OLDWICK, N.J.–(BUSINESS WIRE)–
AM Best has maintained the under review with developing implications status for the Financial Strength Rating of A+ (Superior) and the Long-Term Issuer Credit Ratings of “aa-” (Superior) of Banner Life Insurance Company (BLIC) (Frederick, MD) and William Penn Life Insurance Company of New York (William Penn-NY) (New York, NY).
The ratings reflect BLIC’s balance sheet strength, which AM Best assesses as very strong, as well as its strong operating performance, favorable business profile and appropriate enterprise risk management (ERM).
The ratings reflect William Penn- NY’s balance sheet strength, which AM Best assesses as very strong, as well as its strong operating performance, favorable business profile and appropriate ERM.
On Feb. 7, 2025, Legal & General Group Plc (L&G) agreed to the sale of its U.S. protection business to Meiji Yasuda Life Insurance Company (Meiji) and to establish a strategic partnership with Meiji to grow the U.S. pension risk transfer (PRT) business with Meiji taking a 20% interest in L&G’s U.S. PRT business, for a value of $2.3 billion. The deal is expected to close prior to year-end 2025, and includes rated subsidiaries, BLIC and William Penn-NY. These two subsidiaries primarily offer term life insurance and complete PRT transactions. The announcement of the transaction included the formation of a strategic partnership between L&G and Meiji. In this partnership, L&G will retain 80% of new and existing U.S. PRT business through reinsurance agreements and serve in an asset managerial role. The transaction and partnership are expected to help grow Meiji’s presence in the U.S. life insurance space, as part of a broader international growth strategy.
The role of BLIC and William Penn-NY within the Meiji organization will develop as the deal progresses and completes. The pending transaction and level of strategic importance to Meiji will be monitored and assessed in the months to come by AM Best.
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.
Pacific Life settled a lawsuit brought by a Washington state couple who claimed they lost substantial retirement funds after being misled on an indexed universal life insurance policy.
The tentative settlement announcement came two days after U.S. District Judge Rebecca L. Pennell disallowed key testimony from the plaintiff’s lone disclosed witness.
Simona G. Marie and Thomas Lewis, from Richland, Wash., filed a lawsuit in June 2023 against PacLife, Harding Financial Partners and Andrew Brown, the producer who sold them a PacLife PDX life insurance policy.
John Duval, a former Merrill Lynch annuity specialist and regulator for the Securities and Exchange Commission, was to testify for plaintiffs on “the likely performance of the PDX and the accuracy of Defendants’ illustrations and representations.”
Judge Pennell accepted Duvall as an expert witness on general IUL matters and even specifics on the PacLife product. But she drew the line at allowing actuarial opinions.
“Duval is not an actuary, and appears to lack the necessary experience, education, or training to opine as to actuarial matters,” Pennell wrote in a Sept 9 decision. “Duval opines extensively on how realistic the PDX policy’s projected returns were, an opinion which requires actuarial analysis.”
The plaintiffs similarly asked the court to block testimony from the four disclosed witnesses for PacLife, a request Pennell denied because plaintiffs did not “specifically identify any irrelevant testimony.”
Pennell signed a notice of settlement on Wednesday, striking the case from the court calendar. A hearing had been scheduled for Oct. 8 on a defense motion for summary judgment.
‘Income in retirement’
Marie and Lewis were successful married business owners in 2017 when they bought a PDX policy with a “Performance Factor,” paid with annual $200,000 premiums for five years, the lawsuit said.
“Simona Marie and Tom Lewis purchased the policy with the intent to provide them with income in retirement,” the lawsuit said.
After making $200,000 premium payments in 2017 and 2018, Marie and Lewis decided to reduce their final three premium payments to $35,000. Brown indicated that the couple could reduce their premium in exchange for reduced financial benefits, including reduced annual income to $ 117,000 per year from ages 65 to 100, the lawsuit claims.
On Nov. 14, 2021, the couple made the final $35,000 premium payment. A month later, they joined Brown on a Zoom call to discuss their investment, the lawsuit said. Instead, Brown informed Marie and Lewis they would need to pay further premiums to maintain their contract.
The couple surrendered the policy in April 2022 and received a $202,655 check from PacLife. They claim the insurer made nearly $551,000 from the IUL contract.
Illustrations used to sell FIA and indexed universal life insurance have been subjected to several lawsuits, with mixed results. Industry analysts and many regulators agree that illustrations are problematic and unrealistic.
PacLife said its policy performed within the parameters outlined in the policy the plaintiffs signed.
“When Marie grew unhappy with the consequences of her own financial decisions, Plaintiffs brought the present suit in an attempt to place blame on anyone else,” a PacLife response reads.
The insurer did not respond to a message seeking further information on the settlement.
A Vermont judge dismissed a pair of National Life companies from a lawsuit over an indexed universal life policy that returned 0%.
Sanya Virani, of Indiana, claims the IUL relies on back-tested historical performance that does not match reality and is “a fraudulent sham.” She initially filed suit nearly a year ago in the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont, where NLV Financial Corp. is headquartered.
Chief District Judge Christina Reiss held a hearing on Monday on National Life’s motion to dismiss. She dismissed NLV and National Life Insurance Co., a subsidiary, from the lawsuit. Claims against a second subsidiary insurer, Life Insurance Co. of the Southwest, remain active.
“Motion to Dismiss is granted in part as stated on the record, and the remaining claims are taken under advisement,” a court docket update reads.
In its motion to dismiss “for failure to state a claim,” filed in January, NLV noted that IUL illustrations are “heavily regulated by insurance authorities.” Illustrations are not a contract. Virani’s original complaint claims breach of contract and RICO violations, which NLV characterized as “a posterchild” for judicial scrutiny.
“The notion that Defendants are operating a racketeering enterprise to commit mail and wire fraud—as opposed to making routine issuances of life insurance policies—is baseless,” the motion reads.
Viriani’s complaint includes a third claim: Violation of the Massachusetts law commonly known as its Consumer Protection Act, and “Other States’ Similar Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Statutes.”
The Massachusetts law prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce. Most states have similar laws.
Point-to-point strategy
Viriani resided in Massachusetts when she purchased an IUL policy on Sept. 8, 2023, the amended complaint said, with a face or base coverage amount of $2,767,336. The policy offered Virani interest crediting strategies, including “Fixed-Term Strategies” and “Indexed Strategies” – the returns from which are credited to the policy’s accumulated value.
The lawsuit describes the US Pacesetter No Cap Annual Point-to-Point Indexed Strategy.
Virani allocated 100% of the accumulated value under her policy to the US Pacesetter Index, the complaint states. According to her 2024 Annual Statement issued by National Life, 0% interest was credited to her account as a result of that allocation for the period September 22, 2023, to September 21, 2024.
Robert G. Rikard crisscrossed the country for years, taking life insurers to court over indexed universal life products that his plaintiffs say did not perform as advertised.
“We realized that what we thought was a blip in the system and some pockets of bad actors is, unfortunately, the norm, it seems,” Rikard told InsuranceNewsNet. “We just get calls every single day about people’s financial lives being turned upside down by horrible misrepresentations about this product.”
Indexed universal life is a type of permanent life insurance that combines lifelong death benefit protection with a cash value account whose growth is tied to a stock market index. The product abuses include unrealistic returns and premium financing schemes that leave policyholders financially poorer.
“The common denominator is that the sales force out there does not understand the product at all, and how the economics of the product actually perform in real-world situations,” Rikard explained. “I think that the vast majority of people selling IUL are trained how to sell it, but not trained how to understand the mechanics of the design in a way that it will not lapse.”
Starting in 2018, Rikard has represented more than 400 clients, including retirees, families, business owners, and professionals, and recovered tens of millions of dollars from insurers and financial firms that marketed IUL policies as “tax-free retirement” or investment plans.
IUL-fueled Ponzi scheme
In one example, Rikard represented several clients in different states who invested in a complex scheme that included a “structured settlement” offered by Future Income Payments. FIP turned out to be a nationwide Ponzi scheme that earned founder Scott Kohn a 10-year prison sentence.
Using various marketing efforts, FIP solicited pensioners by offering them a lump sum in exchange for a portion of their future pension payments. Unknown to many investors, the future pension payment terms required them to pay what often equated to an annual interest rate exceeding 100% over a five-year term.
In time, another layer was added to the scam, prosecutors said. Investors were urged to fund IUL policies with their FIP payment, ostensibly to replace the pension as a retirement plan. However, prosecutors said the new layer just created another opportunity for rogue agents and FIP reps to further gouge investors via hidden and high fees.
IUL-fueled scams continue to evolve, Rikard said, with enticing TikTok videos and multi-level marketing efforts among the current problems. MLM involves promoters who use a pyramid-style sales structure to sell legitimate or pseudo–life insurance products in deceptive or exploitative ways.
“I think the carriers know this is going on, at least what I’m hearing in multi-level marketing space,” Rikard said. “They just look the other way because I think it’s [they see it as] just the cost of doing business.”
RP Legal plans to add teams of lawyers, analysts and paralegals over the coming months, Rikard said. The firm will pursue cases big and small across the country and expects to find plenty of business, he added.
“Until the carriers worry more about the mechanics of performance of the policy versus just selling the product, I think we’re going to see more and more litigation,” Rikard said.
Life insurance is typically viewed as just a payout when you die. But this coverage can provide much more if you’re willing to look past a few common misconceptions.
D’Andre Clayton
A recent survey from Corebridge Financial found 47% of Americans with life insurance policies feel confident their spouse or dependents would be able to manage financially without them, compared with 28% of those without life insurance. Furthermore, 4 in 10 cited cost as the top reason for not purchasing a policy and 21% said they have more important financial considerations.
What most people don’t know is that these policies can benefit you while you’re still living. In light of Life Insurance Awareness Month this September, let’s debunk some of these misconceptions and explore how the right policy can benefit you, your loved ones and future generations to come.
I often find that when people hear the term “life insurance,” they simply picture the insurance company sending check to their surviving loved ones. Although that’s important, it’s only part of the story. Properly designed life insurance can be one of the most versatile tools in personal financial management, helping to supplement income in retirement, provide tax advantages, cover unexpected health events and even provide liquidity all while you are still living. The key is to work with an agent who knows how to properly design a policy to optimize cash values.
Tax-deferred growth
The cash value in a permanent life insurance policy – such as whole life or indexed universal life – grows without being taxed annually, unlike a 401(k) or an individual retirement account. In fact, you don’t owe taxes on the growth unless you withdraw more than you contribute.
No required minimum distributions
For many retirement accounts, such as 401(k)s and IRAs, the government forces you to take required minimum distributions, usually starting once you turn 73. However, life insurance policies with a cash value gives you the ability to let those funds grow for as long as you want. You will not be forced to start making withdrawals and pay taxes on those withdrawals once you reach a certain age.
Loan optionality
Instead of withdrawing funds from your policy, which could trigger taxes, you can take a loan against your cash value. These loans don’t count as taxable income, allowing you to access the money without owing the IRS. If the policy is designed properly, your cash value will continue to grow even when you borrow against it.
Another perk is uninterrupted growth. When you borrow against the cash value, if the policy is designed properly, the cash value will continue to grow as if you never touched it. So if your cash value earns a 4%-6% net internal rate of return, it still compounds even if you’re using that money elsewhere.
Taking a loan against the cash value of your policy can usually leave you with a better interest rate. And since your money still grows even when borrowed against, the effective cost of the loan is typically lower than any outside debt, even a 0% credit card.
Creditor protection
In many states, the cash value within a life insurance policy is safeguarded from creditors. In other words, if you get sued or declare bankruptcy, that money may be protected.
Understanding the benefits of a cash value policy is only a piece of the puzzle. In fact, there are several different branches of policies that have cash value components and they aren’t made equally.
Whole life insurance
When it comes to the components of a whole life policy, there’s typically a base premium, term rider, paid-up additions, dividends and optional riders.
The base premium is the core payment for the permanent life insurance policy. It provides a guaranteed death benefit and cash value growth.
The term rider provides additional short-term coverage. It lowers the overall cost and commissions compared to buying all coverage as permanent. It also helps keep base policy premiums lower so that more money can go to cash value PUAs.
PUAs are extra premiums allocated immediately to create cash value. The cash value grows with guaranteed interest plus dividends. PUAs are available for loans or withdrawals with minimal surrender penalties. It should be noted that it is possible to reduce cost in a policy by changing the amount that goes toward the base premium versus PUA. For example, a $10,000 premium could only have $1,000 going toward cost of insurance and the other $9,000 going toward the cash value component.
In modern policies, dividends typically account for 5%-7%, including minimum guaranteed interest. Dividends act as a low-risk bond replacement for long-term growth.
There are various types of optional riders. A long-term care rider allows you to access part of the death benefit for long-term care costs. A disability/waiver of premium allows the policy to continue if you become disabled. An automatic premium loan provision uses the policy’s cashflow to automatically cover missed premiums so the policy doesn’t lapse. If an outstanding policy gets too high, an overloan protection rider can prevent the policy from collapsing by converting it to a reduced paid-up policy.
Whole life insurance tends to bring about the most confusion when it comes to policy structure due to nonparticipating and participating policies. They are always principal-protected. So, if you’ve ever heard about a whole life policy building with no cash value, it means the insurance company that placed the policy is a stock-owned company and not a mutually owned company. Mutually owned companies are considered participating policies because policyholders are participating in the profits of a company, whereas stock-owned companies are nonparticipating.
Universal life insurance
Universal life policies is where the cash component is unbundled from the insurance cost. With these policies, there is a funding flexibility that provides a window for how much premium can be put into the policy. Premiums can also vary. In some cases, you can skip paying the premium as long as there is enough cash value to cover the charges. These policies are also flexible allowing you to adjust the death benefit over time. However, if the policy isn’t funded properly, it could collapse. These policies are usually best used as guaranteed universal life or survivorship universal life policies.
Indexed universal life insurance
Indexed universal life policies are arguably the most popularized of all life insurance policies.
They’re typically purchased to optimize potential gain to average between 5%-7% growth long-term while mitigating the risk in the market. While the principal is protected from market losses, it isn’t protected from the cost of insurance when the market losses happen. If cash value is the goal, the policy should follow these rules:
Should be structured as maximum cash, minimum death.
The death benefit needs to be an increasing death benefit to start and usually switches to a level death benefit whenever you plan to cease adding premium.
High early cash value riders can be added to the contract to ensure the ability to access money from the contract earlier.
Variable universal life insurance
Variable universal life insurance is an investment product. The easiest way to think about this type of policy is that it behaves similarly to a Roth 401(k) with investment choices and risk, yet it’s placed within a life insurance wrapper for tax advantages. Inside the policy are the investments you control in a subaccount that can move up or down. The insurance company doesn’t guarantee growth because you’re taking investment risk. The fee structure is also more aggressive because the idea is that with uncapped growth potential, growth should outpace the fees.
In essence, life insurance is more than just a death benefit mailed to your loved ones after you die. These products can be structured to provide you with financial security and support throughout many phases of your life. You can purchase policies that help protect you and your family before your health becomes a concern or a factor driving you away from seeking life insurance. The key is to understand the products and structures out there and to seek the right guidance.
AMSTERDAM–(BUSINESS WIRE)– AM Best is revising its outlook on the French life insurance segment to stable from negative.
In its new Best’s Market Segment Report, “Market Segment Outlook: France Life Insurance”, AM Best states that it expects the French life insurance segment to report further growth over the next year, despite headwinds from the wider economic and geopolitical conditions.
In 2024, the segment reported positive net flows at a level not seen for the past 10 years while outflows on redeemable supports decreased for the first time in five years. AM Best notes that the segment’s performance remained positive during the first six months of 2025, as premiums continued to grow well above projected GDP growth and net flows remained at record high levels.
Domestic political instability and global geopolitical risk are headwinds for the segment, and fiscal measures taken by the government, including a special high-income tax enacted in 2025, could have an offsetting impact on the segment’s revenue prospects. Nonetheless, the risk of a material uptick in surrenders has abated.
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.
OLDWICK, N.J.–(BUSINESS WIRE)– AM Best has revised the outlooks to positive from stable and affirmed the Financial Strength Rating (FSR) of C++ (Marginal) and the Long-Term Issuer Credit Ratings (Long-Term ICR) of “b+” (Marginal) of Genworth Life Insurance Company (GLIC) (Wilmington, DE) and Genworth Life Insurance Company of New York (GLICNY) (New York, NY). These companies are referred to as Genworth Financial Group. In addition, AM Best has affirmed the FSR of B- (Fair) and the Long-Term ICR of “bb-” (Fair) of Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company (GLAIC) (Richmond, VA). Concurrently, AM Best has affirmed the Long-Term ICRs of bb-” (Fair) of Genworth Financial, Inc. and Genworth Holdings, Inc. (both domiciled in Delaware), as well as their Long-Term Issue Credit Ratings (Long-Term IRs). The outlook of these Credit Ratings (ratings) is stable. (See below for a detailed list of the Long-Term IRs.)
Additionally, the ratings reflect Genworth Financial Group’s balance sheet strength, which AM Best assesses as weak, as well as its adequate operating performance, limited business profile and appropriate enterprise risk management (ERM).
The ratings of GLAIC reflect its balance sheet strength, which AM Best assesses as weak, as well as its adequate operating performance, limited business profile and appropriate ERM.
The ratings of GLAIC also reflect its adequate level of risk-adjusted capitalization, as measured by Best’s Capital Adequacy Ratio (BCAR). The company’s adequate operating performance reflects a trend of positive operating earnings in recent years and has contributed to modest BCAR score improvements. AM Best will continue to monitor the company’s ability to improve its current balance sheet metrics as the company manages its runoff businesses.
The revised outlook to positive from stable of Genworth Financial Group reflects its risk-adjusted capitalization, as measured by BCAR, and other capital metrics. While these metrics remain low and volatile, they have shown continued improvement. Management continues to achieve positive results from the execution of its strategy of obtaining actuarially supported premium rate increases and reducing future benefit obligations on in-force, long-term care (LTC) policies. This has contributed to sustained capital levels, supported by improved in-force management and strong investment returns. However, the timing and effectiveness of premium rate increase approvals and benefit reductions remain a key financial risk as the group is still anticipating peak LTC claims.
The ratings of Genworth Financial, Inc. and Genworth Holdings, Inc. reflect their recent trend of an improved balance sheet and operating performance. AM Best does note their dependence on dividends from Enact Holdings, Inc [Nasdaq: ACT], to service debt obligations, which supports both companies’ capital allocation priorities of share repurchases, opportunistic debt reduction and growth investments in CareScout.
The following Long-Term IRs have been affirmed with stable outlooks:
Genworth Holdings, Inc.—
— “bb-” (Fair) on $300 million 6.50% senior unsecured notes, due 2034
— “b” (Marginal) on $600 million fixed/floating rate junior subordinated notes, due 2066
The following indicative Long-Term IRs have been affirmed with stable outlooks:
Genworth Holdings, Inc.—
— “bb-” (Fair) on senior unsecured debt
— “b+” (Marginal) on subordinated debt
— “b” (Marginal) on preferred stock
Genworth Financial, Inc.—
— “bb-” (Fair) on senior unsecured debt
— “b+” (Marginal) on subordinated debt
— “b” (Marginal) on preferred stock
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.
The rapid advancement of generative artificial intelligence has led to the development of large language models. ChatGPT and other AI chatbots are examples of tools powered by LLMs. These models specialize in natural language processing to understand and generate human language. Massive amounts of text data train LLMs to perform tasks such as mimicking human language, providing translations, summarizing, answering questions, generating text and even software coding.
Dale Hall
LLMs hold promise for many industries and professions, including the insurance industry and the actuarial field.
LLM use cases in insurance
In March, the Society of Actuaries Research Institute convened a panel of experts to discuss the use of generative AI in the insurance industry. The panel consisted of actuaries from a variety of practice areas, and they noted several LLM insurance applications such as:
Coding assistance: Code generation and automating documentation
Digital assistant: Email, document creation, note taking, meeting summarization
Data summarization and categorization: Claims data, submissions, notes; reinsurance treaties; medical underwriting files, calls and meetings
Testing and model validation assistance: Generating test cases, testing documentation, review and validation
Other applications: Translation, research source attribution, claims integration
The panel concluded that current AI tools, such as LLMs, can boost productivity for some tasks, but the technology hasn’t evolved enough to replicate actuarial analysis and decision-making. However, the panel predicted it will become necessary for actuaries to use these tools.
Implementing LLMs isn’t without challenges. The sensitive data insurance companies manage makes data privacy and security critical. Also, regulation compliance and ethical standards are needed to build trust with customers and stakeholders. So, incorporating LLMs into current systems demands thorough planning and teamwork among various departments within the organization.
Benchmarking and comparing models
After identifying tasks that might be suited for LLMs to complete or assist, consider the specific type that best meets the needs of a given task. There are four basic variants for use cases:
Foundational models: Have not been tuned for specific tasks
Instruct models: More fine-tuned, meant for task-oriented applications
Code models: Specialize in understanding and generating code
Multimodal models: Understand and generate text, images and audio
Opting for the largest and highest-performing LLM may not always be necessary or cost-effective. Other considerations include latency requirements, budgets, scalability, ethical and bias issues. Experimentation and evaluating the results are helpful in choosing the appropriate LLM.
Finding the right LLM for a specific task depends on these considerations:
Model size and computational requirements
Need
Requirement
Size
Simple tasks, quick responses
Less powerful hardware
Smaller model
Complex reasoning
More computational resources
Larger model
Task-specific performance
Context window size: The amount of text generated in a single interaction
Cost vs. performance
LLM benchmarks are assessment tools that compare strengths and limitations. There are categories of benchmarks, some of which are listed in the table below, along with the specific products that fall within that category and a description of how each of them works:
Benchmark category
Benchmark product
Description
Knowledge and Recall
Massive Multitask Language Understanding
Uses about 16,000 multiple-choice questions across a range of topics, from mathematics to law.
Google-Proof Question and Answering
448 multiple-choice questions written by experts in biology, physics and chemistry. Tests a model’s expert-level knowledge.
Mathematics
Mathematics Aptitude Test of Heuristics
12,500 problems from mathematics competitions, covering a range of difficulty levels and math topics. Requires LLMs to demonstrate their reasoning.
Coding
HumanEval
Assesses an LLM’s code-writing capabilities. Consists of 164 programming problems that the LLM is required to synthesize.
Reading Comprehension
Discrete Reasoning Over the Content of Paragraphs (DROP)
A Q&A dataset that assesses an LLM’s ability to understand and extract information from inputs.
The best way to evaluate LLMs is to create a benchmark that is tailored to a specific task. This method not only gives a more accurate measure of performance for that task but also supports development and enables ongoing performance tracking.
Deploying an LLM
The easiest way to use an LLM is through an application programming interface from major developers, such as ChatGPT. While hosting an LLM independently offers more control, using an API is simpler, faster and cost-effective. It is important to ensure that the chosen provider meets security and privacy standards.
Launching an open LLM follows a similar process to other software deployments, although the details can differ depending on the specific LLM being used. There are a variety of deployment methods, from software for beginners to more robust solutions that are appropriate for production environments. As far as where to locate the LLM, the cloud offers a simpler solution compared to building an independent server.
Because deploying LLMs falls outside typical actuarial training and expertise, it is recommended to seek assistance from cloud engineers and software developers.
Assessing risk and maintaining governance
Actuaries are experts in risk management and governance and have extensive knowledge about technology and data. Their expertise and professional standards make it crucial that they have key roles in the responsible and ethical use of AI and LLMs.
Risk and ethics considerations are essential in choosing LLMs for responsible actuarial use. For example, it is important to find a provider who shares the organization’s viewpoint on ethical AI practices and that they feel comfortable with their AI governance structure.
Other provider considerations include:
Privacy and protection: Ensuring models and their providers meet privacy and data protection requirements.
Risk and compliance: Regularly reviewing LLM output to ensure it meets compliance requirements.
Technology and reliability: Ensuring the model has the necessary capabilities, performs consistently and offers sufficient technical support.
Bias, fairness and discrimination: Confirming the LLM addresses these risks.
Transparency and explainability: Documenting model specifications and how it is used, logging outputs, and detailing the development process.
Accountability and responsibility: Establishing clear lines of accountability and responsibility to oversee decision-making with LLM help.
Below are two important resources that provide a high-level overview of AI ethics:
The National Association of Insurance Commissioners Principles on Artificial Intelligence, particularly relevant to the financial services and insurance sectors.
SOA resources to help actuaries leverage AI
The SOA Research Institute published a detailed guide on deploying LLMs for actuarial use, Operationalizing LLMs: A Guide for Actuaries, which provides more details and helpful tips. Additionally, SOA’s AI Research landing page provides a library of reports and resources, including the monthly Actuarial Intelligence Bulletin, which informs readers about advancements in actuarial technology and new AI research reports.
As Life Insurance Awareness Month kicks off—and as he marks his first year leading the American Council of Life Insurers as President and CEO—David Chavern talks with InsuranceNewsNet Managing Editor Susan Rupe about the industry’s “moment,” the annuity boom, and why Washington needs a new vocabulary for what life insurers do.
Susan Rupe:You’ve just completed your first year as president and CEO of the American Council of Life Insurers. What were your goals coming in, and where has ACLI gone in the past year?
David Chavern: Year one was about learning and executing. I didn’t come up through the life insurance ranks—though I served more than a decade on Transamerica’s U.S. board—so I spent a lot of time meeting people, understanding issues and aligning ACLI to what the industry needs. Culturally, this industry has a kind of Midwestern decency—hard-charging but welcoming—and that made the learning curve productive.
At the same time, we had to immediately engage on the 2025 tax fight—the “Super Bowl of tax.” We built and ran a coordinated campaign, and we came out in a good place. In Washington, there are no permanent victories, so our focus now is being better prepared for what’s next.
Rupe:There are many trade groups in this space. What sets ACLI apart?
Chavern: We represent carriers—about 275 members accounting for roughly 95% of industry assets—so, in a fundamental sense, we represent the industry. We also work closely with distribution and product-specific groups like Finseca and NAFA. You always need more friends in Washington, and the coordination across associations has been strong. If differences arise, we keep them “in the house.”
Rupe:Where do you see the industry heading?
Chavern: The curve of history is bending toward us. We’ve moved from a long accumulation era to a decumulation and wealth-transfer era. Most retirees don’t have defined benefit pensions, but they do want to manage longevity risk. That’s why annuities are the fastest-growing product.
Our “superpower” is making long-term promises—multi-decade guarantees no bank or mutual fund can provide. I recently heard about a customer who bought a policy at 17 and is now 109—nearly a century of one commercial relationship. That’s unique, and the demand for it is rising.
Rupe:Many consumers still think “life insurance = funeral expenses.” How do you raise awareness of the broader value?
Chavern: We’re building a new vocabulary. The term “life insurance” names a product we love, but it doesn’t capture the full suite—income protection, retirement income, disability, long-term care—and it lumps us with lines we’re nothing like.
We need language that reflects what we uniquely do: help people manage risks over decades so they can live the life they want to live. That applies to consumers and policymakers alike. For example, our research shows that access to annuities leads many people to claim Social Security later, easing pressure on the system by at least $100 billion. Policymakers should understand—and want—us to keep delivering that kind of value.
Rupe:What’s ACLI’s message for Life Insurance Awareness Month?
Chavern: “We put life into America.” When we make a 30-year promise, we invest those premiums in the U.S. economy—about $8 trillion overall. We’re the ballast—supporting families with guarantees and the economy with patient capital, including as the largest buyer of corporate bonds.
Rupe:How are you bringing that message to lawmakers?
Chavern: Knocking on doors—constantly. I’ve done a lot of meetings, and CEOs across our member companies have been generous with their time. We’ve paired that with sustained public education—ads and facts that reinforce our unique role. There’s no silver bullet. It’s repetition, discipline and sweat.
Rupe:The “big, beautiful bill” dominated headlines. What did ACLI and the industry do behind the scenes?
Chavern: Both behind and in front of the scenes, we stayed coordinated. In 2017, our industry unexpectedly became a pay-for to the tune of about $24 billion. Going into this round, the entire industry committed to one message: We already “gave at the office,” and repeating that would harm not just carriers and distribution but consumers managing risk. Policymakers heard us—consistently. The bigger takeaway is that we proved we can execute together. But again, no permanent wins; we need to be even better next time.
Rupe:What’s on the near-term horizon in Washington?
Chavern: Deficits are historically large. At some point, Congress—or state capitols—will look for revenue. We need to be ready with a clearer understanding, broader appreciation, and real champions who know our importance and will spend political capital to defend it.
Rupe:Our audience is agents and advisors selling life, annuities, disability and long-term care, and doing financial planning. What do you want them to know about ACLI?
Chavern: We’re tireless. We learned two things from the latest tax fight: First, we’re still not well understood or appreciated. Second, while we have friends, we need more true champions. ACLI is leading on both fronts—reframing the vocabulary around our value and building a deeper bench of champions in Washington and the states. A good outcome this year, yes—but the work continues.
Rupe:Anything we didn’t cover that you’d like to add?
Chavern: This is our moment. We do something the public needs that other financial sectors can’t do. I’m fortunate to be here now—but we’re taking nothing for granted. There’s an old line from Sen. Russell Long on tax fights: “Don’t tax you, don’t tax me, tax that feller behind the tree.” In 2017, we were that feller. We avoided it this time, but next time we must be front-of-mind for policymakers—understood, appreciated and defended. That’s the mission, and I’m proud to lead it.
POTSDAM—William Melchior CLU, CLTC, will be celebrating 50 years in business on September 15, 2025.
Melchior was first licensed as a Life and Health Insurance agent in 1975 with the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company.
In April of 1983, Bill left Metlife and was hired as a District Agent with the Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance company of Milwaukee Wisconsin.
As a manager, Bill was in charge of Recruiting, Hiring and training of New Agents as well as selling and servicing his own Practice in St. Lawrence County and Franklin Counties. In addition to his managerial duties, he also sold and serviced group health Insurance to small and medium sized businesses.
Over the years Bill was the recipient of numerous company and Industry awards. He was a ten-time qualifier of the Million Dollar Round Table, and a 30 year qualifier of the Industries National Quality award. The NQA is awarded to Agents who write persistent business representing Clients satisfaction with the policies they have purchased. Only 2% of the nation’s insurance agents receive the award each year and Bill received the award 30 years in a row.
Bill is currently a Senior Agent and Financial Advisor with Northwestern, and works with Trevor Garlock of GROW Financial, who assists him in the day to day operations of his business.
Bill’s office is located at 71 Market Street in Potsdam.
