Fitch Ratings has affirmed EquiTrust Life Insurance Co.’s Insurer Financial Strength (IFS) rating at ‘A-‘. The Rating Outlook has been revised to Negative from Stable, Fitch said in a news release.
The Negative Outlook reflects holding company and organizational changes that have created material dividend requirements at EquiTrust to support debt service at its new parent, Amistad Financial Group, LLC (Amistad).
Fitch expects the new organizational and holding company debt to primarily be serviced by dividends from EquiTrust. The large dividend requirement could strain capital and limit future growth opportunities. The dividends will also limit the insurer’s future financial flexibility.
The rating reflects EquiTrust’s capital position, strong financial performance and consistently improving market position. This is partially offset by some elevated investment risk due to allocations to non-traditional short-term assets and exposure to private letter ratings and less-liquid asset classes.
The news release outlined the reasons behind the new rating:
Key rating drivers
Ownership Change: In November 2025, EquiTrust became part of Amistad Financial Group, LLC. EquiTrust’s former majority shareholders retained a minority interest in Amistad following the transaction. Amistad’s ownership is diversified, with no shareholder owning more than 10%. Despite the change in ownership, the organization continues to be led by the same core leadership team, supporting managerial continuity through the transition. Amistad intends to operate as a diversified financial services firm, including offering investment and asset management services.
New Leverage: Amistad and its affiliates hold approximately $3 billion debt outstanding. The previous ownership structure was unlevered, and the introduction of debt is a significant credit consideration for Fitch due to the potential pressure on capitalization and financial flexibility. The holding company currently has about 30% financial leverage, which is above Fitch’s expectations for the current capitalization and leverage score. Fitch expects financial leverage to decline in order to maintain the current IFS rating.
Financial Performance and Coverage: Under the new ownership structure and increased financial leverage, Fitch expects EquiTrust to provide material dividend support for organizational debt service. Although operating performance was strong in 2025, projected dividend requirements represent a significant portion of earnings. EquiTrust’s financial performance and debt service coverage is therefore a key credit consideration. Fitch believes an earnings decline would likely pressure EquiTrust’s capital position.
Investment Risk and Illiquidity Considerations: EquiTrust’s investment strategy seeks to enhance risk-adjusted returns through allocations to structured securities, private securities and alternative asset classes. As of YE 2025, nearly 98% of the bond portfolio was investment grade. Fitch’s risky asset ratio declined to around 60% at YE 2025, comparing favorably with the industry. In addition, exposure to collateralized loan obligations (CLOs) has moderated and is now more in line with industry averages.
Despite these improvements, the company holds material investments in non-traditional short-term assets, primarily CLOs, which are not captured in Fitch’s standard investment risk metrics. Portfolio liquidity remains weaker than that of most peers, with Level 3 assets representing approximately 44% of the bond portfolio, compared with an industry average of about 13%. Fitch also views EquiTrust’s above-average use of private letter ratings as a potential risk.
NEW YORK, May 20, 2026 — The Deloitte Center for Financial Services has released its “2026 Financial Services Industry (FSI) Predictions” series, examining how advances in AI, digital assets and changing investor and consumer behavior could affect the industry over the next decade.
Spanning banking, insurance, payments, investment management, commercial real estate, and wealth management, the reports highlight a shift from incremental innovation to major structural reinvention. These shifts are expected to unlock new revenue pools, reshape operating models, and expand access to financial products.
“The financial industry is being reshaped by rising customer demand for digital services, expanding access to private markets and rapid advances in technology,” said Lananh Nguyen, managing director, Deloitte Center for Financial Services. “The financial firms that move early to adapt and innovate could be best positioned to grow.”
Key predictions from the 2026 FSI series:
Banking and Capital Markets
Stablecoins may power over $200 billion in U.S. retail payments As digital currencies integrate into cards, wallets and agentic commerce, stablecoin-enabled transactions could exceed $200 billion annually by 2030, reshaping how money moves across retail ecosystems.
AI-native banking products could unlock significant new revenue
By 2030, AI-native institutional banking offerings — built with AI at their core — could generate up to $75 billion in incremental revenue for top U.S. banks, as AI shifts from a productivity tool to a primary product engine.
Investment and Wealth Management
Private capital could surpass $1 trillion in U.S. retirement plans Regulatory changes may enable private market allocations in defined contribution plans to reach 6% of assets — over $1 trillion — by 2030, expanding access to historically institutional-only investments.
Retail investor access to private capital could broaden The share of U.S. registered funds allocating at least 5% to private capital could grow from about 1.5% today to nearly 16% by 2030, driven by rising demand, regulatory evolution and product innovation.
“Living-as-a-service” may redefine rental housing economics With U.S. renter households projected to grow by up to 21.7% by 2035, commercial real estate owners could unlock new revenue streams by adopting subscription-style housing models that bundle services, amenities and flexible living options.
Agentic AI could expand life insurance access and close coverage gaps AI-driven distribution models may increase U.S. life insurance premiums by up to 11% by 2030 and add as much as $2 billion annually, helping insurers reach underserved populations through personalized, low-friction engagement.
Collectively, the predictions signal a broader transformation: financial services firms are moving beyond digitization toward intelligent, autonomous and platform-based models. AI is increasingly embedded into products and workflows, blockchain is reshaping financial infrastructure, and shifting investor expectations are driving greater access to alternative assets. At the same time, rising demand for personalized advice, broader investment access, and integrated service models is accelerating the business case for transformation.
For financial services leaders, the implications are immediate: rethink which customer segments are now economically reachable, where legacy processes are suppressing growth, and how quickly new infrastructure can move from experimentation to operating model.
In recent days, LGBTQ plaintiffs have won preliminary victories in three lawsuits concerning restrictions on gender-affirming care. In one, the Colorado Supreme Court reversed a trial judge on May 18 and ordered a preliminary injunction requiring Children’s Hospital Colorado (CHC) to resume providing gender-affirming care to minors. In another, a state trial judge in Kansas granted a temporary injunction on May 15 to block enforcement of Kansas’s recently enacted ban on gender-affirming care for minors. And also on May 15, a federal judge in Connecticut denied a motion by an insurer to stay a preliminary injunction requiring the insurer not to categorically deny coverage for gender-affirming facial reconstruction surgery for the plaintiffs. In light of the setbacks that transgender rights suffered at the Supreme Court last year, the occurrence of three trans-positive rulings within a short time is a hopeful sign on progress. The Colorado Supreme Court’s 5-2 ruling in Boe v. Children’s Hospital Colorado addresses the fallout from a “Declaration” issued on Dec. 18 by U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., in which he proclaimed that performance of gender-affirming care for minors was neither safe nor effective and “fails to meet professionally recognized standards of health care.” This declaration was intended to place in question eligibility for federal funding under programs such as Medicare and Medicaid by health care institutions and practitioners who provide such care. Then the general counsel of HHS announced on social media that he was referring CHC to the HHS Inspector General for investigation for providing medical gender-affirming care for minors, which would be the first step toward suspending CHC from receiving federal funds, which are a substantial part of the hospital’s operating budget. CHC responded to this news by notifying patients that it could no longer provide hormone therapy or puberty blockers to transgender patients under the age of 18, potentially leaving those taking these medications high and dry. This announcement affected people from a five-state area who were relying on CHC for such care, as it was unavailable in neighboring states where it was legally banned. CHC’s notification was startling because Colorado is a state that specifically approves of providing such care, and had joined a lawsuit by the State of Oregon and many other states filed in the federal district court in Oregon, seeking an order vacating Kennedy’s Declaration and any HHS action to enforce it. On April 18, that court issued an order in Oregon v. Kennedy vacating the RFK Declaration and barring its enforcement while the litigation proceeds. In the Colorado case, the plaintiffs, two transgender minors and their parents, sought a preliminary injunction requiring CHC to continue providing care (restoring the status quo from prior to the Kennedy Declaration) while the case is being litigated. The trial judge, Denver District Court Judge Ericka F. H. Englert, denied their motion. Although she concluded that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail on the merits of their claim, she found the equities to be in favor of CHC’s suspension of services, explaining that the harm suffered by a small number of transgender patients was outweighed by the harm that would be suffered by thousands of people if CHC had to go out of business due to suspension of Medicaid and Medicare funding. The majority of the Colorado Supreme Court agreed with the trial judge that plaintiffs were likely to prevail on their claim that suspending the services violated plaintiffs’ rights under Colorado’s anti-discrimination law, finding that the suspension was targeted on transgender youth and thus constituted discrimination because of gender identity, which is explicitly prohibited under the state law. Writing for the court, Justice William W. Hood, III, emphasized that CHC was continuing to provide puberty blockers and hormone therapy for cisgender youth who suffered from other conditions, such as premature or delayed puberty, which are treated using those medications. The court held that Judge Englert erred in ruling that the harm suffered by a small number of transgender patients was outweighed by the harm that would fall on CHC and its other patients if it lost federal funding. The majority of the court said that at the time CHC suspended the service, the possibility of funding being withheld was speculative and far off, describing the protracted administrative process that would have to be undertaken under the Medicaid and Medicare Acts before funding could be cut off and, of course, now HHS is restricted by the preliminary injunction in the Oregon case from enforcing RFK’s Declaration while that case is litigated. The court also pointed out that preserving the status quo while litigating was appropriate in light of the harms that transgender minors would suffer if their treatment was suspended. In opposing the injunction, CHC argued that it had no discriminatory intent and had suspended the services with regret under the pressure of losing federal funding. It raised the holding last year by the U.S. Supreme Court that Tennessee had not violated the Equal Protection Clause when it outlawed gender-affirming care for transgender minors. The Colorado Supreme Court majority rejected this argument, emphasizing that this case was being litigated under Colorado’s antidiscrimination law, not the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and noting the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in 2020 under Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, that discrimination against somebody because of their transgender status violates Title VII, a federal law banning discrimination because of a person’s sex. The Colorado court majority found Bostock to be the more appropriate precedent for interpreting an anti-discrimination statute. Two Colorado Supreme Court justices dissented, arguing that discriminatory intent was required to find a violation of the Colorado law, and that it was clear that CHC had no discriminatory intent. They empathized with the hospital, facing a possible financial disaster, and also disagreed with the trial judge and the majority of the Supreme Court about whether plaintiffs were likely to prevail on the merits, a sine qua non of obtaining preliminary relief. The Kansas decision by Douglas County, Kansas, District Judge Carl Folsom, III, was issued in response to a challenge to provisions of Kansas Statutes 65-28, a law that prohibits the use of puberty blockers or hormones as a treatment for gender dysphoria. Judge Folsom produced a lengthy, detailed opinion describing the plaintiffs, their treatment, and the impact that passage of the law already had on their well-being. The ACLU of Kansas filed suit on their behalf invoking only the Kansas Constitution, avoiding the possibility of this case going to the U.S. Supreme Court and rendering irrelevant that court’s ruling last year upholding the Tennessee ban on such treatment. Immediately on filing suit, the plaintiffs sought what is called in Kansas a “temporary injunction” to block the law from being enforced while the case continues. Judge Folsom held a two-day hearing with expert witnesses testifying both in person and by affidavits and decided that the state’s experts’ opinions were worth little weight and that the plaintiffs’ experts were better qualified and more informative. He rejected the state’s contention that the treatment ban was necessary to “protect” minors, convinced by the plaintiffs’ experts that these treatments are safe and effective for treating gender dysphoria in minors by reference to the procedures followed at Children’s Mercy Hospital in Kansas City, whose GPS Clinic is the only provider of such services in the state. Based on the expert testimony, he concluded that “it is harmful to transgender adolescents with gender dysphoria to remove the option of receiving gender-affirming medical care because that is the treatment with the most evidence of being helpful to treat gender dysphoria. It is harmful to withhold medical treatment or withdraw medical treatment in progress that is safe, effective, and medically indicated. In addition to the harms of withholding this treatment,” he continued, “transgender youth feel threatened, unwelcome, and targeted by laws that prohibit their medical care, and families without the financial means to travel are under tremendous stress. The risks of not providing puberty blockers or hormone therapy when medically indicated for an adolescent with gender dysphoria, include exacerbated distress for gender dysphoria and significant mental-health consequences, including worsening depression and anxiety and social isolation.” Furthermore, he noted, “The State has identified no other medical care that Kansas has restricted only to adults,” and observed, based on the testimony from plaintiffs and their health care providers, that “transgender adolescents who have remained patients of the GPS Clinic since [the law] went into effect are experiencing mental-health crises — their anxiety and depression have returned, and they feel society has rejected them and does not value them as individuals.” They would only have had to read President Trump’s Executive Order from Jan. 21, 2025, to reach that conclusion. The Kansas Constitution adopts language from the U.S. Declaration of Independence, whose 250th anniversary we celebrate this year, stating in Section 1, its Bill of Rights: “All men are possessed of equal and unalienable natural rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” The judge pointed out that this language has no textual counterpart in the U.S. Constitution, and the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of the limitations of human rights protection under the federal constitution are thus “inconsistent with state sovereignty,” according to a Kansas Supreme Court ruling from 2013. “The Kansas Constitution protects personal autonomy in Section 1 of the Kansas Bill of Rights,” he wrote. “This personal autonomy includes the fundamental right of parents to the care, custody, and control of their minor children,” and the challenged law “infringes on that fundamental parenting right, which triggers strict scrutiny,” which the law fails. “Defendant has failed to carry its burden to demonstrate that [the law]’s prohibitions on puberty blockers and hormone therapy are narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest.” The law also prohibits gender-affirming surgery for minors, but Judge Folsom found that the plaintiffs are not seeking such surgery as minors, and that the GPS Clinic does not provide such surgery for minors, so surgery is not included in the “temporary injunction” that he issued. “Plaintiffs are likely to prevail in their claim that [the law] does not substantially further Defendant’s interest in protecting children or the medical profession because the evidence presented to the Court demonstrated that puberty blockers and hormone therapy offer proved mental-health benefits when used to treat gender dysphoria in adolescents,” wrote Judge Folsom. He concluded that allowing the law to be enforced while this case proceeds would harm the plaintiffs, that later money damages would not remedy their injuries, and the harm they would suffer outweighs whatever damage the proposed injunction might cause to the State. He also found that issuing the injunction would “not be adverse to the public interest,” and that a statewide injunction against enforcement of the law was appropriate, since limiting its effect to the plaintiffs “would substantially limit the GPS Clinic’s practice in this field of medicine, which may ultimately affect the clinic’s ability to serve Plaintiffs.” A statewide injunction is necessary to uphold the status quo while this lawsuit proceeds. As soon as this opinion was issued, Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach, named as a defendant in his official capacity, announced that he would appeal the ruling to the Kansas Supreme Court. In light of the court’s factual findings, it is unlikely that Judge Folsom would agree to stay his temporary injunction while Kobach appeals, although it is possible that the Kansas Supreme Court would grant a stay. Finally, on May 15, U.S. District Judge Victor A. Bolden, who had previously issued a preliminary injunction in Gordon v. Aetna Life Insurance Company, requiring Aetna to make “individualized coverage determinations” about covering gender-affirming facial reconstruction surgery “when used to treat gender dysphoria,” denied a motion by Aetna to stay the injunction while it appeals his ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. The lawsuit by a group of transgender plaintiffs argues that Aetna’s position that the policies it is administering exclude coverage for such procedures violates the sex discrimination ban in the Affordable Care Act. Judge Bolden found that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on that claim, noting as well that language in the policies and Aetna’s guidance publications might be interpreted to extend such coverage. In seeking a stay of the preliminary injunction, Aetna argued that if it was required to pay the two doctors who had performed the procedures on the plaintiffs, that would effectively “moot” the appeal, but Judge Bolden responded that “the majority of courts in this Circuit have found that the mooting of an appeal, without more, does not constitute irreparable injury.” A party seeking a stay has the burden of showing that denying a stay would subject it to irreparable injury. Judge Bolden was appointed to the court by President Obama. Aetna filed an appeal to the 2nd Circuit Court Appeals of Judge Bolden’s award of preliminary relief to the plaintiffs on April 2. It is possible that the 2nd Circuit would be more open to granting Aetna’s request for a stay. Lawyers associated with Advocates for Trans Equality Education Fund and volunteer attorneys from several law firms represent the plaintiffs.
OLDWICK, N.J.–(BUSINESS WIRE)– AM Best has upgraded the Long-Term Issuer Credit Rating (Long-Term ICR) to “aa” (Superior) from “aa-” (Superior) and affirmed the Financial Strength Rating (FSR) of A+ (Superior) of Southern Farm Bureau Life Insurance Company (Southern Farm Bureau Life) (Jackson, MS). The outlook of the Long-Term ICR has been revised to stable from positive while the outlook of the FSR is stable.
The Credit Ratings (ratings) reflect Southern Farm Bureau Life’s balance sheet strength, which AM Best assesses as strongest, as well as its strong operating performance, favorable business profile and appropriate enterprise risk management (ERM).
The upgrade to the Long-Term ICR reflects Southern Farm Bureau Life’s growing individual life insurance line of business, as well as its consistent trend in operating metrics year over year, while remaining within the strongest level of risk-adjusted capitalization, as measured by Best’s Capital Adequacy Ratio (BCAR). AM Best expects Southern Farm Bureau Life’s balance sheet strength to remain at the strongest level, driven by its conservative investment strategy, strong cash flows and sustained organic earnings. Southern Farm Bureau Life’s operating performance has exhibited consistent growth in top-line premium, driven by the company’s diverse network of associated Farm Bureau Federations across 11 states. Distribution is supported by a large captive agency force, which consistently hits production goals and continues to underwrite high creditworthy business. Overall profitability metrics compare favorably with benchmark peers. In addition, operating results are supported by the company’s favorable market position in Farm Bureau communities and its loyal policyholder base, which are reflected in a good persistency trend. Management’s execution of the overall strategy has led to a trend of strong earnings on an operating and net basis.
The company’s business profile remains favorable as Southern Farm Bureau Life continues to utilize effective cross-selling opportunities with affiliates while maintaining an exclusive multiline agency force. The geographic spread of business is larger for a Farm Bureau, which helps to diversify the policy base. Also, the company has taken several recent innovation centric actions that are leading to cost-saving projects. The company’s ERM program continues to be appropriate and includes proper risk management and governance functions. These protection measures include business continuity, cyber risk management and artificial intelligence/vendor management.
This press release relates to Credit Ratings that have been published on AM Best’s website. For all rating information relating to the release and pertinent disclosures, including details of the office responsible for issuing each of the individual ratings referenced in this release, please see AM Best’s Recent Rating Activity web page. For additional information regarding the use and limitations of Credit Rating opinions, please view Guide to Best’s Credit Ratings. For information on the proper use of Best’s Credit Ratings, Best’s Performance Assessments, Best’s Preliminary Credit Assessments and AM Best press releases, please view Guide to Proper Use of Best’s Ratings & Assessments.
AM Best is a global credit rating agency, news publisher and data analytics provider specializing in the insurance industry. Headquartered in the United States, the company does business in over 100 countries with regional offices in London, Amsterdam, Dubai, Hong Kong, Singapore and Mexico City. For more information, visit www.ambest.com.
PHILADELPHIA–(BUSINESS WIRE)–
There are, as the old-time serial drama used to say, eight million stories in the city. And now the same can be said for the benefits insurance industry, as Reliance Matrix, a leader in technology enabled employee absence management, recently registered its 8 millionth electronic claim submission.
Reliance Matrix was formed by the integration of Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company, founded in 1907 and rated A++ for financial strength by independent agency AM Best; and absence third party administrator (TPA) Matrix Absence Management. Reliance Matrix has been named the #1 US absence management provider by Spring Consulting Group in two consecutive biennial market surveys.
Of course, many disability and other employee benefits claims were initiated the old-fashioned way, through what we call “snail mail” today. As a small workers’ compensation claims administrator in northern California in the early 1980s, Matrix Absence Management leveraged its proximity to Silicon Valley and the passage of the groundbreaking Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) in 1993 to become one of the leading innovators in the employee benefits and absence management space.
“A generation ago, we decided our success would be tied to solving business challenges for our clients and brokers,” said Mark Marsters, President of Matrix Absence Management. “Our legacy as a tech innovator actually started out of a commitment to forging deep relationships with our clients and partners, listening closely and aligning our priorities with theirs.”
“Ours has been a history of firsts because we always focus on the solution,” he said.
The road to 8 million claims started decades earlier with the very first telephonic claim intake, then grew to include secure online and eventually even mobile claim filing. Today about 60% of Reliance Matrix claims are filed electronically across virtually every platform.
In the last several years Reliance Matrix has received two US patents for HR technology it has developed. One, Absence Radar®, helps managers see a 12-month running view of their team members who are out of office on approved leaves of all types. The impact to staffing, productivity and quality control is significant. And Absence Blueprint® is a unique tool that allows employees to plan their time away from work using current payroll, benefits products and policies, and statutory entitlement programs to determine the length of time, income replacement and job protection available.
Customer care manager Matt Lochner recalled, “I actually remember filing claim #1,234,567 myself, and I thought that was cool. When I think of the manual processes back then, compared to the automation and capabilities we have today, it’s pretty amazing.”
About Reliance Matrix
Reliance Matrix delivers employee benefit, absence management, and workforce productivity solutions through the financial stability of a top-rated insurance carrier, the proven innovation of an absence TPA, and the daily commitment of thousands of team members across America.
Reliance Matrix is a member of the Tokio Marine Group. Tokio Marine Holdings, Inc., the ultimate holding company of the Tokio Marine Group, is incorporated in Japan and is listed on the Tokyo Stock Exchange. The Tokio Marine Group operates in the property and casualty insurance, reinsurance, and life insurance sectors globally.
Reliance Matrix is a branding name. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company (Home Office Schaumburg, IL) is licensed in all states (except New York), the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands and Guam. First Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company (Home Office New York, NY) is licensed in New York and Delaware. Standard Security Life Insurance Company of New York (Home Office New York, NY) is licensed in all states. Absence services are provided by Matrix Absence Management, Inc. Product features and availability may vary by state.
More than $150 million from the sale of a key asset tied to Greg Lindberg’s insurance empire has been distributed to policyholders who have uncovered claims, according to a new report filed by the court-appointed special master.
About 95% of the nearly $158 million distributed to affected policyholders had been deposited as of the close of the reporting period, April 30. In total, 43,793 checks were issued to policyholders affiliated with Lindberg-controlled North Carolina insurance companies, with approximately 74% of the checks having cleared, wrote Michael Martinez, of Grier Wright Martinez, the law firm appointed as special master.
The distributions stem from the sale of the Clanwilliam Group, a major restitution asset tied to Lindberg’s business network. How Lindberg became involved with the company is an example of the difficult challenge the special master faced in tracking down assets.
According to reports in the Irish press, Eli Global, Lindberg’s private equity firm, invested in Helix Health in 2014. This investment led to the creation of Clanwilliam Group. Lindberg served as a director of Triton Financial, which in turn was the sole shareholder of Clanwilliam Headquarters, the entity that owned the Clanwilliam Group name.
In November 2020, a UK-based trust, Clanwilliam Group Trust, was established to take control of Clanwilliam companies. TA Associates Management acquired Clanwilliam via a “$450 million LBO on March 13, 2025,” according to Pitchbook Data.
Payment terms
Under a July 2025 court order, proceeds allocated to the North Carolina insurers were first directed to policyholders whose claims were not covered by state guaranty associations. Remaining funds were then paid directly to the insurers.
The special master team spent months verifying policyholder identities, addresses and claim amounts, Martinez said. Nearly 1,000 checks were reissued during the reporting period in response to requests from recipients.
Only one policyholder has formally disputed the amount received, according to the filing.
Disagreements remain among victims, prosecutors and Lindberg’s legal team over issues including loss calculations, credits for previously returned assets and the priority of restitution payments, Martinez said.
Lindberg formerly owned Southland National Insurance Corp., Bankers Life Insurance Co., Colorado Bankers Life Insurance Co. and Southland National Reinsurance Corp. His legal troubles left hundreds of policyholders with no access to their policies or funds.
Meanwhile, efforts continue to liquidate other restitution assets. One major asset is currently undergoing a sale process, Martinez wrote, with officials working to secure court approvals and liability protections sought by potential buyers. Additional affiliated companies tied to Lindberg’s former business empire may also be sold, he added.
The report noted that many affiliated entities continue to face banking and corporate registration difficulties because of Lindberg’s former ownership interests. Officials are working to simplify the complicated corporate structure surrounding the companies and related trusts, Martinez said.
Seeking a short sentence
In May 2024, Lindberg was convicted for a second time of attempting to bribe North Carolina Insurance Commissioner Mike Causey. In November 2024, Lindberg pleaded guilty to engineering a $2 billion fraud. His guilty plea on a money laundering conspiracy charge carries a maximum 10-year sentence, the Department of Justice said.
In a Thursday filing, Lindberg’s attorneys requested concurrent 48-month prison sentences in both cases. The filing also seeks additional reductions that would effectively credit Lindberg for nearly all of his time already served in custody.
The Martinez report also disclosed more than $2.1 million in payments for legal, financial advisory and claims administration services to other firms involved in the liquidation of the Lindberg empire. That included nearly $892,000 paid to Paladin Management Group, about $594,000 to law firm Katten Muchin Rosenman and more than $308,000 to Epiq Corporate Restructuring for administering restitution payments.
In addition to policyholder distributions, the special master distributed about $20 million from the Clanwilliam sale proceeds directly to the North Carolina insurers formerly owned by Lindberg.
AMSTERDAM–(BUSINESS WIRE)– AM Best has revised its outlook on France’s non-life insurance segment to stable from negative, reflecting top-line growth supported by rate increases, as well as technical profitability in spite of competitive pressures.
In its new Best’s Market Segment Report, “Market Segment Outlook: France Non-Life Insurance”, AM Best states that it expects that French non-life insurers’ top line will continue to grow over the next 12 months, driven by rate adjustments to offset the impact of continued claims inflation.
James Kenfack, financial analyst at AM Best and one of the authors of the outlook, said, “As a result of these adjustments, the segment’s overall profitability has been restored. Positive rate adjustments are expected to continue in 2026, albeit at a reduced pace.”
Morgane Hillebrandt, associate director, analytics, added, “While France remains a highly competitive mature market, strong discipline, as well as developed risk management and cost controls among French insurers, should help further improve technical margins and sustain profitability.”
AM Best is a global credit rating agency, news publisher and data analytics provider specialising in the insurance industry. Headquartered in the United States, the company does business in over 100 countries with regional offices in London, Amsterdam, Dubai, Hong Kong, Singapore and Mexico City. For more information, visit www.ambest.com.
Pacific Admiral® VUL 2 Offers Expanded Flexibility and Customization
NEWPORT BEACH, Calif.–(BUSINESS WIRE)–
Pacific Life Insurance Company announced that it has launched Pacific Admiral VUL 21, a new flagship variable universal life (VUL) insurance product. This VUL is designed for consumers and business owners seeking competitively priced, customizable death benefit protection with cash value growth potential. With an expanded set of variable investment option choices and design flexibility, it supports clients’ ever-changing retirement, business, and estate planning needs.
Pacific Admiral VUL 2 will replace Pacific Admiral VUL2 and Pacific Select VUL 23 after 7/13/26, combining the strengths of both products into a single offering.
“Pacific Admiral VUL 2 represents the next generation of our VUL offerings, building on the strengths of our prior products,” said Sim Zady, vice president of life product development, Consumer Markets, Pacific Life. “Grounded in Pacific Life’s longstanding financial strength, product innovation, and exceptional service, this new flexible and comprehensive design empowers clients to tailor their coverage to meet evolving financial needs—either personally or for their business.”
Anchored in Protection. Built for Flexibility.
With an Up to Age 90 No‑Lapse Guarantee Rider4 automatically included at no additional cost, plus new choices in coverage types, allocation options, and optional features, Pacific Admiral VUL 2 provides even greater flexibility than the prior VUL products for clients seeking customizable protection with cash value growth potential.
Pacific Admiral VUL 2 offers a variety of client-friendly features:
Market-based cash value growth potential through a variety of variable investment options
Choice of interest crediting strategies through a Fixed Account and indexed accounts5
Three purpose-driven coverage types
Optional no-lapse guarantee up to the insured’s lifetime for an additional cost6
Multiple ways to plan for chronic illness or long-term care expenses
Pacific Admiral VUL 2 is a competitive solution built for today’s more complex and ever-changing retirement, legacy, and business planning needs for clients.
“We’re seeing a clear surge in demand for flexible life insurance solutions that also deliver long‑term cash value growth potential—especially from affluent clients facing heightened concerns about the longevity of their retirement resources and wealth preservation,” said Kevin Kennedy, Pacific Life’s senior vice president and chief sales and marketing officer, Consumer Markets. “Pacific Admiral VUL 2 gives financial professionals a timely opportunity to meet that demand, and we look forward to working with them to provide this new offering to their clients.”
About Pacific Life
Pacific Life Insurance Company and Pacific Life & Annuity Company (“Pacific Life”) provide a variety of products and services designed to help individuals and businesses in the retail, institutional, workforce benefits, and reinsurance markets achieve financial security. Whether your goal is to protect loved ones or grow your assets for retirement, Pacific Life offers innovative life insurance and annuity solutions, as well as mutual funds, that provide value and financial security for current and future generations. Supporting our policyholders for nearly 160 years, Pacific Life is a Fortune 500 company headquartered in Newport Beach, California. For additional company information, including current financial-strength ratings, visit PacificLife.com.
1 Pacific Life Insurance Company’s Pacific Admiral VUL 2 (Form series P25VIUL, S25ADM2, varies based on state of policy issue).
2 Pacific Life Insurance Company’s Pacific Admiral VUL (Form series P19VUL, S20ADM, varies based on state of policy issue).
3 Pacific Life Insurance Company’s Pacific Select VUL 2 (Form series P19VUL, S19VUL, varies based on state of policy issue).
4 Up to Age 90 No-Lapse Guarantee Rider (Form series R22NLG, S22NLG, varies based on state of policy issue) is issued with all policies electing Death Benefit Option A or B with insured’s issue age 79 and under. Paying only the Up to Age 90 No-Lapse Premiums will guarantee the death benefit up to the insured’s attained age 90 but will not guarantee cash value accumulation. If your client discontinues paying the no-lapse guarantee premiums, the no-lapse feature will terminate before the guaranteed duration. If this occurs, additional premiums in an amount equal to the shortfall can be paid to bring the no-lapse feature back in force. If policy loans or withdrawals are taken, additional premiums may be required to keep the no-lapse feature in force. Additional premiums may be required to continue the policy beyond the guaranteed duration.
5 The indexed accounts do not directly participate in any index or the stock market.
6 The Flexible Duration No-Lapse Guarantee Rider (Form series R25FNL, S25FNL, varies based on state of policy issue). Depending on how your client structures their policy, this rider has a maximum duration of the insured’s lifetime, subject to certain limits. If your client’s net no-lapse guarantee value is zero, the no-lapse feature terminates. If the no-lapse feature terminates, additional premiums would be required to resume the no-lapse guarantee. If policy performance is such that your client’s policy is being maintained solely by the no-lapse guarantee, your client’s policy will not build cash value. Please note: When this rider is elected, Pacific Life limits the investment options available. See the technical guide, prospectus, or illustration for details.
Investment and Insurance Products: Not a Deposit • Not Insured by any Federal Government Agency • Not FDIC Insured • No Bank Guarantee • May Lose Value
Pacific Life is a product provider. It is not a fiduciary and therefore does not give advice or make recommendations regarding insurance or investment products.
Pacific Life, its affiliates, distributors, and respective representatives do not provide tax, accounting, or legal advice. Any taxpayer should seek advice based on the taxpayer’s particular circumstances from an independent tax advisor or attorney.
Pacific Life Insurance Company is licensed to issue insurance products in all states except New York. Product/material availability and features may vary by state. Variable insurance products are distributed by Pacific Select Distributors, LLC (member FINRA & SIPC), a subsidiary of Pacific Life Insurance Company and are available through licensed third-party broker/dealers.
Insurance products and their guarantees, including optional benefits and any crediting rates, are backed by the financial strength and claims-paying ability of the issuing insurance company, but they do not protect the value of the variable investment options. Look to the strength of the insurance company with regard to such guarantees because these guarantees are not backed by the independent broker/dealers, insurance agencies, or their affiliates from which products are purchased. Neither these entities nor their representatives make any representation or assurance regarding the claims-paying ability of the issuing company.
All individuals selling this product must be licensed insurance agents.
You should carefully consider a variable life insurance product’s risks, charges, limitations, and expenses, as well as the risks, charges, expenses and investment goals/objectives of the underlying investment options. This and other information about Pacific Life Insurance Company insurance products are provided in the applicable product and underlying fund prospectuses. These prospectuses are available from your life insurance producer or at Pacificlife.com/Prospectuses. Read them carefully before investing or sending money.
Riders may be subject to additional charges, availability, restrictions, and limitations. When considering a rider, request a policy illustration from your financial professional to see the rider’s impact on your policy’s values.
Not all products or optional benefits are available in all states or firms, and features may vary by state and firm.
Pacific Life Insurance Company reserves the right to change or modify any non-guaranteed or current elements. The right to modify these elements is not limited to a specific time or reason.
Life insurance is subject to underwriting and approval of the application and will incur monthly policy charges.
The home office for Pacific Life Insurance Company is located in Omaha, Nebraska.
This press release is not available for use in the following states: CA, CT, DE, MS, NV, OK, OR, and WY.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors (NAIFA) has launched “NAIFA Cares,” a nationwide member initiative designed to help American families take meaningful first steps toward long-term financial security by encouraging awareness and adoption of 530A accounts for children and future generations. The financial literacy initiative mobilizes NAIFA members across the country to educate families, connect with local communities, and help parents better understand opportunities to begin investing in their children’s futures. The initiative was announced May 18 during NAIFA’s Congressional Conference.
NAIFA Cares reflects the belief that public policy alone is not enough to improve financial outcomes for families. Financial professionals play a critical role in helping consumers understand financial tools, take action, and develop long-term strategies that can create lasting generational impact. Through the initiative, NAIFA members will reach out to clients, schools, parent organizations, and community groups to raise awareness and provide guidance to families who may have little or no experience with investing.
“NAIFA members are uniquely positioned to help families turn opportunity into action,” said Christopher L. Gandy, LACP, president of NAIFA. “Our members are leaders in their communities who have relationships with families built on trust, education, and long-term guidance. NAIFA Cares is about helping parents understand that even small steps taken early can make a meaningful difference in a child’s financial future. Policy may create the opportunity, but advisors help families build the strategy and confidence to act on it.”
Under NAIFA Cares, members will be encouraged to host local informational events, participate in community forums, share resources, and connect families with tools and guidance designed to foster long-term financial confidence. NAIFA also will spotlight stories and best practices from members nationwide whose outreach efforts are helping families take action.
Generative AI has moved well beyond the margins of claims management and is now woven into everyday workflows. Claims teams use AI-assisted tools to sort incoming materials, summarize large files and support litigation strategy, while defense counsel uses GenAI to draft outlines, organize chronologies and prepare initial drafts.
The benefits include faster document review, shorter cycle times and more consistent case valuations. But for risk managers overseeing claims operations, the question is no longer whether AI should be used, but how to deploy it without introducing new operational, legal or reputational risks.
Kristen Swift
Let’s explore how AI is being used across claims handling and defense, where it delivers tangible value, where it still falls short, and what recent cases and regulatory developments mean for companies managing risk.
Where AI adds value in claims operations
When it comes to handling and defending claims, AI is already proving most useful in three core areas: document review, case summarization and litigation support.
Document review
In complex casualty or coverage disputes, claims teams often face hundreds if not thousands of pages of discovery, medical records, prior correspondence and regulatory filings. AI‑powered tools can quickly flag key documents, identify patterns (e.g., inconsistent medical histories or contradictory statements), and prioritize materials that may influence liability or damages. When AI handles some of these basic tasks, it can speed up early review and free up adjusters to focus on higher-level work, such as working with injured parties, negotiating settlements and managing mediation.
AI also helps deal with the challenge of large volumes of paper or scanned files. Tools that can read and organize these documents turn static PDFs into searchable, usable information, making it easier to find key terms, build timelines and connect the dots. That can speed up long-running claims and help keep costs down.
Case summarization and status reports
AI is increasingly used to generate concise case summaries from pleadings, deposition transcripts, expert reports and internal emails. These summaries help underwriters and risk managers quickly assess exposure, identify potential coverage issues and monitor portfolios at scale. In some programs, AI‑assisted summaries are now embedded in internal dashboards, allowing executives to track emerging trends such as spikes in certain jurisdictional issues or recurring causation theories without manually reviewing individual files.
For multistate or multi‑jurisdictional portfolios, this capability is especially valuable. AI‑driven summaries may help identify jurisdiction‑specific patterns, such as rising punitive‑damages demands in certain states or evolving judicial attitudes toward policy interpretation, so that risk managers can adjust underwriting, reinsurance or claims‑handling strategies proactively.
Litigation support and drafting
For defense counsel, generative AI is most often used as a drafting tool. Attorneys and paralegals use AI to outline motions, draft discovery responses and prepare initial settlement demand letters. In some firms, AI helps generate preliminary briefs or organize deposition exhibits and timelines. When used thoughtfully, these tools can reduce the time spent on routine writing and free attorneys to focus on strategy, client counseling and courtroom advocacy.
Some insurers have begun to integrate AI‑driven litigation support into their panel management workflows. For example, AI tools may be used to compare briefs across similar cases and estimate typical settlement ranges based on past results.
The efficiency gains are real, but so are the risks.
The risks: Hallucinations, bias and over‑reliance
The three biggest concerns in AI risk management are hallucinated legal citations, built-in biases and over‑reliance on AI‑generated analysis.
The most visible risk is hallucination. AI systems can produce false citations, inaccurate summaries, or confident-sounding explanations that are simply wrong. A widely cited example is a 2023 federal case from the Southern District of New York (Mata v. Avianca., United States District Court, S.D.N.Y, June 22, 2023), where lawyers relied on ChatGPT-generated case citations that did not exist. This resulted in sanctions and reinforced that responsibility for accuracy remains with counsel, not the tool.
Recent disciplinary actions underscore similar concerns. In March 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida disciplined an attorney for filings that included fabricated case law (In re Thomas Grant Neusom; United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, March 8, 2024), reinforcing the risks associated with unverified content, including that generated with AI assistance.
Bias presents a subtler but equally important risk. Models trained on historical claims data may reflect past valuation patterns, jurisdictional tendencies or demographic disparities. In areas such as workers’ compensation or disability claims, this could unintentionally skew estimated payouts or settlement outcomes.
Over-reliance compounds these risks. If adjusters treat AI-generated exposure assessments or liability predictions as definitive, they may overlook data gaps or flawed assumptions. This could result in incomplete or error-laden outcomes, regulatory scrutiny or reputational harm.
Professional guidance takes shape
Ethics bodies and courts are beginning to clarify expectations. The American Bar Association’s Formal Opinion 512 treats generative AI as a form of nonlawyer assistance, requiring lawyers to maintain competence, supervise outputs, protect confidentiality, communicate appropriately with clients and ensure fees remain reasonable.
State-level guidance is developing along similar lines. For example, Florida Ethics Opinion 24-1 permits the use of AI tools with appropriate safeguards. Delaware adopted an interim policy in 2024 for judicial officers and court personnel, restricting the use of nonpublic data in unapproved AI tools and emphasizing that decision-making must remain with humans.
For claims organizations, these principles translate into clear governance requirements: vet and approve designated tools, require human validation of outputs and maintain documented oversight processes.
Data security and confidentiality
Claims files often contain medical records, wage information, employment history and other sensitive information. Many AI tools require users to upload material to cloud-based systems. This raises questions about retention, training and unauthorized sharing.
Risk managers should not assume that every vendor handles data the same way. Contracts should address encryption, retention, access controls and whether submitted materials may be used to train the model. Where possible, organizations should require tools that do not store their data or use anonymized or test data for higher-risk situations.
This is especially important in litigated claims, where sensitive records may later be scrutinized in discovery or by regulators. Weak data governance can quickly turn a productivity tool into a liability.
Emerging liability risk
Legislative and regulatory attention to AI risk is increasing. For example, proposed federal legislation such as the AI LEAD Act (S.2937) would subject AI developers to liability like that faced by product manufacturers, including for defective design or failure to warn. While still in the proposal stage, such efforts signal a broader trend toward accountability in AI deployment.
For insurers, third-party administrators and defense firms, this evolving landscape raises important considerations. Organizations that customize or rely heavily on AI tools may face scrutiny over how those tools are used and whether adequate oversight is in place. As a result, protections on the front end, like clear contract terms and the ability to review vendors, along with documenting human oversight on the back end, are becoming increasingly important.
Practical risk controls
The best way to use AI in claims is to treat it like any other high-impact operational system: with written rules, testing and accountability.
First, organizations should adopt clear use policies. Those policies should define what AI may and may not do, require human review of all outputs used in legal or claims decisions, and set training expectations for users.
Second, any AI-generated citation, fact statement or settlement recommendation should be independently verified before relying on it. That safeguard is especially important considering recent disciplinary actions.
Third, vendors should be reviewed as part of a broader governance process. Claims leaders, counsel and technology teams should understand how a tool is trained, what data it uses, how bias is tested and how updates are handled.
Fourth, organizations should monitor performance over time. Periodic audits comparing AI results against human review can reveal whether the system is drifting, reinforcing bias or missing key issues. If errors occur, they should be documented and corrected promptly.
The responsible path forward
Generative AI is here to stay in claims management. For risk professionals, the challenge is not whether to adopt the technology, but how to use it responsibly. Recent cases, ethics guidance and emerging legislation all point toward a future where AI‑assisted work is treated with the same level of scrutiny as any other form of professional judgment.
The most resilient organizations will be those that insist on human oversight at every critical decision point, embed AI governance into broader risk‑management and compliance frameworks and treat AI vendors as partners in risk management, not just cost‑saving tools. For risk managers, the question is no longer whether to use AI. It is whether they can implement it in a way that balances efficiency with accountability and innovation with disciplined risk management.
