Northeast faced 30 child abuse lawsuits, rising to 53 by August. This unexpected influx nearly doubled the company’s loss reserves and related expenses—from $15.7 million to $29.1 million—an amount it says it cannot pay.

The insurer’s board has concluded Northeast is insolvent in both cash flow and balance sheet terms, and cannot raise sufficient funds to cover all expected CVA settlements.

Northeast is owned by five health-focused nonprofits affiliated with the UJA/Federation of Jewish Philanthropies of New York, and is connected via common shareholders to FFH Insurance Co.

Founded in 1975, Northeast was created to insure and reinsure medical malpractice, general liability, auto liability, directors and officers liability, and workers’ compensation for hospitals, camps, nursing homes, and other nonprofits linked to UJA. Between 2012 and 2015, it also reinsured FFH Insurance Co. for hospital professional and general liability, with contracts ending in 2017.

Hospitals insured by Northeast include Mount Sinai, Montefiore, Beth Israel, Maimonides, and Center Light Health System.

The 2019 New York Child Victims Act extended the statute of limitations, enabling survivors to file civil lawsuits until age 55 for previously barred child sexual abuse claims. This law has led to numerous lawsuits against churches, schools, hospitals, coaches, municipalities, and other institutions, with several Catholic dioceses filing for bankruptcy amid the surge.

The program’s lapse coincided with the end of the federal fiscal year on September 30, as lawmakers were unable to finalize a budget deal in time. As a result, FEMA, which oversees the NFIP, announced it can no longer issue new policies or renew existing ones, though it will continue processing claims from active policies using available funds.

Impact on Home Sales and Closings

According to the National Association of Realtors (NAR), roughly 1,300 real estate transactions per day—about 40,000 per month—will be delayed or derailed due to the lapse. Many mortgage lenders require active flood insurance in high-risk areas, making NFIP essential for closing sales in those regions.

NAR urged lawmakers to pursue a long-term reauthorization of the program, calling for reforms like updated flood maps, better mitigation measures, and modernized pricing. The association notes that around 500,000 home sales annually depend on the program.

Warnings Ignored Ahead of Shutdown

Despite growing pressure from the insurance industry and state officials, Congress failed to act before the program expired. New York Assemblywoman Pamela Hunter, who also serves as president of the National Conference of Insurance Legislators (NCOIL), stressed the urgency in the days leading up to the deadline.

“We are at the height of hurricane season. A gap in NFIP coverage puts lives, homes, and businesses at risk,” Hunter said. “A permanent fix is long overdue, but a temporary extension would have at least offered protection for now.”

Jimi Grande, a senior executive at the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies (NAMIC), had similarly warned that a lapse would leave homeowners exposed. Following the program’s expiration, NAMIC President Neil Alldredge emphasized that the danger is far from over.

“With two months left in hurricane season, thousands of Americans are now at greater risk,” Alldredge said. “The failure to update flood maps and reduce risky development has already put millions in harm’s way. Now, those who took steps to protect themselves through the NFIP are being let down.”

Industry Urges Swift Action

Insurance groups are continuing to call on lawmakers to reinstate the NFIP immediately. Sam Whitfield, senior vice president of federal government relations at the American Property Casualty Insurance Association (APCIA), said the lapse will interfere with home financing and threaten Americans’ most valuable assets.

“The inability to close on new mortgages or maintain coverage puts countless families at risk,” Whitfield said.

Lizzy Price, a spokesperson for the Insurance Fairness Project, said the NFIP lapse adds to broader challenges in the insurance industry. “With climate change worsening flood risks, cutting off access to affordable flood insurance only makes the crisis worse,” she said.

A Pattern of Short-Term Fixes

Since 2017, Congress has passed over 30 short-term extensions of the NFIP without implementing lasting reforms. The most recent extension, passed in March 2025, came shortly after FEMA borrowed $2 billion from the U.S. Treasury to cover a surge in claims from Hurricanes Milton and Helene in 2024.

FEMA later said those storms had exhausted the program’s reserves. As of January 25, the NFIP had just $615 million in available funds, according to the Congressional Research Service.

According to the latest Mortgage Monitor Report released by Intercontinental Exchange Inc. (ICE), the average annual insurance premium for a mortgaged single-family home rose to nearly $2,370 in the first half of 2025 — a 4.9% jump from the start of the year. This marks the highest level ever recorded and highlights how environmental volatility is reshaping the economics of homeownership across the country.

Disaster-Affected States See the Sharpest Premium Spikes

Insurance premiums haven’t climbed evenly across the board. The most dramatic increases have occurred in states directly impacted by recent climate-related events.

California, still recovering from massive wildfires that swept through parts of the state in January, experienced one of the largest upticks. In Los Angeles, where entire neighborhoods were reduced to ash, average insurance costs surged 9% in just six months — translating to a nearly 20% rise compared to mid-2024.

Meanwhile, North Carolina and South Carolina also saw significant jumps following flooding caused by Hurricane Helene in late 2024. With more frequent storms hitting the region, insurers have reassessed the risk levels of coastal and inland properties, pushing premiums higher for thousands of policyholders.

Insurers React to Rising Climate Risk by Raising Rates or Pulling Out

The insurance industry is under increasing pressure as climate events become more frequent, severe, and expensive. Many companies are adjusting their strategies — either by raising premiums, tightening policy terms, or exiting high-risk markets entirely.

What was once considered rare — a catastrophic wildfire, a 100-year flood, a Category 4 hurricane — is now occurring with unsettling regularity. As a result, insurers are no longer willing to absorb the same level of risk without compensation. For homeowners, this means higher costs, stricter coverage requirements, and fewer available options.

In some areas, entire zip codes have been flagged as too risky to insure through traditional channels. Homeowners in these regions often turn to state-backed insurance pools, which can be more expensive and offer less coverage.

California Still Below National Average — For Now

Interestingly, despite its wildfire challenges, California remains one of the states with the lowest average home insurance premiums in the country. That’s due in part to state regulations that limit how quickly insurers can raise rates. However, industry experts warn that this affordability may not last if climate events continue to worsen and insurers push for broader rate increases or choose to leave the market altogether.

Hurricane-Prone States Lead the Nation in Insurance Costs

In contrast, homeowners in the South and Midwest, where hurricanes, hailstorms, and tornadoes are more common, are facing the highest insurance costs nationwide.

Florida, in particular, has struggled with an unstable insurance market for years. Many private insurers have pulled out due to mounting losses, forcing residents to rely on Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, the state-run insurer of last resort. But recent legislative changes aimed at revitalizing the private market appear to be shifting that balance.

In Miami, often labeled the most expensive city for property insurance in the U.S., the share of homeowners with state-backed insurance coverage has fallen significantly — from 46% down to 27% in just the past 18 months. While this indicates that private carriers are returning, it also reflects a landscape where homeowners are paying a steep price to remain insured.

An Uncertain Future for Affordable Home Insurance

What’s happening in Florida, California, and the Carolinas may be just the beginning. Across the U.S., insurers are reevaluating how — and where — they offer coverage. Some are shifting the burden to policyholders through higher deductibles, exclusions for certain disasters, or even full policy non-renewals.

As the effects of climate change accelerate, analysts warn that home insurance will become less accessible and more expensive, especially in disaster-prone regions. The situation is raising questions about the long-term affordability and availability of insurance — and about the sustainability of living in high-risk areas without comprehensive federal, state, or private sector reforms.

Without stronger investments in climate resilience, updated zoning laws, and risk mitigation infrastructure, the trajectory is unlikely to change. For now, American homeowners are paying the price — not just for their homes, but for the growing instability of the planet around them.

While terms of the deals remain undisclosed, the acquisitions further BrightPath’s strategic mission to combine local agency expertise with the tools, technology, and scale of a national platform.

Headquartered in Ann Arbor, Michigan, BrightPath specializes in property and casualty, employee benefits, and high-net-worth personal insurance. The company’s approach blends regional know-how with technology-driven service delivery to better support businesses, families, and individuals across the country.

“These eight firms are exceptional examples of trusted, community-rooted agencies,” said Jessica Lane, CEO of BrightPath. “Their teams, cultures, and client-first mindsets align perfectly with our values. Together, we are building a national platform where people and performance matter.”

Agencies Joining the BrightPath Network

Michigan

1. Warrendale Insurance Agency (Livonia)
   Led by Barb Kunina, Warrendale is a multiline P&C agency with a strong reputation in niche and specialized market coverage.

2. U.P. Insurance Agency (Iron Mountain)
   Under the leadership of Todd Lysinger, U.P. Insurance provides commercial and health insurance to businesses across the Upper Midwest, known for its personalized advisory approach.

3. Entrust Insurance & Financial Services (St. Clair Shores)
   Founded by Dan LaLiberte, Entrust focuses on high-net-worth personal lines and wealth protection strategies for individuals and families.

4. Canopy Insurance Group (Birmingham)
   Managed by Janell Evans-Olsey and Joseph Simon, Canopy specializes in large-scale national commercial accounts, supporting clients with complex insurance needs.

Texas

5. Infiniti Insurance Services (Spring)
   Led by Hazel Moreno, Infiniti serves large commercial clients across industries with tailored risk management and insurance programs.

6. King Phillips Insurance (Houston)
   Headed by Troy White, this firm provides comprehensive insurance services to middle-market businesses throughout Texas.

Louisiana

7. Beasley Keith Insurance (Bossier City)
   A middle-market commercial insurance agency led by Gail Rinchuso, Beasley Keith has a strong presence in both Louisiana and the Houston region.

8. Safe Harbor Insurance (Bossier City)
   Directed by Ashlin Strother, Safe Harbor focuses on high-net-worth personal lines clients, offering concierge-style service and advanced risk planning.

Shared Ownership and Culture Integration

As part of BrightPath’s integration strategy, all team members from the acquired agencies will join the company’s Employee Purpose Plan—an equity-based incentive program designed to give employees a direct stake in the company’s success.

“Our model is rooted in shared success,” said Lane. “The Employee Purpose Plan ensures that as BrightPath grows, every team member shares in the value we create together.”

BrightPath has made it a cornerstone of its expansion to not only retain but actively invest in acquired agency talent, allowing each team to maintain its client relationships while benefiting from the resources and backing of a national platform.

A Technology-Enabled Growth Platform

At the heart of BrightPath’s growth strategy is its proprietary Lead Nexus technology—a platform powered by artificial intelligence that supports:

• Predictive client insights

• Smarter lead generation

• Cross-sell optimization

• Seamless client onboarding

This AI-powered system enables local agencies to maintain a high-touch service model while improving efficiency and expanding reach.

“Lead Nexus gives our teams the ability to act on real-time data, identify opportunities faster, and create a better experience for clients,” Lane explained. “It’s about giving great advisors better tools.”

A Vision for National Scale with Local Expertise

With these eight acquisitions, BrightPath strengthens its capabilities across core markets and lines of business, including commercial lines, employee health benefits, and high-net-worth personal insurance.

“Our expansion is driven by alignment—not just geography, but values,” Lane said. “We’re building a platform that scales without sacrificing the personal trust that’s made these agencies successful in the first place.”

As the company looks ahead, BrightPath will continue to seek out agency partners that value culture, client relationships, and a long-term view of the insurance business.

“We’re not interested in just rolling up agencies,” Lane added. “We’re interested in building something that lasts—together.”

About BrightPath Insurance Solutions

BrightPath Insurance Solutions is a national insurance brokerage headquartered in Ann Arbor, Michigan, offering a full suite of property & casualty, employee benefits, and personal insurance services. The firm leverages cutting-edge technology, shared ownership models, and regional partnerships to deliver smarter, faster, and more personalized insurance solutions across the United States.

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.