Kastantin faces several felony charges, including one count of Ongoing Criminal Conduct, a Class B felony; one count of First-Degree Theft, a Class C felony; one count of Second-Degree Theft, a Class D felony; and one count of Fraudulent Submission, also a Class D felony.

Criminal complaints filed by the Iowa Insurance Division’s Fraud Bureau and the Clinton County Sheriff’s Office state that the charges stem from Kastantin’s actions while she was employed at a now-closed insurance agency in Wheatland. Investigators allege she carried out a scheme to steal money by improperly using agency funds for personal benefit.

According to the complaints, Kastantin repeatedly used company funds—on dozens of occasions—to make unauthorized personal purchases at various retail businesses. Authorities also allege she used work funds to make a down payment on her personal vehicle.

In addition to the alleged misuse of agency funds, investigators say Kastantin knowingly submitted, or caused the submission of, false documents connected to an insurance claim. The paperwork claimed that restoration services had been completed for an insured customer, even though the services were never actually performed.

The documents identified the service provider as a business in which Kastantin reportedly held a financial interest. That business ultimately received payment for the unperformed services, resulting in a financial loss to the insurance company, according to the complaints.

Nearly a year later, the dentist who owned the building—once regarded locally as both highly successful and well liked—is now behind bars, accused of intentionally setting the fire and committing insurance fraud.

According to arrest warrants filed in Conecuh County District Court, Dr. Douglas P. O’Connor, who will turn 56 in February, is charged with knowingly defrauding his property insurance company by concealing material information. A second warrant alleges that O’Connor deliberately set the fire that damaged the Hillcrest Drive building where his dental practice operated.

The warrants were signed by a special agent with the Alabama Attorney General’s Office. The State Fire Marshal’s Office confirmed on social media that the investigation lasted approximately 10 months.

O’Connor turned himself in on Friday and is currently being held at the Conecuh County Jail.

Fire officials were unavailable for comment Tuesday, and authorities have not yet released additional details regarding the alleged arson or insurance fraud. Information about the insurance company covering the property and business has also not been disclosed.

Robert Bozeman III, publisher and editor of the Evergreen Courant, said investigators quickly determined the fire was suspicious. “The building literally exploded,” Bozeman said.

O’Connor, who lists a residence in Troy, Alabama—about 75 miles from Evergreen—was reportedly near the dental office at the time of the explosion. He sustained burns and drove himself to the hospital in his Tesla, according to Bozeman.

Bozeman said he has known O’Connor since he purchased the dental practice years earlier and noted that the arrest shocked many in the community. The practice was popular, and O’Connor was viewed as someone who maintained a healthy lifestyle.

“It was a very successful practice,” Bozeman said. “That’s what really surprised me.”

Court documents do not specify a motive for the alleged crimes. Bozeman speculated that financial pressure may have played a role. “Maybe he just got overloaded,” he said. “Something like that usually comes down to money.”

The dental office was located on Hillcrest Drive, adjacent to an Alabama State Troopers office on one side and a liquor store on the other, near Interstate 65. An employee at the liquor store said the explosion occurred around 9:30 p.m. and did not cause damage to the store. Bozeman said video footage of the blast may exist from nearby buildings.

According to recent annual reports from the Fire Marshal’s Office, Alabama recorded 14 arson-related arrests in both 2023 and 2024.

The newly introduced auto coverage can be purchased either on its own or bundled with Kin’s homeowners insurance. Customers who choose to bundle may receive discounts of up to 20% on auto premiums, along with streamlined policy management and broader protection, according to the company.

A Kin spokesperson confirmed that this is the first state launch of auto insurance in the company’s history. While the product is designed primarily for existing homeowners insurance customers, it is not limited to bundled purchases and can be bought as a standalone policy. Kin also said it plans to expand bundled auto and home insurance offerings to additional states, though it did not disclose a specific timeline or locations.

The launch coincided with two industry developments: the release of Kin’s survey on insurance bundling among homeowners and a new J.D. Power outlook report identifying 2026 as a critical year for the auto insurance sector.

Insights From Kin’s Bundling Survey

Kin’s survey of 1,000 homeowners found that 61% currently bundle their home and auto insurance policies. Among those who bundle, the most commonly cited motivations were lower pricing (70%) and convenience (69%).

For homeowners who do not bundle, the most frequent reason—selected by 24%—was a preference for using multiple insurance providers, even if that meant sacrificing convenience. Other reasons included previous attempts to bundle that did not result in savings (22%), lack of bundling options from their current insurer (18%), limited awareness of bundling benefits (19%), and not knowing bundling was available (17%).

Kin said the new Florida and Texas bundles are aimed particularly at the 18% of respondents who indicated that bundling is not currently an option with their insurers, while also addressing cost concerns that survey participants identified as a priority.

“Our customers in Florida and Texas told us they wanted the ability to bundle auto and home insurance, so we made it a priority to bring this product to market,” said Sean Harper, founder and CEO of Kin. He added that offering auto insurance alongside home coverage helps protect customers from state-specific risks—such as Florida’s high number of uninsured drivers and Texas’s severe storm exposure—while keeping insurance affordable and easy to manage.

Survey findings also showed that 49% of non-bundlers would consider bundling for a 10% discount, while 39% would do so for the maximum 20% discount Kin plans to offer.

Kin’s Caution on Bundling Decisions

Despite promoting bundling, Kin advises consumers to carefully evaluate coverage before combining policies. In a blog post discussing the survey results, the company noted that bundling is not always the lowest-cost option.

“While bundling discounts are often the most affordable option for home and auto policies, in some cases, a specialized auto insurance company combined with a separate, specialized home insurance company could still be cheaper overall,” the post stated. The company also emphasized the importance of reviewing policy details and not compromising coverage—such as limits, deductibles, or key endorsements like water backup or roof replacement—solely to obtain a multipolicy discount.

J.D. Power: Auto Insurance Switching on the Rise

In its outlook report, J.D. Power highlighted that long-developing trends in the auto insurance market may intensify in 2026. One key finding is the record-high number of drivers shopping for auto insurance in 2025, with 57% comparing options, up from 49% the year before.

Historically, shopping activity did not always translate into switching insurers. However, J.D. Power noted that customers are now finding more competitive pricing, which could place additional pressure on carriers in the coming year.

The report suggests that widespread rate increases previously limited consumers’ ability to find lower premiums. Now, as insurers become more competitive, customers are increasingly willing to switch providers.

Although overall customer satisfaction remained stable in 2025, 29% of policyholders still changed insurers. Notably, customers who typically show strong loyalty—particularly those who bundle multiple policies—are now among the least likely to renew. Only 51% of these customers said they would definitely stay with their insurer, according to midyear survey results.

Communication and Digital Engagement Key for 2026

J.D. Power urged insurers to proactively explain the reasons behind premium increases to reduce customer churn. Without clear communication, some consumers are turning to artificial intelligence tools to better understand insurance terminology, pricing, and quotes.

The report noted that AI is becoming increasingly influential in the shopping process and could reshape customer behavior, potentially widening the gap between insurers and policyholders.

Looking ahead, J.D. Power emphasized that insurers must find effective ways to deliver personalized information about premiums and coverage. The report, titled “Rate Pressure, Customer Retention and Digital Engagement Top Insurance Industry Challenges for 2026,” also examined growing consumer reliance on digital channels over agents and the ongoing challenges insurers face in gaining acceptance for usage-based insurance products.

The defendant, Graciela Venegas, 66, began receiving workers’ compensation payments in 2012 after sustaining a job-related injury while working for the Postal Service. At the time, Venegas listed her spouse as a dependent, which qualified her for increased benefit payments. The couple divorced in 2013, and her former spouse died the following year.

Despite those changes, a federal indictment filed in U.S. District Court in Chicago alleges that Venegas continued to report her former spouse as a dependent after both the divorce and death. Prosecutors claim that between 2013 and 2024, Venegas improperly received enhanced monthly workers’ compensation payments while still employed by the Postal Service. These payments allegedly increased her benefits by an additional 8⅓ percent of her pre-injury monthly wages.

According to the indictment, Venegas unlawfully collected a total of $51,776 in augmented benefits that she allegedly knew she was not entitled to receive.

Venegas, a Chicago resident, is charged with five counts of wire fraud and one count of making a false statement to the U.S. Department of Labor. Each wire fraud charge carries a potential sentence of up to 20 years in federal prison, while the false statement charge is punishable by up to five years. Her arraignment is scheduled for January 6 before U.S. Magistrate Judge Laura K. McNally.

In commenting on the case, Special Agent in Charge Bishop noted that the Postal Service paid approximately $1.5 billion in workers’ compensation expenses during fiscal year 2024. While most postal workers receiving benefits have legitimate injury-related claims, Bishop said a small percentage exploit the system, resulting in millions of dollars lost to fraud and enforcement efforts.

On Monday, investors largely stayed calm. Asian stock markets rallied, oil prices slipped slightly, and gold edged higher as safe-haven demand picked up, after Trump said the United States would assume control of the oil-rich South American nation.

Although the U.S. has not undertaken such a direct intervention in Latin America since its 1989 invasion of Panama, Trump’s warnings directed at countries such as Colombia and Mexico underscored a sharp shift in U.S. foreign policy. The move has brought geopolitical uncertainty back into focus for global markets early in the year.

“This is a reminder that geopolitical risks go far beyond tariffs or trade numbers,” said Vishnu Varathan, head of macro research for Asia ex-Japan at Mizuho Securities in Singapore.

“The key question is whether broader stability in Latin America is now at risk. If so, the spillover effects could be far more significant,” he added.

Markets Stay Calm—for Now

Analysts and investors said the muted reaction to Maduro’s capture reflects Venezuela’s relatively small contribution to global oil supply and the reality that it would take years of investment for production to meaningfully increase.

Still, they warned that the broader consequences of U.S. military action could weigh on investor sentiment, even if the move eventually opens the door to unlocking Venezuela’s vast oil reserves and supporting risk assets over the longer term.

Trump said U.S. oil companies are prepared to take on the challenge of entering Venezuela and investing in efforts to revive production.

“There should be wide-ranging geopolitical implications from this event,” said Tai Hui, chief market strategist for Asia-Pacific at J.P. Morgan Asset Management. “But financial markets are often not very effective at accurately pricing these kinds of risks.”

First Major Market Test of 2026

Global and U.S. equity markets began the new year strongly after closing 2025 near record levels. The prior year delivered double-digit gains despite volatility driven by tariff disputes, central bank decisions, and ongoing geopolitical tensions.

In the near term, analysts expect the most immediate impact to be felt in defense stocks, as countries are likely to continue boosting military spending following Trump’s demonstrated willingness to deploy U.S. force as part of his broader policy agenda.

At the same time, uncertainty surrounding U.S. policy direction could continue to pressure the dollar and weaken its traditional safe-haven appeal, strategists say. While the dollar strengthened slightly on Monday, it is coming off its worst annual performance since 2017, having fallen more than 9% against major currencies in 2025.

Broader Strategic Concerns

For investors, Trump’s actions in Venezuela have also sparked concern about broader global implications, including how China might view U.S. behavior in relation to Taiwan, and whether Washington could pursue a more aggressive approach toward Iran.

However, Li Fang-kuo, chairman of the investment advisory arm of Taiwan-based food conglomerate Uni-President, said markets are not currently worried about an imminent Chinese attack on Taiwan.

“China has conducted military drills around Taiwan, but we haven’t seen anything resembling the prolonged escalation the U.S. showed toward Venezuela,” he said.

Some analysts argue that investors have grown accustomed to Trump’s bold foreign policy maneuvers and are less inclined to react sharply.

Charu Chanana, chief investment strategist at Saxo, said the U.S. move in Venezuela represents more of a geopolitical shock than an immediate oil-market disruption. Unless global supply chains are threatened, she said, investors tend to refocus on interest rates, corporate earnings, and market positioning.

“We’re operating in an environment where geopolitics is no longer a surprise—it’s a constant,” Chanana said.

During a fourth-quarter 2025 earnings call, Travelers Chief Executive Officer Alan Schnitzer told analysts that over 20,000 employees across the company are already “using AI tools regularly.” He added that automation has allowed the company to reduce staffing in its claims call centers, improving efficiency.

After reviewing results that included a 20% increase in fourth-quarter net income and a 26% rise for the full year, Schnitzer reflected on a decade-long period of profit growth driven by investments in technology and innovation. This discussion came before he referenced Travelers’ new partnership with Anthropic, which will introduce 10,000 customized AI agents to strengthen the company’s AI-powered engineering and analytics capabilities.

A Decade of Technology-Driven Profit Growth

Schnitzer explained that between 2016 and 2025, net written premiums grew by an average of nearly 7% per year. Over the same period, the underlying combined ratio—excluding catastrophe losses and prior-year reserve development—improved by almost eight points, falling to 83.9.

Despite significantly increasing spending on technology, Travelers achieved a three-point, or roughly 10%, improvement in its expense ratio, Schnitzer said. He later disclosed that the company invested a total of $1.5 billion in AI and other technology initiatives. Presentation slides showed the expense ratio declining from 31.5 in 2016 to 28.5 in 2025.

“As a result,” Schnitzer noted, “our underlying underwriting income today is more than four times what it was a decade ago.”

Automation Reshapes Claims Operations

As a concrete example of efficiency gains, Schnitzer said Travelers has reduced its claims call center workforce by about one-third and plans to consolidate four claims call centers into two this year.

He emphasized that efficiencies in claims operations primarily reduce loss adjustment expenses, which directly improve the loss ratio. These gains stem from investments in automation, straight-through processing, and analytics that help fine-tune indemnity payments and streamline operations.

More than half of all Travelers claims are now eligible for straight-through processing, Schnitzer said, and customers choose this option about two-thirds of the time. An additional 15% of claims are handled using advanced digital tools, and all of these proportions are continuing to rise.

While many customers still prefer to report claims by phone, Travelers recently launched a generative AI voice agent that uses natural language processing to handle first notice of loss calls. According to Schnitzer, early customer adoption has exceeded expectations.

In 2025 alone, Travelers handled 1.5 million claims—roughly one every 20 seconds—paid out more than $23 billion, and met its goal of closing 90% of catastrophe-related claims within 30 days.

AI Beyond the Call Center

Schnitzer stressed that AI and automation benefits extend far beyond claims call centers. He said these technologies also improve underwriting decisions, operational efficiency, and the overall experience for customers, agents, brokers, and employees.

Later in the call, the presidents of Travelers Business Insurance, Bond & Specialty Insurance, and Personal Insurance—Greg Toczydlowski, Jeffrey Klenk, and Michael Klein—shared specific examples from their respective segments.

Toczydlowski described recently deployed generative AI agents that rapidly analyze internal and external data to ensure risks are classified correctly and risk characteristics are better understood. He said these tools speed up underwriting and lead to more precise, segmented pricing.

In Personal Insurance, Klein explained how AI supports renewal underwriting. A proprietary AI-based predictive model scores every property account, flagging those with the highest likelihood of loss for underwriter review. Generative AI then compiles and summarizes relevant data so underwriters can focus on key decisions.

Early results show a 30% reduction in average handle time, Klein said. “The result is that underwriters spend more time on the decisions that most directly improve profitability, and they do so more efficiently.”

For Specialty Insurance, Klenk highlighted AI investments that automate new business intake, reducing submission processing time from hours to minutes. These capabilities have recently been expanded to renewals as well.

Moving From Innovation 1.0 to Innovation 2.0

Toczydlowski noted that commercial underwriters are supported by decision tools at the point of sale, including models that assess risk characteristics, refine pricing, and summarize historical loss experience. These tools help improve risk selection, pricing accuracy, and policy terms.

“They’re excelling in today’s market and also helping drive the industry’s transformation,” he said.

During the Q&A portion of the call, an analyst asked Schnitzer how AI might affect Travelers’ workforce size. Schnitzer declined to offer headcount projections beyond the claims call center example, but said productivity gains are already evident.

“Premium per employee has increased due to productivity and efficiency initiatives, and we expect that trend to continue,” he said.

Reflecting on Travelers’ long-term strategy, Schnitzer said the past decade was shaped by “Innovation 1.0,” which focused on prioritizing the right initiatives, executing effectively, and capturing the value created.

“Over that period, we built a competitive advantage in innovation,” he said. “Now we’re applying that expertise to Innovation 2.0—powered by AI, and eventually quantum computing.”

Why Travelers Believes It Has an Edge

Schnitzer argued that the property and casualty insurance industry is especially well suited for AI, given its complex stakeholder interactions, structured processes, data-heavy workflows, and vast amounts of unstructured information.

Travelers, he said, is particularly well positioned because of its deep domain expertise, high-quality data accumulated over decades, and scale, which allows for significant investment in advanced technology.

“We have thousands of engineers, data scientists, and analysts building AI solutions,” Schnitzer said. “Dozens of generative AI tools are already in production, millions of transactions are automated, and agentic AI is already embedded in our operations.”

He added that testing with Anthropic showed meaningful productivity gains and improved engineering output. Travelers expects these tools to accelerate and lower the cost of delivering new capabilities across product development, underwriting, customer and agent service, and business prospecting.

Financial Performance and Segment Highlights

Much of the earnings call focused on fourth-quarter and full-year 2025 performance. Executives cited higher underlying underwriting income, favorable prior-year reserve development, lower catastrophe losses in the fourth quarter, and increased net investment income.

After-tax underwriting income rose 22% in the fourth quarter to $1.7 billion and increased more than 40% for the year to $3.4 billion. Personal Insurance played a major role, with underwriting profit more than doubling for the year.

Favorable prior-year development totaled $815 million for 2025, reducing the reported full-year combined ratio by 2.4 points to 80.2. Catastrophe losses were lower in the fourth quarter compared with the prior year but higher for the full year. Net investment income grew 10% in both the quarter and the full year.

Across underwriting segments, premium growth was in the single digits year over year, though Personal Insurance posted a slight net premium decline in the fourth quarter. Schnitzer noted that the $4.2 billion in personal insurance premiums written during the quarter reflected strong homeowners renewal pricing and increased new auto business.

Presentation materials showed homeowners renewal premium increases of 16.7% in the fourth quarter, compared with 2.2% for personal auto. Despite $310 million in new auto business, in-force auto policies declined 3% year over year, while homeowners policies fell 6%.

The personal auto combined ratio improved nearly five points year over year in the fourth quarter, while the homeowners combined ratio reached 60.0, bringing the overall personal lines combined ratio to 74.0. For the full year, personal auto improved by 9.3 points to 85.7, and homeowners improved by 6.0 points to 67.6.

Klein said these results reflect disciplined pricing, risk selection, and a diversified portfolio. He explained that Travelers intentionally reduced exposure in high-catastrophe areas to improve profitability and manage volatility. In 2026, the company plans to ease some prior restrictions on homeowners business while maintaining progress by supporting package policies.

Additional Developments

Executives also addressed regulatory concerns, property market conditions, and reinsurance. Schnitzer emphasized that Travelers’ profitability must be viewed over time, noting that recent underwriting gains followed earlier periods of combined ratios above 100.

In Business Insurance, premium growth was dampened by declining property premiums in large accounts. Excluding property, commercial premiums grew 4%. Renewal premium change excluding national accounts reached 6.1%, with several lines showing double-digit increases.

Travelers also renewed its property catastrophe excess-of-loss reinsurance program effective January 1, lowering the attachment point from $4 billion to $3 billion.

Finally, Chief Financial Officer Dan Frey confirmed that loss reserves for casualty business include a provision for uncertainty in the 2025 accident year, a practice expected to continue into 2026.

U.S. District Judge Nelson Roman concluded that allegations involving complex vehicle software, electronic interfaces, and integrated control systems require qualified expert analysis. In this case, the plaintiff relied solely on her own statements rather than technical or expert evidence, which the court found inadequate to establish a defect or causation.

The lawsuit was brought by Robyn Nicole Wilson-Wolf, who claimed that a malfunctioning touchscreen in her 2021 Tesla Model 3 caused her to lose control of the vehicle. She asserted claims based on manufacturing defect, design defect, failure to warn, negligence, and breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. However, the court found that she failed to support any of these theories with expert testimony.

As a result, Judge Roman ruled that Wilson-Wolf did not raise a genuine dispute of material fact, a necessary requirement to proceed to trial. Tesla was therefore entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Details of the accident

The crash occurred on March 12, 2022, when Wilson-Wolf was driving on Interstate 87 in Yonkers, New York. According to the police accident report, road conditions at the time were snowy and icy. The investigating officer documented that the vehicle hydroplaned, hit a center median, crossed multiple lanes of traffic, and struck a second median before coming to a stop.

The officer concluded that unsafe speed and an improper lane change contributed to the accident. While Wilson-Wolf acknowledged the presence of winter weather conditions, she disputed the officer’s findings, arguing that the report failed to consider a potential touchscreen malfunction.

She claimed that the investigating officer was not present at the moment of the crash and did not examine the vehicle for software-related issues. Wilson-Wolf alleged that the touchscreen “froze,” went black, and caused all alerts to stop functioning, which she said led to the vehicle not operating properly.

Tesla’s response

Tesla countered that a review of vehicle diagnostic data from the time of the crash showed no evidence that the touchscreen froze or blacked out. The company also argued that even if the touchscreen had malfunctioned, the driver would still have full mechanical control over steering, braking, and acceleration.

Wilson-Wolf challenged the reliability of Tesla’s diagnostic data, suggesting it may not capture all malfunctions and that resets performed before the crash could have erased key information. She acknowledged that primary driving controls remained available but argued that secondary features—such as windshield wipers, turn signals, alerts, and the speed display—were unavailable, impairing her ability to respond to dangerous conditions.

Tesla also pointed to both vehicle data and the police report indicating that hydroplaning occurred prior to the collision. Wilson-Wolf argued that hydroplaning did not eliminate Tesla’s responsibility and claimed the loss of touchscreen-controlled features made recovery more difficult.

Court’s ruling

Judge Roman emphasized that Wilson-Wolf needed to demonstrate both a specific defect in the touchscreen and a direct causal link between the alleged defect and the accident. The court found she failed to do either.

The judge noted that issues involving software performance, electronic systems, and vehicle dynamics under varying weather conditions are beyond the understanding of ordinary jurors and cannot be proven through lay testimony alone. Wilson-Wolf did not identify an expert, propose a safer alternative design, address risk–utility considerations, or rule out other non-defect causes of the crash. She also failed to show that additional warnings would have prevented the accident.

Because no genuine dispute of material fact existed, the court granted summary judgment to Tesla and denied Wilson-Wolf’s request for further discovery.

The two competitors have already exchanged lawsuits accusing one another of serious misconduct. In late 2025, Applied Systems filed suit against Comulate, alleging the younger company attempted to obtain trade secrets improperly. Comulate responded with its own legal filing, characterizing Applied’s claims as baseless and accusing the industry giant of using litigation as a tactic to stifle competition.

Now, Ardent Labs—operating under the name Comulate—has launched a new lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The complaint alleges violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, a landmark federal law designed to prevent monopolistic behavior and protect competition. Comulate says the suit is intended to stop what it describes as an unlawful campaign by a dominant market player to eliminate a rival it could neither acquire nor outperform.

According to Comulate, Applied Systems has engaged in a coordinated effort to suppress competition. The lawsuit alleges that Applied weaponized what Comulate calls “sham litigation,” spread false and defamatory claims of intellectual property theft to Comulate’s customers, and threatened to sever ties with customers who refused to abandon Comulate’s platform. The complaint also alleges that Applied conspired with a third party to monopolize the downstream market for automated insurance accounting software.

Founded in 2022, Comulate says its artificial intelligence-driven platform was quickly adopted by insurance agencies and brokerages due to its ability to improve efficiency and reduce costs. The company claims that in 2023, Applied attempted to acquire Comulate, but the founders declined the offer.

Comulate alleges that after failing to complete the acquisition, Applied shifted strategies and attempted to undermine the company’s business relationships. Among the most significant allegations is that Applied removed Comulate’s access to Applied’s Epic insurance agency management system. This move, Comulate claims, was particularly damaging because Applied owns Ivans, a critical data infrastructure provider used by insurance agencies, brokerages, and competitors alike.

Applied Systems has strongly rejected the new lawsuit. A spokesperson said Comulate’s claims are a rehash of previous allegations and are intended to distract from what Applied describes as Comulate’s own fraudulent behavior and corporate theft, as outlined in Applied’s earlier lawsuit.

The spokesperson added that Comulate previously failed to achieve its desired outcome in Delaware’s Court of Chancery and has now shifted venues without strengthening its claims. According to Applied, the latest filing only highlights the weakness of Comulate’s case. The company said it supports fair competition but will aggressively pursue legal action against what it describes as theft and deception.

Comulate initially filed suit in the Delaware Court of Chancery on December 3 but later voluntarily dismissed that case, court records show. Meanwhile, Applied’s lawsuit—filed last November in the Northern District of Illinois—accuses Comulate of creating a fake insurance agency to gain access to Applied’s software and steal proprietary information.

In its latest 120-page complaint, Comulate maintains that Applied is misusing the legal system as a competitive weapon, deepening a legal battle that shows no signs of slowing down.

This marks the fourth consecutive year in which overall class-action settlements have surpassed $40 billion.

Gerald L. Maatman, co-author of the Duane Morris Class Action Review and chair of the firm’s Class Action Defense Group, described the scale of the figures as extraordinary.

“To put this into context, the total exceeds the annual budgets of several U.S. states and is larger than the gross domestic product of more than half of the countries in the world,” Maatman said. “At the same time, these enormous outcomes are drawing top-tier talent to the plaintiffs’ bar and creating strong incentives for plaintiffs’ lawyers to file more cases and pursue increasingly sophisticated litigation strategies.”

Maatman added that corporate boards, investors, and insurers need to take a proactive approach to managing class-action risk. He has analyzed class-action litigation trends annually since 2003.

One area drawing heightened attention from plaintiffs’ attorneys is data privacy. High settlement values in privacy-related class actions have encouraged the plaintiffs’ bar to expand its focus to technologies such as session replay tools, website chat functions, and tracking pixels.

“The plaintiffs’ bar continues to follow a familiar formula: combine widely used modern technologies with decades-old statutes that allow for statutory damages on a per-violation basis,” Duane Morris noted. “This creates disproportionately large financial exposure for routine business practices.”

The report shows that data privacy class-action filings in 2025 exceeded 1,800 cases, representing more than 25% growth compared with 2024 and an increase of over 200% since 2022.

Based on a nearly 750-page analysis reviewing more than 1,761 court decisions from the past year, the report found that judges continue to approve class actions at a high rate. In 2025, courts granted 68% of class-certification motions. During the same period, plaintiffs filed more than 13,000 class-action lawsuits in federal courts alone—an average of more than 36 new filings per day.

The review characterizes the rise in class-action filings as a “substantial” increase from 2024 and emphasizes that such lawsuits are no longer isolated events but instead represent a persistent feature of the legal landscape.

“With the traditional arbitration defense increasingly under pressure, expanding circuit splits that encourage forum shopping, and the continued growth of Private Attorneys General Act claims, the risks facing class-action defense continue to multiply,” said Jennifer A. Riley, a Duane Morris partner, co-author of the review, and vice chair of the firm’s Class Action Defense Group.

Together, the findings suggest that class-action litigation remains a growing and evolving challenge for businesses, with no indication that the pace or scale of settlements is likely to slow in the near future.

The sources, who requested anonymity because the matter is not public, said that McGill could command a valuation exceeding $1 billion if a sale proceeds. While a transaction process could begin later this year, Warburg Pincus may ultimately decide to retain ownership, depending on market conditions and strategic considerations.

Representatives for Warburg Pincus declined to comment on the matter. A spokesperson for McGill and Partners also declined to provide details, noting that the firm’s leadership team remains focused on day-to-day operations and executing its long-term growth strategy.

McGill and Partners was established in 2019 by Steve McGill, who previously served as a group president at Aon Plc. Since its launch, the firm has positioned itself as a specialist insurance broker serving complex and capital-intensive industries. According to information on its website, McGill advises clients across a range of sectors, including aviation and aerospace, property and construction, energy, marine, and cargo.

The firm has experienced strong financial momentum in recent years. In the first half of 2025, McGill reported revenue growth of more than 20%, reflecting continued demand across its core business lines. Over the same period, adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA) rose by 79% compared with the first half of 2024, underscoring both top-line expansion and improved profitability.

Warburg Pincus initially invested in McGill at its founding in 2019, backing the company during its early stages of development. Five years later, in a move that reflected McGill’s growth and maturing business profile, Warburg transferred the firm into a multi-asset continuation vehicle. That vehicle is supported by a group of prominent institutional investors, including HarbourVest Partners, Ardian, and the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board.

Continuation vehicles have become an increasingly common tool in private equity, allowing firms to maintain exposure to high-performing assets while providing liquidity options for existing investors. The decision to place McGill into such a structure signaled Warburg’s confidence in the company’s long-term prospects while also bringing in additional capital partners.

McGill has continued to strengthen its financial position. In September, the firm announced it had secured $300 million in new credit facilities. The financing package was provided by a group of lenders including Morgan Stanley, Permira, and Bridgepoint Group Plc. At the time, McGill said the new facilities would support the company’s next phase of growth, potentially including further expansion of its sector coverage, talent acquisition, and geographic reach.

The potential sale under consideration would come at a time when interest in insurance brokerage assets remains relatively strong, driven by their recurring revenue models, resilience across economic cycles, and opportunities for consolidation. However, deal activity has been uneven amid broader market uncertainty, and private equity sponsors have shown increasing selectivity when deciding whether to pursue exits.

If Warburg Pincus proceeds with a sale, McGill would likely attract interest from a range of buyers, including other private equity firms and strategic players seeking to expand their presence in specialty insurance broking. Still, the firm’s owners appear to be keeping their options open, balancing the appeal of a high-value exit against the potential upside of continued growth.

For now, discussions remain exploratory, and no timeline or outcome has been finalized. As McGill continues to post strong financial results and invest in its platform, Warburg Pincus retains the flexibility to either pursue a sale or continue backing the business as it scales further.

However, the study also reveals a surprising finding: nearly half (48) of the top 100 insurers failed to create value. This marked a sharp increase compared to previous studies. In ACORD’s “2025 U.S. Property & Casualty Value Creation Study,” 36 companies were identified as value destroyers three years ago, and only 9 insurers were categorized as such in a 2021 study.

In line with past ACORD research, the 2025 study identified value creators and value destroyers based on whether their 20-year returns exceeded a benchmark. If companies surpassed the 8.2% cost of capital benchmark, they were considered value creators; otherwise, they were categorized as value destroyers.

The study further breaks down the value creators into two categories: sustainable value creators, who achieve the required return from both underwriting and investment activities, and hollow value creators, who generate value primarily through investment returns without substantial underwriting success.

Key Findings from the Study

While 52% of the top 100 companies were classified as value creators, only 35% were sustainable value creators. These companies achieved a 13.5% return on capital and collectively generated $324 billion in value. Of this, $229 billion came from underwriting, and $95 billion came from investments.

Defining Value Creation
ACORD’s approach to measuring value creation involves calculating free cash flow generated through both underwriting and investments, compared to a minimum required return. This minimum is set based on the 8.2% return of the S&P 500 over the 20-year study period. This year’s cost of capital is the highest recorded in recent years.

The study also noted that there were 17 hollow value creators whose underwriting operations consumed $85 billion of the $121 billion generated through investments. These companies had a net value creation of $36 billion. If it weren’t for their investment income, these companies would have been classified as value destroyers. The report highlights that their reliance on investment returns underscores the industry’s continued dependence on sources outside of core underwriting operations.

Insights on Size and Business Mix

The report further emphasized that larger carriers in the U.S. property/casualty market were more likely to generate sustainable value. More companies in the largest quartile (with net written premiums above $6 billion) achieved sustainable value creation, and fewer of them destroyed value compared to smaller companies. The breakdown of the study’s quartiles includes:

• Companies writing over $6 billion

• Companies writing $3-6 billion

• Companies writing $2-3 billion

• Companies writing under $2 billion

The data showed that 30 of the 52 value creators wrote premiums above $3 billion, while 28 of the 48 value destroyers wrote premiums under $3 billion. Interestingly, larger carriers—once often associated with value destruction—are now demonstrating that scale can bring advantages, particularly in data and information management.

Sustainable value creators tend to have a balanced portfolio with roughly half of their business in personal lines and half in commercial lines. In contrast, hollow value creators leaned more heavily toward commercial lines (56% commercial vs. 44% personal), and value destroyers had a stronger focus on personal lines (64% personal vs. 36% commercial).

In the personal lines space, sustainable value creators showed greater discipline in writing homeowners insurance. Their portfolios contained 22% homeowners, while hollow value creators had 39% and value destroyers 34% in homeowners.

Underwriting and Expense Ratios

The study also revealed significant differences in underwriting performance:

• Sustainable value creators had a P/C loss and loss adjustment expense ratio of 70.2, which was 4-5 points better than hollow value creators (73.9) and value destroyers (75.3).

• On the expense side, sustainable value creators had an underwriting expense ratio of 24.3, nearly 7 points better than hollow value creators (30.0) and more than 3 points better than value destroyers (27.4).

When breaking down underwriting expenses, ACORD found that sustainable value creators spent less on other acquisition expenses compared to other insurers in the study. Hollow value creators, on the other hand, had higher back-office expenses compared to both sustainable value creators and the overall industry average.

What Sets Sustainable Value Creators Apart?

ACORD’s report highlights several “value levers” that help sustainable value creators outperform their competitors:

1. Underwriting: These companies focus on profitable, intelligent growth, rather than simply expanding market share. They use data and advanced analytics, including AI, to target the right customers for acquisition, retention, and cross-selling.

2. Claims: They use technology as a multiplier for human judgment to improve productivity and decision-making. These insurers balance loss payments and adjustment expenses while maintaining high levels of customer satisfaction.

3. Customer Lifetime Value: Sustainable value creators optimize customer lifetime value, averaging two products per customer, with some even averaging five or more products. In contrast, the industry’s average is 1.5 products per household.

The Road to Sustainable Value

ACORD concludes with an important observation: the path to sustainable value creation is no longer straightforward. While insurers have traditionally focused on one of four strategic pillars—customer intimacy, product leadership, innovation, or operational excellence—carriers must now execute effectively across all four areas to stay competitive in the evolving market.

For the first time, this year’s study is available to both ACORD members and non-members throughout the industry. To download the report, visit www.acord.org/research.

Summary

The ACORD “2025 U.S. Property & Casualty Value Creation Study” underscores the evolving landscape of value creation in the insurance industry. While a majority of large insurers still create value, almost half of the top 100 carriers are failing to generate sustainable returns. Those who succeed do so through disciplined underwriting, smart claims management, and optimizing customer lifetime value.

According to the EEOC complaint, Advocate Aurora Health introduced a policy in 2021 requiring all employees to receive a COVID-19 vaccine unless they were granted an exemption based on their religious beliefs. The nurse at the center of the case formally requested a religious exemption in line with this policy. While the hospital had previously granted her a “lifetime” exemption from the flu vaccine due to her religious beliefs, it denied her request for an exemption from the COVID-19 vaccine.

The nurse, adhering to her religious convictions, declined the COVID-19 vaccination. The hospital subsequently terminated her employment, prompting the EEOC to file a lawsuit on her behalf. The agency asserts that Advocate Aurora Health failed to provide a reasonable accommodation for the employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs, in direct violation of federal anti-discrimination law.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act protects employees from discrimination based on religion and requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for an employee’s religious beliefs, practices, or observances unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the business. The EEOC contends that Advocate Aurora Health’s refusal to consider the religious exemption request, despite previously granting a lifetime exemption from a similar vaccination, constitutes unlawful discrimination under the statute.

The EEOC pursued its case administratively before filing the lawsuit, attempting to resolve the matter through its conciliation process. When those efforts were unsuccessful, the agency filed the suit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, under the case title EEOC v. Advocate Aurora Health, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-15411.

In its complaint, the EEOC highlights that the nurse’s termination was directly tied to her religious beliefs, asserting that the hospital’s actions denied her equal employment opportunity and subjected her to discriminatory treatment. The agency emphasizes that employers are obligated under federal law to engage in an interactive process to explore reasonable accommodations for religious practices, particularly when such accommodations would not create undue hardship.

The lawsuit seeks to hold Advocate Aurora Health accountable for its alleged failure to meet these obligations, and it underscores the broader legal principle that employees cannot be penalized for adhering to sincerely held religious convictions. While the hospital’s COVID-19 vaccination policy was implemented to protect public health, the EEOC’s suit argues that such policies must still comply with federal civil rights protections.

This case is part of a larger trend of disputes arising from employer vaccination mandates during the COVID-19 pandemic, where the intersection of public health requirements and employees’ religious rights has led to legal challenges. The EEOC continues to emphasize that religious exemptions must be taken seriously and that blanket policies denying accommodations may constitute unlawful discrimination.

The outcome of this case could have implications for healthcare providers and other employers nationwide, particularly in managing vaccination mandates while respecting employees’ religious beliefs. As the litigation proceeds, Advocate Aurora Health will have the opportunity to respond to the EEOC’s allegations and provide its position regarding the termination and exemption denial.

The EEOC’s suit serves as a reminder that employers must carefully balance public health policies with their legal obligations under federal civil rights laws, ensuring that employees’ religious beliefs are accommodated whenever reasonably possible.