The alleged scheme ran from 2018 to 2023, racking up tens of millions of dollars in fraudulent no-fault medical claims billed to insurance companies.

The arrest of Petrosyants—described by media as a restaurateur and a close friend of former New York City Mayor Eric Adams—comes amid Albany lawmakers’ tense budget negotiations, where proposed auto insurance reforms by Gov. Kathy Hochul, aimed partly at cracking down on no-fault insurance fraud, have become a major sticking point.

Petrosyants’ lawyer told The New York Times that he has pleaded not guilty and plans to "vigorously" fight the charges.

This isn’t Petrosyants’ first run-in with auto insurance-related crimes. Back in 2014, he and his twin brother, Robert, pleaded guilty to a check-cashing scheme that bypassed anti-money-laundering rules, which also involved no-fault accident claims.

New Charges Unveiled

In an indictment filed yesterday in Manhattan federal court, prosecutors allege that Petrosyants and his co-conspirators submitted insurance claims for services that were never performed, were unnecessary or excessive, and were billed under medical corporations that were not actually owned, operated, or controlled by licensed medical professionals, as state law requires.

Prosecutors say Petrosyants carried out the scheme by recruiting purported physicians, psychologists, and other clinicians, submitting fraudulent no-fault insurance claims under their names. The conspirators reportedly also misused the licenses and signatures of licensed psychologists and medical professionals.

Prosecutors stated that if insurance companies had known the medical corporations were run by non-medical professionals—or that the claims were padded with unnecessary tests or services—they would have denied payment.

According to the indictment, after submitting the claims, Petrosyants allegedly used them to secure a portion of the payouts through financing agreements with funding companies. One such company, tied to an unnamed law firm, provided quick cash advances and "provided a veneer of legitimacy to the scheme," the indictment says.

According to the indictment, Petrosyants received referral fees from the funding company as well as kickbacks from his co-conspirators. Prosecutors also say the company advanced millions on no-fault medical claims to two shell corporations, with the funds eventually funneled into a bank account nominally tied to a jewelry business in Manhattan’s Diamond District.

No-Fault Insurance Rules

In New York State, every registered vehicle must carry no-fault auto insurance, which allows drivers and passengers to receive up to $50,000 per person for injuries from an accident, regardless of who’s at fault. The law ensures prompt payment for medical treatment, eliminating the need for claimants to file personal injury lawsuits to get reimbursed. It also lets patients assign their insurance reimbursement rights to others, including medical clinics that treat their injuries.

“As alleged in the indictment, Zhan Petrosyants orchestrated a complex scheme to cheat insurance providers out of millions of dollars,” said U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton. “No-fault insurance fraud schemes raise costs for everyone and reduce benefits to consumers, an unnecessary burden we all unfortunately share. Today’s arrest demonstrates this Office’s continuing commitment to rooting out this pernicious type of fraud that imposes costs on all New Yorkers.”

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) teamed up with Clayton’s office to bring the indictment.

Supporters of Hochul’s auto insurance reforms jumped on the news to push their agenda.

“Anyone who says auto insurance fraud isn’t a serious problem is willfully ignoring the facts. This case makes clear that no-fault insurance fraud is not a victimless crime – it is a widespread, organized problem that acts as a hidden tax on New Yorkers and drives up costs for every honest driver,” said James Freedland, a spokesperson for Citizens for Affordable Rates (CAR). “It’s time the legislature takes on auto insurance fraud head-on by passing the Governor’s reforms in the state budget.”

Hochul’s proposals aim to tackle staged accidents by holding criminals—not just drivers—liable for fraud; curb "jackpot" lawsuits by tightening the no-fault definition of serious injury; limit non-economic damages for drivers found mostly at fault under comparative fault rules; require insurers to offer discounts for safe-driving apps and devices; and prevent excessive profits by mandating that insurers return earnings above a set threshold to policyholders.

The New York State Trial Lawyers Association (NYSTLA) stands as the main roadblock in the legislature to Hochul’s auto insurance reforms. NYSTLA argues that the proposed changes would boost insurers’ profits while limiting consumers’ rights to sue and the damages they could receive.

“We’re doubling down on the entrepreneur model to drive our next chapter of growth,” said Ken Walton, president of distribution at Farmers. “This is about thinking big and moving fast. By onboarding 1,700 new agency owners — including an Elite tier of well-capitalized business leaders seeking to build or expand their portfolio — we’ll be injecting fresh energy into our distribution force.”

Farmers says the Elite Program will ‘significantly ramp up agency appointments across the country’ by attracting owners with at least $500,000 in capital. Participants can unlock tiered benefits, including dedicated support lines, priority service, and extra startup and marketing incentives designed to fuel fast growth.

Farmers expects these new agencies to drive policy sales and premium growth faster than any other agent program, setting a new pace for the company’s expansion.

New agent appointments are already up 34% through February compared with last year. Farmers’ bold recruitment push is timed to capitalize on improving market conditions, expand into underrepresented areas, and stay ahead of shifting customer demands.

Farmers will keep growing its network through traditional programs, including Retail and Acquisition tracks—where aspiring agency owners can start fresh or take over an existing agency—alongside specialized paths like the Financial Services Agent (FSA) and Business Insurance Agent (BIA) programs.

Photo: PR NEWSWIRE

According to court documents, between March 2023 and March 2024, the Lawlers collected insurance payments from BL Insurance clients—money that was supposed to go straight to insurers. Instead, prosecutors say, they diverted those funds for themselves, quietly pocketing client payments and using the cash for personal expenses.

Federal prosecutors say the scheme was far-reaching, with the Lawlers defrauding at least 50 victims, including individuals and insurance providers. Court filings allege they siphoned off no less than $462,247.89 from insurers and premium finance companies, along with another $307,486.33 from lenders—adding up to a staggering financial hit.

Prosecutors say the Lawlers went to great lengths to cover their tracks—and keep BL Insurance from collapsing. They allegedly used new client payments to plug unpaid premiums owed for other customers, effectively shuffling money to stay afloat. At the same time, they issued fake certificates of insurance, giving clients the false impression they were fully covered when, in reality, they were not.

Prosecutors say that when clients began to realize they weren’t actually insured, the Lawlers scrambled to keep the scheme alive—offering excuses and doubling down on deception. Beyond issuing fake insurance certificates, they allegedly sent clients images of tracking numbers, receipts, and even checks, falsely claiming these were proof that payments had been sent or processed.

Prosecutors say that, at times, the Lawlers tried to quiet complaints by issuing refunds or belatedly securing coverage—but often by dipping into payments from other clients, shifting funds around to keep the scheme from unraveling.

According to an affidavit, the fallout stretched far beyond a single community. Victims included an insurance brokerage in Daytona Beach, Florida, which had arranged coverage for its own clients, as well as insurance customers operating law offices in New Bedford and East Boston—underscoring just how wide the scheme’s reach had become.

On its website, BL Insurance portrayed itself as a full-service brokerage based in Fairhaven, touting licenses across multiple states—including Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Maine, New Jersey, and Connecticut. It claimed to offer a wide range of coverage, from professional and general liability to commercial property, financial products, and personal insurance—presenting an image of credibility that prosecutors say masked a far different reality.

The policyholder—a Florida-based investment firm with property in Kentucky—had also secured additional coverage that could have reimbursed the $45,000 depreciation deduction. But there was a catch: the firm missed its chance by failing to complete repairs within the two-year window required by the policy. In its March 25 opinion in Schoening Properties v. Cincinnati Casualty, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals made it clear—timing matters, and overlooking key policy deadlines can come at a steep cost.

Schoening’s argument in the appeal “ignores the basic principle that ‘insurance which covers the full cost of repair without deduction for assured depreciation’ demands a higher premium, as it “force[s] [the insurer] to pay for erecting what is in effect a new building,'” the court wrote, quoting from previous federal court decisions and a treatise on the issue.

Insurers often stumble on appeal when policy language is vague or open to interpretation—but not this time. Here, the court found the wording in Schoening’s commercial policies to be clear and unambiguous: the policyholder simply could not recover payment without accounting for depreciation. In other words, the fine print held firm—and it made all the difference.

“It may claim only a payment for actual cash value, less a ‘deduction that reflects depreciation.'”

The ruling affirmed a lower court decision from the Southern District of Ohio, bringing the case to a firm close. Yet, despite the outcome, key details remain surprisingly unclear—the final opinion and Schoening’s complaint offer no specifics on where the property is located or what actually caused the loss, leaving a notable gap in the story.

“The seminal legal dispute before the Court is whether Defendant’s standard form policy language allows for depreciation on partial losses in which Defendant’s estimate and claim payment were based on proposed repairs to damaged insured structures,” reads Schoening’s complaint in the 2024 lawsuit.

Both the trial court and the appellate panel found the investment firm’s arguments unconvincing across the board. The court didn’t hold back, noting that Schoening’s reading of the insurance contract simply doesn’t hold up when viewed in the context of the policy as a whole—underscoring just how far off the mark the claim really was.

The push to turn the case into a class action also fell apart. As Cincinnati’s legal team pointed out, the proposed group of plaintiffs spanned multiple states—each with its own rules on how contract ambiguity is interpreted—making a unified claim difficult to sustain and ultimately undermining the effort from the start.

Want to dive deeper? You can read the court’s full opinion here—and explore Schoening’s original complaint here to see how the case unfolded from the very beginning.

Photo: Dizain - stock.adobe.com

According to Farmers, just before cutting ties in 2025, McKinney allegedly downloaded his entire book of business and passed that confidential data to producers at a rival agency.

The lawsuit was officially filed on March 11 in federal court in northern Oklahoma, marking a significant escalation in the dispute.

From 2010 to 2025, McKinney ran a Farmers agency in Tulsa under the name McKinney Insurance & Financial Services. According to the lawsuit, his wife, Tory McKinney, and producer Christopher Spicer remained part of the operation until 2023—when they left to join Hometown Insurance Agency in Tulsa, a move that now sits at the center of the dispute.

According to the lawsuit, Bradley McKinney began steering Farmers policyholders to Tory McKinney and Christopher Spicer at Hometown in late 2023. The impact was swift: active policies at his Farmers agency started slipping that same year, declined further in 2024, and then dropped even more sharply in the first four and a half months of 2025, Farmers claims.

The lawsuit claims that on February 18, 2025, Bradley McKinney downloaded his agency’s entire book of business into an Excel file—then, just two days later, submitted a letter to Farmers terminating his agent agreement.

Farmers says its proprietary customer data is tightly safeguarded behind secure login systems that require multi-factor authentication. In the lawsuit, the company emphasizes that the information housed within these platforms is not just sensitive—it’s classified as trade secrets.

Farmers cut ties with Bradley McKinney on May 15, 2025—two weeks ahead of his planned departure. According to the lawsuit, he later resurfaced at Hometown, deepening the dispute.

Farmers is pushing for both compensatory and punitive damages—and is taking the fight to a jury trial.

“Limiting consumers to only the most expensive coverage just made buying a home that much more difficult, and created real harm for the homeowners market,” said Neil Alldredge, president and CEO of the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies. “The vast majority of mortgages are backed by the (government-sponsored enterprises), and so keeping costs needlessly high probably prevented some consumers from becoming homebuyers.”

Full replacement-cost coverage often comes with a higher price tag—something National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies says effectively acted as a “backdoor mandate,” limiting access to more affordable policies that factor in depreciation.

“Giving consumers more options to fit their needs and budgets will bring with it greater competition in the marketplace and help bring costs down,” Alldredge said.

National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies said it pushed back against the rule early on and helped secure a pause in May 2024. Still, the group noted that many mortgage lenders continued citing the policy to deny consumers and prospective homebuyers access to more affordable alternatives.

Meanwhile, pressure mounted on Capitol Hill. Lawmakers—including Reps. Mike Flood and Addison McDowell, along with Sen. Eric Schmitt—raised concerns throughout the debate, warning that the rule restricted consumer choice and drove up costs. McDowell pointed to a letter signed by 45 House Republicans urging the Federal Housing Finance Agency to restore the option for actual cash value insurance on mortgages backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

“We should be doing everything in our power to make homeownership attainable – especially in rural towns,” McDowell said. “I commend [FHFA Director William J. Pulte] and the Trump Administration’s action in restoring common-sense consumer choice to the housing market.”

“We appreciate FHFA’s willingness – along with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – to engage directly with insurers and other stakeholders to better understand the real-world impacts of the February 2024 guidance,” said Karen Collins, vice president of property and environmental for the American Property Casualty Insurance Association. “That engagement was critical in recognizing how certain requirements were contributing to higher costs, reduced coverage availability, and unintended challenges for condominiums and other properties.

“At a time when families are struggling with rising living costs and housing affordability challenges, policies grounded in real-world market conditions can make a meaningful difference.”

Photo: Tada Images - stock.adobe.com

The growing influence of AI in claims handling takes center stage in one of the report’s key predictions—signaling a shift that could fundamentally change how insurers assess, process, and resolve claims in the months ahead.

“As AI drives more claims automation, we will see more straight-through processing of low complexity claims in 2026,” said report co-author Joel Raedeke, senior vice president, U.S. technology for Crawford.

Crawford & Company predicts that insurers, regulators, and policyholders will take a far more proactive stance as natural disasters grow larger and more destructive. Events like the Los Angeles wildfires of January 2025 have already triggered sweeping changes—prompting insurers to push for higher rates or pull back from writing new policies in California, while regulators scramble to rethink the rules that govern the market.

The report’s authors expect to see broader industry support for resilience, along with stronger efforts to educate homeowners and contractors about how to better prepare for disasters. They also anticipate new funding streams and creative financing options designed to strengthen homes before the next catastrophe strikes. That could include insurance endorsements that cover part of the cost of installing more resilient roofing materials, loans or grants to help homeowners pay for upgrades, and expanded access to private financing to make those improvements more attainable.

The report also points to the rise of new approaches to insurance coverage. As AI becomes more powerful, it is expected to reshape both policy pricing and claims processing. With the ability to store, compile, and analyze vast amounts of data, insurers will be able to deliver far greater customization across the entire policy lifecycle—tailoring coverage, pricing, and service in ways that were nearly impossible just a few years ago.

Innovation and rapid change run through several of the report’s key predictions. In 2026, the industry is expected to face a familiar but intensifying challenge: the cost of medical care and indemnity claims will keep climbing—even as the overall number of claims continues to decline.

“Expect to see a healthy mix of captives and traditional insurance products bubble to the surface to address the resulting medical and indemnity market needs,” the report added.

Here are several other key predictions from Crawford & Company that could shape how the claims industry evolves in the months ahead:

• “New regulation will drive the claims industry to re-examine how speed and accuracy are balanced in post-disaster recovery.”
• “Data-driven transparency into adjuster performance will become table stakes for TPAs.”
• “An uptick in cyber regulation will drive more activity and associated expenses from panel providers.”
• “A shift in the market cycle will put pressure on captives in 2026, possibly bringing organizations back to the traditional market.”
• “2026 will test the industry’s agility in preparing for what can’t yet be predicted.”

Photo: Generated by AI

Jeff Rieder, head of benchmarking for Aon’s strategy and technology group, shared the findings during a Feb. 19 webinar. He suggested several forces may be driving the shift: a historically profitable 2025, strong investment returns, and insurers finally seeing real productivity gains from the technology systems they’ve spent years implementing. Together, those factors may be giving companies less urgency to expand headcount—at least for now.

“And the last thing that may be also driving this is with the advancements in artificial intelligence, what this could indicate is that companies are, we’ll say somewhat pausing on hiring plans to see just how artificial intelligence will be adopted within the organization,” Rieder said, “and how this is going to improve certain functions.”

Job openings across insurance and finance have pulled back sharply since their 2022 peak, signaling a cooling in demand for new talent. Data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics shows the annual average number of openings fell to 281,000 in 2025, and by December that figure had dropped to just 138,000—a striking decline that underscores how quickly the hiring landscape in the sector is shifting.

"I really do think that this might be kind of the indication of how AI is starting to influence a lot of these activities in terms of how companies are thinking about hiring," said Jeff Rieder as he presented the data—suggesting that artificial intelligence could already be quietly influencing workforce decisions across the industry.

The latest study from Aon and The Jacobson Group also reveals that 49% of property and casualty insurers still plan to add staff over the next year, showing that hiring hasn’t disappeared—it’s simply becoming more selective.

The survey captured insights from companies representing about 10% of the insurance industry’s total workforce. Most respondents came from the property/casualty sector (77%), followed by life and health insurers (19%) and reinsurers (3%), offering a broad snapshot of how different corners of the industry are approaching hiring in the year ahead.

Automation is emerging as a key driver of workforce changes. Companies that reduced headcount most often pointed to improvements in automation that allow the same work to be done with fewer employees.

At the same time, involuntary turnover across the broader insurance industry edged up by 0.6 percentage points year over year. Jeff Blair, senior vice president of executive search and business development at The Jacobson Group, said the increase is partly tied to rapid technology advancements and ongoing M&A activity, both of which are reshaping how insurers structure their teams.

Drawing on recent data, Jeff Rieder estimated that about half of the industry’s 4.4% involuntary turnover rate likely stems from performance management decisions, while the remaining portion may reflect companies quietly right-sizing their organizations—a subtle but telling sign of how insurers are reshaping their workforce.

At the same time, 12-month voluntary turnover edged down by 0.4 percentage points from January 2025, suggesting employees may be growing more cautious about changing jobs.

Based on his conversations with insurers—particularly in the property and casualty sector—Jeff Blair said many companies are doubling down on retention efforts, putting greater emphasis on programs designed to keep experienced employees engaged and on board.

“I hear a mantra of ‘I’d rather pay a stay bonus than a sign-on bonus,'” Blair said. “I don’t know to what extent that’s having an impact, but I think those sort of behaviors can definitely have a positive impact [on retention].”

Jeff Rieder also noted that stronger incentive programs introduced across the insurance industry over the past decade have helped curb voluntary turnover, alongside more competitive and comprehensive benefits packages.

Looking ahead, he said promotional pay increases are expected to land between 3.8% and 4%, while merit raises are projected to fall in the roughly 3.3% to 3.5% range—a sign that insurers are continuing to use compensation strategically to retain talent in a changing labor market.

These trends show that the “pendulum is definitely going back in favor of the insurance employer, for now,” Rieder said. That shift may portend well for turnover, “but could be more difficult as new entrants into the industry try to get in with lower hiring expectations.”

Key Takeaways From the Survey

• Confidence across the industry remains strikingly strong. In a survey by Aon and The Jacobson Group, only 2% of respondents expect revenue to decline over the next 12 months. Meanwhile, 72% anticipate revenue growth, and 26% believe results will hold steady—a clear sign that most insurers are heading into the coming year with optimism about their financial outlook.
• Headcount in the property and casualty (P/C) insurance sector rose 0.81% from January 2025 to January 2026—a modest gain that fell well short of expectations. According to Jeff Blair of The Jacobson Group, the increase was “significantly lower” than the projected 1.42%, highlighting a noticeable slowdown in workforce expansion across the industry.
• Among property and casualty insurers, personal lines companies are by far the most bullish on revenue growth. An impressive 90% expect revenue to rise, compared with 68% of commercial lines carriers and 64% of balanced lines insurers—a gap that highlights just how confident personal lines players are about the year ahead.
• Technology, claims, and underwriting roles are poised to lead hiring across the insurance industry in the coming year. As insurers invest more heavily in digital capabilities while managing rising claims complexity, demand for talent in these critical areas is expected to outpace most other functions.
• Insurers are targeting different talent levels across key functions. Compliance, analytics, and underwriting are the areas where companies are most likely to recruit experienced professionals, while operations and claims teams are expected to see the largest influx of entry-level hires—a hiring pattern that reveals how insurers are balancing specialized expertise with the need to build the next generation of talent.

Photo: RareStock - stock.adobe.com

The move comes just days after President Donald Trump directed the DFC to offer insurance “at a very reasonable price” to keep energy supplies and other commercial trade moving through the Gulf as oil prices surge. His remarks followed warnings from several governments, including the U.S., that a lack of insurance coverage was hindering ships from transiting the region. Trump also said the U.S. military could escort vessels through the Strait, though no formal plans have been announced.

The strait handles roughly a fifth of the world’s oil shipments, along with large volumes of gas, fertilizer, and other goods. But Iran has threatened to target vessels attempting to pass through the waterway, helping drive a sharp surge in global oil and fuel prices.

“DFC and Treasury are coordinating closely with CENTCOM on next steps in the implementation of this plan,” the development agency said, referring to the US military’s Central Command.

The DFC said it has identified “best-in-class, preferred American insurance partners.”

Even before the DFC’s announcement, private insurers were still offering coverage for ships planning to sail through the region. The Lloyd’s Market Association said Thursday that quotes were continuing to be issued, while broker Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. noted that the London insurance market remains willing and able to insure vessels transiting the strait.

Insurers have already shown interest in partnering with the agency to provide the reinsurance, according to a DFC official. The program’s structure, the official said, was shaped by extensive discussions with the insurance industry.

Private insurance coverage alone hasn’t been enough to persuade ships to sail through the Strait of Hormuz. Shipowners say the real concern is the safety of crews asked to enter what has effectively become a war zone.

The DFC said it is working with U.S. Central Command, but Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Friday afternoon he still doesn’t know whether U.S. naval escorts will be needed in the Gulf.

Photograph: An Iranian supertanker; photo credit: Jorge Guerrero/AFP/Getty Images

“This matter involves an egregious and overinflated first-party Hurricane Sally insurance claim, where the Defendants seek over $230 million for damages allegedly sustained to the Defendants’ condominium buildings that remain standing and in good condition,” reads the 2023 lawsuit complaint filed by Westchester and 15 other insurers that covered Portofino, one of the largest and best-known high-rise condos on Pensacola Beach.

The settlement agreement—filed in U.S. District Court in Pensacola—applies only to Westchester. The terms remain undisclosed, and the federal judge overseeing the case has not yet approved the deal. According to the condominium association’s attorney, the other insurers named in the lawsuit must still review the agreement before any broader resolution can move forward.

Westchester—part of Chubb and based in Alpharetta, Georgia—was represented by attorneys from the Cozen O’Connor law firm. Early in the case, the insurer argued that the scale of Portofino’s claim raised serious questions, noting that the condominium association had initially filed a proof of loss for just $6.5 million—a figure far below the damages later being sought.

Later, the condominium association hired its own appraiser, who estimated the losses at more than $233 million. That dramatic jump raised red flags for the insurers. In their request for a declaratory judgment, Portofino’s attorneys argued the figure "which raises significant questions concerning the appraiser’s interest and honesty, as well as the fraudulent nature of the claim and its supporting documentation."

Insurers argued that Hurricane Sally—a Category 2 storm that struck the Pensacola area in 2020—caused only limited damage. In fact, many units at Portofino appeared largely untouched, with some condos selling for as much as $800,000 even after the storm passed.

Insurers also argued that the condominium association failed to comply with a key cooperation clause in its policies—an obligation they say policyholders must meet during the claims process.

In 2023, Portofino asked the court to dismiss the insurers’ lawsuit, arguing that the appraisal panel had not yet determined a final loss amount. The condo association’s legal team also pushed back on Westchester’s fraud allegations, saying the original proof of loss covered only part of the damage. They added that the condominium’s appraiser had merely offered a professional opinion—not an inflated valuation meant to drive up the claim.

Attorneys representing Westchester could not immediately be reached for comment Wednesday. Ed Fleming, a lawyer for Portofino, said the settlement is confidential and declined to discuss its terms. Several other insurers involved in the dispute have already reached settlements, and more agreements are expected in the months ahead.

Photo: The Portofino condo buildings on Pensacola Beach. (AdobeStock)

Here’s how premium renewal rates shifted across other commercial insurance lines in February 2026:

• Commercial Auto: 5.18%, down from 5.62% in January
• Business Owners Policy (BOP): 6.81%, down slightly from 6.89% in January
• Commercial Property: 7.05%, down from 7.22% in January
• Umbrella: 8.84%, down significantly from 10.47% in January

On a year-over-year basis, Ivans found renewal premiums rising across several key lines—including commercial auto, BOP, general liability, commercial property, and umbrella—while workers’ compensation moved in the opposite direction, posting lower renewal rates.

Released each month, the Ivans Index provides a data-driven snapshot of market conditions, tracking how premium renewal rates are changing across the insurance industry’s most commonly placed commercial lines.

“Analyzing more than 120 million data transactions, the Ivans Index premium renewal rate change measures the premium difference year over year for a single consistent policy,” Ivans said in a press release. “Inclusive of more than 38,000 agencies and 700 carriers and MGAs, the Ivans Index is reflective of the premium rate change trends being experienced by all agencies and insurers across the U.S. insurance market.”

An arrest affidavit filed this week in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court reveals that investigators with the Florida Department of Financial Services uncovered a troubling scheme involving D&R Financial Services, a company owned by Salas. According to the filing, the firm not only offered pre-licensing education but also allegedly manipulated the system—bypassing the state’s testing vendor, Pearson VUE—by completing required online coursework and even taking licensing exams on behalf of applicants. Investigators say the operation effectively allowed unqualified individuals to obtain insurance licenses without ever doing the work themselves.

According to the arrest report, Cynthia Pinto, a 40-year-old Miami resident, allegedly served as one of the key organizers behind the operation. Court records and local news reports say 11 others were also taken into custody and booked into the Turner Guilford Correctional Center, as authorities continue to unravel what investigators describe as a coordinated effort to fraudulently obtain insurance licenses.

In April 2025, Rainier Miguel Salas pleaded guilty to charges tied to running the illicit testing center. A judge later sentenced him to six months of community service and two years of probation, bringing a formal judgment to a case that investigators say exposed a sophisticated scheme to game Florida’s insurance licensing system.

Photo: Mangostar - stock.adobe.com

Miguel Barrales will continue to serve as president, while Rafael Cedeño Camacho leads the company as chairman of the board and CEO, anchoring the leadership team as the newly rebranded insurer moves into its next phase of growth.

“This name not only reflects the company’s strong footprint in numerous states and financial stability, but also its shared identity and unified vision as part of the One Alliance family of companies,” Cedeño said in a news release.

Founded in 2003, Universal North America has been an endorsed partner of FAIA Member Services since 2015, a relationship the Florida Association of Insurance Agents recently highlighted in a blog post.

By the end of 2025, the company had roughly 20,000 policies in force across Florida—all of them covering personal residential properties—according to the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation.

That figure marked a slight decline from the first quarter of 2025, despite the carrier receiving approval in August 2025 to assume 10,000 personal residential policies from Citizens Property Insurance Corp., Florida’s state-backed insurer. Just a few years earlier, Universal North America carried roughly 57,000 policies in the state, but the company later scaled back its exposure after reporting significant net losses in 2019 and 2020—at the height of Florida’s insurance litigation crisis.

Last summer, AM Best assigned Universal North America a financial strength rating of “B (Fair).” The agency noted negative implications tied to uncertainty surrounding the financial strength of the insurer’s new parent company, 5B Alliance.

The judge also made clear that moving forward with a coverage decision in Delaware would not unfairly disadvantage Meta Platforms at this stage—clearing the way for the insurance battle to proceed even as the broader litigation continues to unfold.

Thousands of lawsuits have been filed on behalf of children who used Meta Platforms’ social media platforms, along with claims brought by more than 1,000 school districts and 43 states. The cases have now been consolidated into two major proceedings in California under what is known as the Social Media Litigation.

At the heart of the complaints: allegations that Meta deliberately engineered addictive algorithms and features on Instagram and Facebook—tools that plaintiffs say have fueled a surge in anxiety, depression, and eating disorders among young users, setting the stage for one of the most consequential tech showdowns in years.

The Hartford, Chubb, and more than 20 other insurers went to court in Delaware—where Meta Platforms is incorporated—seeking a clear ruling that they have no obligation to defend the company in the sweeping Social Media Litigation, escalating an already high-stakes legal fight over who will foot the bill.

For its part, Meta Platforms argues that the product design decisions at issue should be treated as accidental events—not intentional misconduct—and therefore fall within the scope of its insurance coverage. The company maintains it never intended to cause the alleged harms, including addiction, depression, or other mental health struggles, positioning the dispute as a battle over how the law defines intent versus unforeseen consequences.

Insurers countered—and the court agreed—that the complaints do not have to claim Meta Platforms specifically intended to harm users. It is enough, they argued, that Meta deliberately engaged in the conduct at issue and that harm allegedly followed from those actions. Because the injuries are said to flow directly from intentional design decisions, the insurers maintain the policies’ “accident” requirement simply is not triggered—sharpening the stakes in a fight that could reshape how tech companies rely on liability coverage.

Meta Platforms urged the court to dismiss or at least pause the insurance case until the underlying Social Media Litigation is resolved. The company argued that, under California law, coverage disputes must be put on hold when they hinge on the same factual questions being fought out in the main lawsuit—seeking to delay a potentially costly ruling until the broader legal battle plays out.

The insurers pushed back, arguing that California law does not require the case to be put on hold because the court is not being asked to decide disputed facts about Meta Platforms’ intent, causation, or knowledge. Instead, they said, the issue is a straightforward legal question about policy language—clearing the path for a coverage ruling now rather than after years of underlying litigation.

In the end, Sheldon K. Rennie sided with the insurers—delivering a pivotal win that allows the coverage fight to move forward and adds fresh legal pressure on Meta Platforms as the broader litigation continues to intensify.

“The conduct alleged in the Social Media Litigation—even when viewed through the lens of negligence—describes deliberate acts rather than accidents under the policies. Because the court’s determination regarding Meta’s intent is based strictly on the face of the underlying complaints, it does not “overlap” with the factual truth of the allegations to be litigated in California,” the judge ruled.

The decision addresses only the insurers’ duty to defend—not the separate question of indemnification, which could require a deeper dive into the underlying facts through discovery. Meta Platforms now has 30 days to take the fight to the Delaware Supreme Court, setting the stage for the next chapter in this closely watched legal showdown.

Meta Platforms—which had sought, unsuccessfully, to move the insurance dispute to California—has not yet publicly responded to the ruling, leaving observers watching closely for its next move in an escalating legal battle.

Insurance policyholder attorney Tae Andrews of Calfee, Halter & Griswold LLP said he was disappointed—but not surprised—by the Delaware court’s decision.

"In short, this is nothing new but continues the Delaware state courts’ trend of hollowing out the duty-to-defend standard from what should be a broad standard into a much narrower and difficult one for policyholders," Andrews, who was not involved in the case against Meta Platforms, told Insurance Journal—signaling that the ruling could carry implications well beyond a single high-profile tech dispute.

Andrews pointed to a 2022 decision by the Delaware Supreme Court, which found that Chubb had no duty to defend Rite Aid against lawsuits filed by Ohio counties seeking to recover the costs of responding to the opioid crisis. The court concluded that because the underlying suits sought purely economic damages—not covered bodily injury or property damage—the insurers had no obligation to step in, a precedent critics say continues to narrow the scope of defense coverage in high-stakes litigation.

For insurers, the decision could mark a significant win—potentially setting the tone for future battles by signaling that claims like those in the social media addiction litigation may not trigger defense or indemnity coverage under standard commercial policies. If that interpretation holds, it could reshape how courts nationwide view insurance protection in high-profile tech cases.

The court dismissed Meta Platforms’ argument that moving forward with the coverage ruling would unfairly prejudice it in the underlying litigation. In fact, the judge found the opposite: delaying the decision would disadvantage the insurers—tilting the balance in their favor and allowing the coverage dispute to proceed without further delay.

“An insurer’s duty to defend must be assessed at the outset of a case. Just as the insured is entitled to a prompt defense if coverage is possible, an insurer is entitled to a prompt exit when there is no potential for coverage. Delaying this determination through a stay would force insurers to fund a defense they do not legally owe,” the opinion added.

“Insurers have accurately stated the analytical framework,” wrote Judge Rennie. “Under the relevant policies, the insurers’ duty to defend is triggered only by suits seeking damages caused by an ‘accident.'”

Under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, internet companies are broadly shielded from liability for content posted by their users. But plaintiffs argue that this 1996 law was never meant to protect platforms from accountability for their own product design choices—particularly the algorithms and features they allegedly built to drive engagement—drawing a sharp line between user-generated content and corporate decision-making.

Photo: Sergei Elagin - stock.adobe.com

Travel stocks from Asia to New York plunged, erasing billions of dollars in market value as the escalating conflict rippled through the global aviation industry. Thousands of flights were disrupted, major Middle Eastern hubs were forced to shut down, and surging oil prices added fresh pressure — delivering a powerful shock to markets already on edge and raising fears that the turbulence is far from over.

Here’s how insurance industry experts and market analysts are sizing up the unfolding crisis — and what they believe it could mean for airlines, insurers, and investors in the days ahead.

• Analysts at Jefferies noted that commercial property policies “almost always” exclude war-related risks — and unlike marine or aviation coverage, that protection isn’t easily purchased as a standalone policy. In other words, when conflict erupts, many businesses may find there’s little financial safety net in place, exposing a gap that only becomes visible when it’s already too late.
• The brokerage warned that major commercial property losses — including potential damage to Dubai’s iconic Palm Jumeirah — could fall outside the scope of insurance coverage. Such a scenario would leave owners and investors facing staggering repair costs on their own, underscoring just how exposed high-profile assets can be when conflict escalates.
• Jefferies also pointed out that aviation war-risk policies often give insurers the right to cancel coverage at short notice. Meanwhile, standard non-war aviation policies typically exclude war-related losses altogether — either explicitly or through force majeure clauses. The result is a narrow and fragile safety net, one that can quickly unravel just when airlines need protection the most.

• Still, an industry source told Reuters that aviation insurers are no strangers to geopolitical shocks and have systems in place to manage them. So far, no carrier has received a formal notice of cancellation — a sign that, despite rising tensions, insurers are holding steady for now. Whether that calm endures, however, may depend on how the conflict unfolds in the days ahead.

• Airlines do carry aviation war-risk insurance for their fleets, covering physical damage to aircraft and certain liability claims. But when it comes to lost revenue from grounded planes, canceled routes, and widespread operational chaos, that protection often stops short. Those losses typically fall under broader business interruption policies — many of which contain explicit war exclusions — effectively leaving airlines to absorb the financial blow themselves, a second industry source said.
• Morningstar DBRS warned that the unfolding events pose serious underwriting and investment challenges across multiple insurance lines — from marine and aviation to commercial property, travel, and even supply chain coverage. The ripple effects could test insurers’ risk models, strain capital reserves, and reshape pricing strategies at a time when the industry is already navigating heightened global uncertainty.

• Morningstar DBRS added that if the conflict spreads further across the Gulf, insurers could respond swiftly — raising premiums and pulling back capacity in the terrorism and political violence insurance markets. Such a shift would tighten coverage just as demand surges, potentially driving up costs for businesses operating in already high-risk regions and reshaping the market almost overnight.

• Insurance costs for shipping goods through the Middle East Gulf have skyrocketed — jumping as much as fivefold in just 48 hours. Most underwriters are now declining to offer coverage for vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz, according to industry sources cited by Reuters on Monday. The sudden spike underscores how quickly risk perceptions can shift, threatening to choke off one of the world’s most critical energy and trade corridors.
• “From an aviation-hull perspective, insurers must consider the risk that missiles or air-defense interceptors could result in large hull and liability claims,” it wrote in a note.

In the Strait of Hormuz and nearby waters, at least 150 vessels—including oil and liquefied natural gas tankers—had dropped anchor by Sunday, according to shipping data, underscoring the growing unease rippling through one of the world’s most critical energy corridors.

Under normal conditions, tankers moving roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil supply—from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Iraq, Iran, and Kuwait—pass through the Strait, alongside ships loaded with diesel, jet fuel, gasoline, and other refined products. Any disruption here doesn’t just slow traffic; it sends shockwaves through the global energy market.

The disruption sent global oil prices soaring 9% on Monday, a sharp spike that signaled just how quickly tensions in the region can rattle energy markets worldwide.

Insurers Pull War-Risk Coverage as Tensions Escalate

Companies including Gard, Skuld, NorthStandard, London P&I Club, and American Club announced that their war-risk coverage cancellations will take effect March 5, according to notices posted on their websites and dated March 1—signaling a swift and coordinated retreat from one of the world’s most volatile shipping corridors.

According to the notices, war-risk coverage will no longer apply in Iranian waters, the Gulf, or surrounding areas—effectively stripping vessels of critical protection in one of the world’s most volatile maritime flashpoints.

Skuld added in its notice that it is developing a buy-back option that would allow shipowners to reinstate war-risk coverage—offering a potential lifeline as uncertainty continues to grip the region.

Japan’s MS&AD Insurance Group told Reuters it has suspended underwriting a broad range of war-risk policies covering waters around Iran, Israel, and neighboring countries—another clear sign that insurers are rapidly retreating as tensions escalate across the region.

Oil Shipping Costs Set to Climb Even Higher as Risks Intensify

Meanwhile, the cost of shipping oil from the Middle East to Asia—already hovering near six-year highs—is poised to climb even further. As the expanding Iran conflict makes shipowners increasingly wary of sending vessels into the region, market sources and analysts said Monday that freight rates are likely to surge again, tightening supply lines and adding fresh strain to global energy markets.

Spot shipping rates from the Middle East to Asia—better known in the market as TD3C (DFRT-ME-CN)—are expected to climb even higher, shipbrokers said. The key benchmark has already nearly tripled since the start of 2026, a stunning surge that underscores just how quickly geopolitical tensions can drive up the cost of moving oil across the globe.

Shipbrokers estimated that the spot rate to charter a very large crude carrier (VLCC) on the critical Middle East–to–China route was up about 4% early Monday in Asia compared with Friday. The rate was hovering near W225 on the Worldscale benchmark—equivalent to at least $12 million per voyage—highlighting how rapidly shipping costs are accelerating as tensions tighten their grip on the market.

Explosive Surge That’s Rewriting the Market Rules

“TD3C rates were rising exponentially before the attacks and will continue to remain elevated as countries scramble to meet their energy needs,” said Emril Jamil, a senior LSEG analyst.

“There’s still considerable uncertainty about where rates will ultimately settle on Monday, but all Middle East loading routes are expected to remain firm,” a shipbroker said, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly. The comment underscores just how tense and fluid the market has become, with traders bracing for further swings as the day unfolds.

At the same time, the market is likely to require more vessels to lift crude from the U.S. and West Africa on longer-haul voyages, a source at a shipping company said. That added demand for ships could push freight rates even higher on those routes, extending the ripple effects of the crisis far beyond the Middle East.

The U.S. automaker said the recall spans some of its most popular models, including the 2021–2026 Ford F-150, the 2022–2026 Ford F-250 Super Duty, the Lincoln Navigator, and the Ford Expedition. It also affects the Ford Maverick, along with select Ford Ranger and Ford E-Transit vehicles. In short, this isn’t a small, isolated issue—it reaches deep into Ford’s lineup, potentially impacting millions of drivers who rely on these trucks and SUVs every day.

When towing a trailer, the vehicle’s Integrated Trailer Module can unexpectedly lose communication with the truck, creating a dangerous chain reaction. Brake lights and turn signals on the trailer may suddenly go dark—and in some cases, braking function itself could be compromised. For drivers hauling heavy loads, that split-second failure could make all the difference.

Ford says it plans to fix the problem through an over-the-air software update, allowing affected vehicles to receive the repair remotely—no trip to the dealership required.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration warned that when trailer lights or brakes fail, drivers can quickly lose critical control over what they’re towing. Without working brake lights or proper stopping power, reaction times shrink and the margin for error disappears—dramatically increasing the risk of a crash. In high-speed traffic or heavy conditions, that kind of failure isn’t just inconvenient; it can turn dangerous in an instant.

Ford Motor Company said it is aware of 407 reported incidents that may be tied to the recall issue—an eye-opening figure that underscores the scope of the problem. While the company has not indicated how many of those cases led to crashes or injuries, the number alone is likely to raise concern among drivers and safety advocates alike. For millions of owners, the question now is simple: could their vehicle be next?

Ford Motor Company and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration first raised concerns about the issue during a routine monthly meeting in December. But the conversation didn’t end there. In January, after weighing the agency’s feedback, Ford reopened its internal investigation—an important move that signaled the matter was far from settled. The renewed scrutiny ultimately set the stage for broader action, putting the spotlight back on a problem that regulators clearly believed deserved a closer look.

According to GrantExec, between January and June 2025 alone, federal agencies terminated at least 690 grant programs—wiping out $19 billion in congressionally approved funding. That accounts for more than 40% of the $48 billion federal grant market. For human services organizations, this is far more than a line item disappearing from a budget. It’s a defining moment—a strategic turning point that demands urgent attention and bold action.

When funding dries up, organizations are forced to pivot—fast. They diversify services, ramp up fundraising campaigns, and forge new partnerships to keep their mission alive. But every strategic shift brings new exposures and unexpected liabilities. And too often, those emerging risks fall outside the scope of their existing insurance coverage—leaving critical gaps at exactly the wrong moment.

The Ripple Effect of Risk: When One Cut Triggers a Chain Reaction

Imagine a nonprofit that receives a donated building to expand its soup kitchen. Eager to strengthen its funding prospects, leadership decides to convert unused space into a homeless shelter. It’s a compassionate, mission-driven decision—but it also changes the organization’s risk profile overnight.

Residential exposures come into play. The potential for abuse or molestation claims increases. New licensing rules and regulatory requirements follow. Without a proactive review of its insurance program, those added risks can remain hidden in plain sight—until a claim forces them into the spotlight, when it’s far too late to close the gaps.

Consider a special fundraising event. A 5K run may sound simple enough—just a few miles, some volunteers, and a good cause. But if the route winds onto public roads and a participant is injured, the organization could face liability as the event sponsor. What begins as an energizing community celebration can quickly turn into a complex legal and financial challenge if the risks weren’t carefully planned for in advance.

These aren’t far-fetched hypotheticals—they’re real-world exposures unfolding every day. And they demand more than off-the-shelf policies. They require deliberate, forward-thinking coverage strategies designed to keep pace with an organization’s evolving mission and the risks that come with it.

Make a Real Difference When It Matters Most

Seasoned insurance agents play a pivotal role in helping human services organizations stay ahead of risk—not just react to it. They bring insight, foresight, and strategy to the table, guiding leaders through complex decisions as their operations evolve.

But they can’t do it alone. Insurance carriers with specialized underwriting expertise and products tailored specifically to nonprofits are indispensable partners. Together, they build coverage solutions that adapt in real time—ensuring protection keeps pace with growth, innovation, and the ever-changing demands of the mission.

Proactive communication isn’t just a best practice—it’s a competitive advantage. When agents stay in close, consistent contact with their clients, they gain early insight into changes in services, funding streams, staffing, facilities, or partnerships that can quietly reshape an organization’s risk profile.

Regular check-ins and candid conversations uncover what annual applications often miss. They reveal new exposures before they become costly surprises.

Just as important, these insights strengthen the agent-client relationship and create a smarter, more strategic partnership with carriers. The result? Coverage solutions that aren’t static or reactive—but intentionally aligned with the organization’s evolving mission and the realities of a rapidly changing operational landscape.

Here are three essential qualities to look for in a coverage solution—so it doesn’t just protect your human services clients today, but evolves right alongside them tomorrow:

• Carrier expertise. The right carrier doesn’t just provide coverage—it brings deep, industry-specific insight to the table. Underwriters who specialize in the human services sector understand its unique pressures and complexities. They recognize emerging challenges, from funding volatility to rapid program diversification, and they know which questions to ask at renewal. That level of expertise transforms the underwriting process from a routine transaction into a strategic conversation.
• Proactively reviewing and updating coverage. Insurance should never sit on autopilot. As an organization’s services expand or shift, its coverage must evolve in step. If a nonprofit begins offering medical-related services, its professional liability program may need to be broadened or restructured. If it acquires property, expands into new facilities, or hosts public events, general liability and abuse/molestation coverage should be carefully reexamined. And for organizations planning onsite gatherings, emergency event management coverage can be a critical safeguard. The key is intentional alignment. Coverage should be actively reviewed, thoughtfully adjusted, and deliberately structured to reflect the organization’s changing operations—and the new risks that come with growth.
• Industry-tailored risk management programs. The right carrier delivers more than an insurance policy—it brings specialized risk management resources designed specifically for human services organizations. That can include targeted training, operational assessments, and direct access to experts who help identify vulnerabilities and strengthen mitigation strategies. In many cases, that proactive support is just as valuable as the coverage itself—because preventing a loss is always more powerful than simply paying for one.

A Mission Worth Protecting—and Supporting

Human services organizations are on the front lines of our communities, tackling some of the most urgent and meaningful work there is. They are resilient, resourceful, and unwavering in their commitment to the people they serve.

Yet today, they’re navigating a level of uncertainty and pressure unlike anything they’ve faced before—financial strain, operational shifts, and rising risk all converging at once. The mission has never been more important. And the stakes have never been higher.

By truly understanding the mounting pressures these organizations face—and responding with tailored, forward-thinking guidance—agents and carriers can do far more than place policies. Together, they can design insurance programs that actively protect and empower human services organizations, giving them the stability and confidence to keep showing up for the people who depend on them most.

Photo: SERHII - stock.adobe.com

The timing and size of the equity raise remain fluid and could shift as talks progress, the sources cautioned — underscoring just how fast-moving and high-stakes the situation has become.

In January, Zurich Insurance Group AG signaled it would fund any acquisition using a mix of existing cash and newly arranged debt facilities, with the balance coming from an equity offering. Its latest proposal values Beazley Plc at roughly £8 billion (about $10.8 billion), underscoring the scale of a deal that could significantly reshape the specialty insurance landscape.

Shares of Beazley Plc climbed as much as 2.3% in London trading, reflecting growing investor anticipation. By 3:11 p.m. local time, the stock was up 2.1% at 1,272 pence — still shy of Zurich Insurance Group AG’s 1,310 pence-per-share cash offer, leaving room for further upside if a deal is sealed.

A spokesperson for Zurich Insurance Group AG declined to comment on the matter, while a representative for Beazley Plc was not immediately available to respond — leaving key questions unanswered as speculation around the potential deal intensifies.

Earlier this week, Zurich Insurance Group AG agreed to acquire ClearView Wealth Ltd for about A$415 million (roughly $295 million) in cash, extending its global buying spree. The company also holds a 5% stake in Banco de Sabadell, according to data compiled by Bloomberg L.P. — a sign that Zurich is steadily expanding its strategic footprint across markets.

Photo: The headquarters of Zurich Insurance Group AG in Zurich. Credit: Michele Limina/Bloomberg L.P..

"This is huge. It’s not often you see a complete vindication like this," said Jerry Fogel, a consultant with Imagine Clinical who has been at the forefront of the physician-dispensing battle for years.

On Wednesday, the Florida 1st District Court of Appeal overturned a ruling by the Florida Division of Administrative Hearings that had upheld a 2023 regulation from the Florida Division of Workers' Compensation. First proposed in 2020, that rule marked a sharp departure from years of regulatory interpretation—asserting that Florida law does not allow insurers to deny reimbursement when physicians dispense medications to injured workers.

The 2023 rule has now been struck down. What happens next remains uncertain: the appellees—including the Florida Department of Financial Services, the Florida Medical Association, and Prescription Partners LLC—must decide whether to take the fight to the Florida Supreme Court or return to the drawing board and rewrite the rule altogether.

Representatives for those organizations and their attorneys could not be reached for comment Thursday. But behind the scenes, speculation spread quickly that a new push to rewrite the law may already be in motion—just days before the Florida legislative session is scheduled to adjourn on March 13.

Where injured workers fill their prescriptions may not sound like a headline issue. After all, workers’ compensation rates for most employers have dropped sharply in Florida and across the country over the past two decades.

But insurers in the case argue the stakes are far higher than they appear. They contend that medical costs could fall—and patient outcomes could improve—if physicians stepped away from the business of selling the very medications they prescribe. The concern, they say, is a built-in conflict of interest. Unlike pharmacists, doctors are not always trained across the full spectrum of medications, drug interactions, and pricing structures—raising questions about both cost and care.

Ending physician dispensing could save workers’ compensation insurers up to $43 million over the next five years, according to an amicus brief filed with the appeals court by the Florida Insurance Council and the American Property Casualty Insurance Association.

In their filing, the groups argued that curbing the practice wouldn’t just trim costs—it could reshape the financial landscape of Florida’s workers’ comp system.

The groups cited research from the Workers’ Compensation Research Institute showing that medications often cost significantly more when physicians dispense and bill for them directly. For example, the pain reliever Vicodin averages $1.41 per pill in a doctor’s office—compared with just 52 cents at a pharmacy. The anti-inflammatory drug Mobic can run as high as $5.86 per pill when physician-dispensed, versus $3.19 at a pharmacy, the brief states.

The price gap, they argue, is more than marginal—it’s systemic.

“This increase would need to be factored into the cost of workers’ compensation insurance, unraveling years of legislative reform,” attorneys Maria Elena Abate and Michael Billmeier Jr. wrote in the brief.

The Florida Insurance Council quickly applauded the court’s decision, calling it a decisive victory for employers and a turning point in the long-running fight over physician dispensing.

“We believe this decision reinforces an important safeguard against misaligned financial incentives in physician dispensing, protecting injured workers and helping prevent unnecessary cost increases that impact Florida employers,” said George Feijoo, of Floridian Partners, representing the Council

Supporters of physician dispensing have long argued that the practice benefits injured workers—saving them time, eliminating extra trips to the pharmacy, and getting medication into their hands faster to speed recovery.

In its response brief, attorneys for Prescription Partners LLC went a step further, suggesting the entire controversy may have been misplaced. Under Florida law, they noted, workers’ compensation insurers typically select the treating physician in most claims—meaning carriers already control the front end of the process.

“A carrier has the choice to send the injured worker to any provider of the carrier’s choice, including a provider who is not a dispensing practitioner, and thereby avoid any practitioner-dispensing of medications at all,” attorneys Virginia Dailey and Lindsay Ervin wrote.

But Jerry Fogel countered that in today’s profit-driven healthcare landscape—where major private equity firms hold stakes in many provider practices—walking away from physician dispensing isn’t a simple choice. Even the promise of higher reimbursement rates and a steadier flow of patients may not be enough to offset the financial pressures shaping modern medical practices.

“That worked great 20 years ago,” Fogel said. “But nowadays, no one owns their own operation anymore. The medical people don’t make the decisions so much.”

The appeals court acknowledged that Florida’s statutes on physician dispensing are anything but crystal clear. In some provisions, the law plainly distinguishes physicians from pharmacists, signaling they are not one and the same. Yet elsewhere, the statute lays out a pricing formula specifically for medications sold by doctors—capping reimbursement at the average wholesale price plus a $4.18 dispensing fee. For repackaged drugs, the cap rises to 112.5% of the wholesale price, along with an $8 fee.

The mixed signals, the court suggested, have fueled years of confusion—and litigation.

But Jerry Fogel argued that price caps alone don’t eliminate the underlying incentive. When physicians both prescribe and dispense, he said, they still have a financial stake in writing more prescriptions—and in choosing higher-priced medications—potentially driving up costs for insurers and employers alike.

Insurance groups say physician dispensing has evolved into a highly profitable revenue stream for many medical practices. Among the most prominent players is Prescription Partners LLC, headquartered in Hollywood. The company provides the software, packaging, and billing infrastructure that enables doctors to operate in-office pharmacies and fold prescription drugs directly into their charges.

Industry leaders on the insurance side argue that the firm has been a central force behind Florida’s regulatory efforts to preserve and expand physician dispensing—turning what began as a convenience for patients into a major policy battleground.

Paul Zimmerman, a physician, is listed as CEO of Prescription Partners LLC. He could not be reached for comment Thursday.

In a past interview with NBC News, however, Zimmerman pushed back on insurers’ claims, arguing that carriers have skewed the debate by spotlighting only a handful of higher-priced medications while ignoring the broader pricing picture.

On the opposite side of the fight stood Publix Super Markets, one of Florida’s largest employers and the lead appellant in the case. The company had a dual stake in the outcome: controlling its own workers’ compensation costs and protecting its extensive pharmacy business, which could see a boost in prescription volume now that insurers may deny reimbursement when physicians dispense medications to injured workers.

Other appellants included several Florida workers’ compensation insurers, led by Normandy Insurance Company, based in Deerfield Beach. Jerry Fogel credited Normandy with underwriting and sustaining much of the litigation—pressing forward even after other carriers stepped away.

They were joined in the appeal by Zenith Insurance Company, headquartered in Sarasota; Bridgefield Employers Insurance Company; BusinessFirst Insurance Company; and RetailFirst Insurance Company—a coalition that turned a regulatory dispute into a defining courtroom showdown.

Photo | Creator: supattra suparit | Credit: PHOTO4U - stock.adobe.com