“We continue to see consistent growth and opportunity in these sectors,” Greenberg said. “That’s where we’re placing our emphasis, and we believe the potential is substantial.”

“The trends here are resilient,” he added. “We’re deeply embedded in these markets, and I fully expect our double-digit growth trajectory not only to continue but to accelerate over time.”

Greenberg highlighted expansion beyond the United States—where Chubb is already the second-largest middle market commercial insurer—pointing to promising opportunities across Asia (including Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand, Korea, Malaysia, and Australia), as well as Latin America and Europe. He emphasized that as these global economies evolve, new industries and enterprises are emerging.

Chubb’s Q2 earnings report showed strong performance, with a 33% increase in net income and a 6.3% rise in consolidated net premiums written. However, Greenberg noted increasing competition in the large-account and excess & surplus (E&S) property market.

“The commercial property space for large and E&S accounts has become much more crowded. Rates are falling, even though policy terms and conditions remain fairly stable,” he said during the call. “A lot of capital is flowing into property coverage right now, and prices are declining.”

He made it clear that Chubb is backing away from the large account property market when appropriate. “Others are ramping up, but we’re stepping back when necessary,” Greenberg said.

By contrast, Chubb sees more stability and discipline in mid-market and small commercial lines—particularly on property—where the company is continuing to grow its footprint.

Chubb Not Impacted by FEMA’s Future, Maintains Selective Flood Coverage

Greenberg was also asked whether potential changes to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)—which manages the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)—might impact Chubb’s affluent homeowner portfolio and whether the company would consider expanding into private flood coverage.

His answer was straightforward: “No.”

“FEMA provides a fairly minimal level of coverage,” Greenberg explained. “The $250,000 cap under NFIP barely registers for high-net-worth homeowners. It doesn’t move the needle when you’re talking about multimillion-dollar properties.”

Greenberg added that Chubb already participates in the private flood insurance market but does so selectively, supported by more advanced risk assessment and mapping than FEMA currently uses.

Regarding the possible dismantling of FEMA—an idea floated by the Trump administration—Greenberg cautioned against such a move.

“I think eliminating FEMA would be a mistake,” he said. “I’d recommend restructuring the agency and changing how it delivers coverage.”

He emphasized the need to rethink flood insurance incentives, particularly for properties repeatedly affected by flooding.

“I wouldn’t offer the same individual repeated compensation to rebuild in a known flood zone,” he said. “But FEMA does play a critical social role as a first-loss provider for those with no other options.”

Under the new law, the amount of personal injury protection (PIP), also known as no-fault insurance, required by the city will drop from $200,000 to $100,000 per individual. Previously, NYC drivers were required to carry four times the amount mandated for similar drivers across the rest of New York State, where the minimum is $50,000 per person.

The legislation passed the City Council with overwhelming support—50 members in favor and just one abstaining.

Citizens for Affordable Rates (CAR), a coalition supported by Uber, praised the move. The group argues that this adjustment will relieve financial stress on many drivers—most of whom are immigrants and small business operators—by potentially reducing insurance premiums, discouraging fraudulent claims, and opening the door for new insurance providers to enter the city market.

CAR cites a report from the New York State Department of Financial Services indicating that suspected no-fault fraud made up 75% of all fraud reports the agency received in 2023. The organization believes that the previous $200,000 insurance mandate played a role in fueling that trend.

“For years, for-hire drivers in New York City have shouldered the weight of an excessive and outdated insurance rule that raised costs, limited choice, and incentivized fraud. That’s finally changing,” said Council Member Carmen De La Rosa, who sponsored the bill.

The new law also bars the city’s Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) from requiring TLC-licensed vehicles to maintain no-fault insurance coverage greater than double the statewide minimum.

“Drivers licensed by the TLC are the backbone of our city’s transportation network,” said Mayor Adams. “Most of these hardworking New Yorkers are immigrants striving for a better life, yet they’ve been forced to pay exorbitant insurance rates that strain their finances. This law eases that burden.”

This legislative update comes as concern grows over the financial instability of American Transit Insurance Co. (ATIC), which currently insures over 60% of the city’s for-hire vehicles. Lawmakers and industry advocates hope the change will stabilize the insurance market and attract additional providers to ensure consistent coverage.

While the original goal was to lower the insurance requirement to $50,000 to fully match state levels—potentially saving drivers $600 annually—the compromise at $100,000 is expected to result in savings of approximately $300 per year.

Still, some city officials remain cautious. TLC Chair David Do expressed skepticism during a February City Council hearing, stating, “It is uncertain whether drivers will actually see reduced premiums, as insurers may choose to keep the savings instead of passing them on.”

The new city law is part of a wider effort by Uber and CAR to reform insurance practices in New York City and statewide. The coalition has been lobbying lawmakers in Albany to crack down on no-fault fraud and limit excessive litigation, while investing heavily in advertising to support their legislative push.

The lawsuits were filed by two individuals: Neil Plascencia, a policyholder from Illinois, and Amy Haas, a former employee based in Wisconsin. Both plaintiffs allege that Erie failed to adequately safeguard their personally identifiable information (PII) and are each seeking $5 million in damages for the alleged negligence.

The suits claim that a ransomware attack occurred on June 7, allowing unauthorized access to Erie’s internal systems and compromising private data. Though Erie has not officially confirmed a data breach or ransomware incident, both legal filings reference a report from Google’s Threat Intelligence Group. That report suggests that the cybercriminal collective known as Scattered Spider may be behind the intrusion. The group, previously associated with attacks on U.S. and U.K. retail businesses, is believed to be expanding its focus to include insurance companies.

As of now, Erie Insurance has maintained that its IT team discovered “unusual activity” on its network on Saturday, June 7, and took immediate steps to protect its data and systems. Since then, core services including email, phone communications, and online application access have been disrupted.

One of the plaintiffs, Neil Plascencia, claims he received a notification from Erie via email in June, informing him that his personal data may have been exposed during the incident.

In its latest public statement, dated June 14, Erie said it was continuing to make “steady progress” in restoring its digital infrastructure. The company has yet to offer specific details on the nature or scope of the event.

“Our teams—working in collaboration with top-tier cybersecurity professionals—are putting in continuous efforts to fully restore service for customers, agents, and employees,” Erie stated. “While the process is complex and ongoing, we are confident in our approach and appreciate everyone’s patience.”

A company representative declined to comment on the active lawsuits, citing standard policy regarding pending legal matters.

The March 25 memo, reviewed by Bloomberg News, gives a glimpse into the administration’s vision for scaling down FEMA, although such a move would require congressional action. While President Donald Trump and Noem have publicly expressed their desire to wind down FEMA, they had provided little detail on the plans until now.

The document, titled “Abolishing FEMA,” was authored by FEMA’s then-acting administrator, Cameron Hamilton, and addressed to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). It suggests abolishing or drastically reducing various FEMA functions, including eliminating long-term housing assistance for disaster survivors and ceasing enrollments in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). These recommendations are part of a larger push to reduce the federal government’s involvement in disaster response.

While the seven-page memo had not been previously reported, the broader proposal to dismantle FEMA has continued to circulate among Trump administration officials. It remains unclear which, if any, of these recommendations will move forward.

Carrie Speranza, former FEMA advisor and now president of the U.S. Council of the International Association of Emergency Managers, warned that this shift could mean limited FEMA presence unless the disaster is of national significance, like the September 11 attacks, Hurricane Katrina, or Superstorm Sandy.

DHS, FEMA, and the White House declined to comment on the specifics of the memo, but DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin responded with a statement suggesting that the current FEMA system would be replaced with a more efficient, state-centric disaster response approach. “Under Secretary Noem and Acting Administrator Richardson, FEMA, as it is today, will no longer exist,” McLaughlin said.

FEMA’s Past Criticism and Future Potential Cuts

FEMA, established by President Jimmy Carter in 1979, has long faced criticism from both sides of the political aisle. Its failure to deliver timely assistance after catastrophes like Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Maria, as well as its costly rebuilding programs, have made the agency a target for reform. With increasing concerns over the costs of disaster response—exacerbated by climate change—the Trump administration aims to make sweeping changes.

A number of new reform bills are circulating in Congress. Louisiana Republican Clay Higgins has proposed replacing FEMA with block grants to state governments, while other bipartisan bills seek to overhaul FEMA’s grant programs and reimbursement processes in order to speed up disaster recovery efforts.

The memo outlines several strategies to reduce federal spending on disaster response, including canceling long-standing initiatives, revoking some forms of financial assistance, and shifting more oversight and funding responsibilities to state and local authorities. These proposals, which echo the Heritage Foundation-led Project 2025 report, are controversial. Experts warn that they could overwhelm state budgets and lead to prolonged recovery times.

A Vision for “A Smaller Footprint”

Noem directed that FEMA’s functions be reduced to a “smaller footprint,” focusing only on core disaster-response duties. The memo proposes that FEMA continue to oversee national-level emergency preparedness and immediate disaster response. However, it suggests that the agency should stop funding for smaller, less severe events and concentrate resources on large-scale disasters.

States would likely need to cover a larger share of disaster-related costs, which could be problematic for many states that lack the budget and infrastructure to manage recovery efforts on their own.

Michael Coen, former FEMA chief of staff under President Biden, cautioned that this approach could leave many communities without the support they need. “A flood in Vermont might not be a national security concern, but it’s a huge issue for the local community,” Coen said, pointing out that many states lack the capacity to independently manage large-scale disaster recovery.

The memo also suggests a much narrower federal role in long-term recovery, proposing that FEMA cease providing housing for disaster survivors. This includes discontinuing FEMA trailers, RVs, and rental assistance for victims. Coen expressed doubts about the practicality of such a move, noting that many states are not equipped to handle disaster housing programs.

Additionally, the document critiques the NFIP, which has over 4 million policyholders, for contributing to the government’s growing debt. Given the increasing risk of flooding due to climate change, Hamilton suggested that Trump may have the authority to stop issuing new policies and renewals under the NFIP, though more legal research is needed.

The memo concludes by offering four potential new names for FEMA, including the Office of Crisis Management (OCM), the Office of Crisis Response (OCR), the National Crisis Response Agency (NCRA), and the National Office of Emergency Management (NOEM), the last of which aligns with Secretary Noem’s name.

Executive Action and Legislative Hurdles

While the memo calls for significant changes, many of the proposals would require congressional approval, such as the overhaul of housing assistance and the reform or elimination of the NFIP. However, the document suggests that some adjustments, such as scaling back disaster aid, could be made through executive action.

In April, FEMA ended a program that funded community resilience projects designed to reduce future disaster damage, one of the initiatives flagged for elimination. Additionally, a FEMA Review Council, established by Trump via executive order, is set to release its recommendations for the agency in November. However, Hamilton recommended canceling this council due to the urgency of the proposed changes.

Both Noem and Trump have reiterated their intention to phase out FEMA following the 2023 hurricane season. “Under Secretary Noem’s leadership, the FEMA Review Council is developing a comprehensive plan for necessary change,” McLaughlin of DHS stated.

The ultimate impact of these changes could hinge on how the agency responds to an unforeseen major disaster in the coming months. As Coen put it, “If a significant earthquake or hurricane strikes, the conversation about FEMA could shift dramatically.”

Fabcon Precast LLC, a producer of precast concrete panels, admitted to willfully violating federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations. The violation resulted in the death of an employee, prompting a criminal case led by the U.S. Department of Justice.

As part of its sentence, Fabcon will also be placed on organizational probation for two years, during which time it must adhere to a comprehensive Safety Compliance Plan approved by federal authorities.

The Incident: Faulty Equipment and a Preventable Death

The fatal accident occurred on June 6, 2020, at Fabcon’s Grove City facility, where workers operate large-scale machinery, including a concrete mixer with a pneumatic discharge door. These mixers use pressurized air to open and close a heavy door at the bottom through which concrete is released.

Central to the system’s safe operation is an exhaust valve, which, when engaged, safely releases the built-up pneumatic energy, rendering the discharge door inoperable and safe for maintenance and cleaning.

However, the mixer’s exhaust valve had a broken handle, a defect known to Fabcon personnel and left unrepaired for an extended period prior to the incident. Despite this clear safety hazard, the company failed to fix or replace the broken component, which directly led to the tragedy.

Zachary Ledbetter, a batch operator responsible for operating and cleaning the mixer, became trapped when the pneumatic discharge door forcefully closed on his head while he was attempting to manually secure it. He sustained critical injuries and was transported to a hospital. Tragically, Ledbetter succumbed to his injuries and died five days later.

Legal Accountability: A Rare Criminal Case

Under federal law, specifically OSHA provisions, it is a Class B misdemeanor for an employer to willfully fail to comply with safety regulations if that failure results in the death of an employee. This classification represents one of the only criminal statutes applicable in cases involving workplace safety negligence.

In this case, Fabcon was charged and convicted of such a misdemeanor—an unusual outcome in a regulatory landscape where most workplace fatalities result in civil penalties rather than criminal prosecution.

The investigation into the incident was led by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Inspector General, which worked closely with federal prosecutors from the Department of Justice’s Environmental Crimes Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Ohio.

Adam Cullman, a Senior Trial Attorney with DOJ’s Environmental Crimes Section who also served as a Special Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio, prosecuted the case.

Company Sentencing and Safety Mandates

As part of the sentence handed down in federal court, Fabcon was ordered to:

• Pay a $500,000 criminal fine, the highest monetary penalty legally available for a Class B misdemeanor,

• Serve a two-year period of court-supervised probation, and

• Implement a Safety Compliance Plan, which includes regular internal audits, third-party inspections, and employee safety training initiatives designed to prevent similar tragedies in the future.

The compliance plan will be monitored by authorities to ensure ongoing adherence to federal workplace safety standards.

A Cautionary Tale for Industry

The case stands as a stark reminder of the serious consequences of failing to follow OSHA regulations and workplace safety standards. It also signals a growing willingness among federal prosecutors to pursue criminal charges when employers are found to have acted willfully negligent—especially when those actions lead to death or severe harm.

Workplace safety advocates argue that while civil penalties can offer some level of accountability, they are often insufficient in the face of preventable tragedies. Criminal enforcement, though rare, sends a clearer message about the moral and legal responsibility companies have to protect their workers.

The Council passed the bill overwhelmingly, with a 50-0 vote and one abstention. The legislation reduces the required amount of personal injury protection (PIP) coverage for the city’s 74,000 for-hire vehicle operators—including Uber, Lyft, traditional yellow cabs, and livery vehicles—from $200,000 per person to $100,000.

Previously, the mandated $200,000 in PIP coverage was four times higher than the $50,000 per-person minimum required elsewhere in New York State.

Now heading to Mayor Eric Adams for consideration, the legislation bars the city’s Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) from requiring more than double the statewide minimum for PIP coverage—effectively capping the city’s requirement at $100,000 per individual.

The effort was led by Council Member Carmen De La Rosa (D-Manhattan, District 10) and supported by Citizens for Affordable Insurance Rates (CAIR), a group backed by Uber.

“For years, New York City’s for-hire drivers have been burdened by an outdated and unfair insurance regulation that inflated their costs, restricted their coverage options, and created an environment ripe for fraud,” said De La Rosa. “Today, the Council delivered a meaningful solution.”

Advocates argue that the reduced coverage threshold will help lower costs by reducing fraudulent insurance claims—claims that contribute to rising premiums and, ultimately, higher fares. According to the New York State Department of Financial Services, suspected fraud related to no-fault insurance made up 75% of all fraud reports in 2023.

Originally, supporters had hoped to match the city’s requirement to the state’s $50,000 minimum, potentially saving drivers around $600 per year. With the new $100,000 requirement, the average annual savings are expected to be closer to $300.

Still, not everyone is convinced the changes will lead to real savings. During a City Council hearing in February, TLC Commissioner David Do expressed skepticism, stating that “any savings might be retained by insurers instead of passed on to drivers.”

Proponents of the bill also believe the adjustment could help bring more insurance companies into the city’s for-hire vehicle market. The timing is notable, as American Transit Insurance Co. (ATIC)—which insures over 60% of the local market—is facing financial instability and has cited fraud in the no-fault insurance system as a major issue.

Uber Spends Big on Insurance Reform Push

The Council’s move is part of a larger initiative spearheaded by Uber and CAIR to address New York’s insurance landscape. CAIR has called for legislative action at the state level to combat no-fault fraud and reduce excessive legal costs tied to insurance claims. As part of this campaign, Uber has spent six figures on advertising to rally public and political support for reform in Albany.

Unlike its competitor Meta Platforms Inc.—which just revealed a 20-year agreement to purchase electricity from a nuclear facility in Illinois—Stargate is turning to a power source that had largely fallen out of favor: small, single-cycle natural gas turbines.

That’s because the explosion in AI-related computing has sharply increased electricity demand, outpacing the construction of new power plants and the timelines required for grid connections.

To meet the urgent power needs of its Texas-based supercomputer hub, a joint venture involving OpenAI, Oracle, and SoftBank is assembling a cluster of smaller generators. Other major AI infrastructure efforts, such as Elon Musk’s xAI and the Carlyle–Schneider Electric joint venture Alphastruxure, are employing similar approaches.

This shift has unexpectedly brought single-cycle gas turbines—once sidelined for being inefficient and environmentally harmful—back into play. It also highlights a growing disconnect between the rapid rise of AI and the capacity of the U.S. energy system. Over the next few years, AI infrastructure is expected to scale massively, and companies that once committed to green energy are now racing to construct data centers the size of small cities. At the same time, the outdated U.S. power grid and slow nuclear buildouts mean that renewable and nuclear alternatives are often unavailable or insufficient.

“There’s a real urgency across the industry to find power quickly,” said Cully Cavness, COO and co-founder of Crusoe, which is developing the first Stargate facility. “We’ve had to get innovative with our energy strategies for data centers.”

Stargate and its peers say they’re also evaluating carbon-free sources like solar power, batteries, and nuclear energy to meet the enormous, continuous electricity requirements of AI operations. This week, Constellation Energy Corp., the nation’s largest nuclear operator, signed a deal to provide Meta with nuclear energy, and last year announced plans to restart the Three Mile Island plant to supply electricity to Microsoft.

However, many data centers—Stargate included—have limited access to nuclear energy, and concerns about the reliability of renewable sources have driven many developers to opt for gas-fired solutions that can run 24/7.

As a result, demand for more advanced, combined-cycle gas plants—which are larger and more efficient—has surged, creating production bottlenecks that can delay delivery by three to five years, with an extra year for installation and connection. To avoid those delays, developers are turning to smaller, faster-to-deploy single-cycle turbines, typically generating 100 to 200 megawatts.

Turbine manufacturers like Mitsubishi Power Americas and Siemens Energy AG report a spike in orders for compact units, often under 70 megawatts, with expected delivery dates in 2025 or 2026. GE Vernova is also experiencing heightened interest in simple-cycle turbines, which can later be upgraded to more efficient systems.

“It’s the biggest rush for gas turbines in the U.S. since the Enron era,” said Rich Voorberg, President of Siemens Energy North America. Even demand for the smallest turbines is picking up, with developers purchasing off-the-shelf jet engine turbines that generate as little as 5 megawatts.

“Many developers prefer to build incrementally—it gives them more flexibility,” said Shannon Miller, CEO of Mainspring, which makes micro-generators so small that it takes 100 of them to produce just 25 megawatts.

Once Stargate and similar projects are eventually connected to the regional power grid, the smaller turbines will likely be repurposed for backup use and grid-stabilization services, Cavness noted.

However, the growing dependence on gas-fired generation raises significant environmental concerns. Big tech companies made bold climate commitments years ago under pressure from staff and the public, but now Amazon, Google, and Microsoft admit that the rush to develop AI and new data centers could complicate their sustainability goals.

Single-cycle turbines release an average of 1,389 pounds of carbon per megawatt-hour, compared to 839 pounds for more efficient combined-cycle units, according to BloombergNEF. Furthermore, many tech companies try to offset emissions by purchasing clean energy in some areas, while situating high-power-consuming data centers in regions dominated by fossil fuel-based electricity.

This imbalance means that the growing demand for AI infrastructure is still heavily reliant on natural gas and coal, potentially slowing the overall decline in U.S. carbon emissions, BloombergNEF researchers warn.

For the moment, the priority remains simply obtaining enough power—megawatts now, gigawatts later.

“The world’s not going to wait,” said Sebastian Bonneau, a partner at McDermott Will & Emery who leads the firm’s data center practice. “You’ve got to lock in your energy supply.”

The dispute involves the J. Kim Hatcher Insurance Agency, which was sued after a policyholder was denied coverage following Hurricane Florence. The case, which dates back nearly ten years, remains active and could continue for several more.

At the center of the legal issue is whether Daniel Jones, the homeowner, was partially at fault for signing a blank insurance application and relying on the agent to complete it properly. According to Justice Anita Earls, who wrote the opinion, state precedent going back a century does not allow for automatic dismissal of such a claim. The ruling partly affirms a 2023 decision from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, which had reversed a trial court’s 2021 dismissal of the suit.

“The core question is whether signing an incomplete insurance form and trusting the agent to fill it in correctly constitutes contributory negligence, regardless of circumstances,” wrote Justice Earls.

The court held that this question should be determined by a jury and not dismissed by a judge early in the proceedings. The Hatcher agency, which operates in Beulaville and Kenansville, argued that Jones contributed to the situation by not reviewing the application. But the justices found that defense isn’t absolute.

“Whether someone acted reasonably in trusting their agent instead of double-checking the application depends on the specific facts,” the ruling stated. “The nature of the interaction between the policyholder and the agent—before and after the policy was issued—must be considered to determine if it was reasonable for the insured to rely on the agent.”

The events began in 2016, when Jones allowed the Hatcher agency to quote him a homeowners policy for his property in Pender County, near North Carolina’s coast. The producer working with Jones was not named in the lawsuit, though Kyle Hatcher is listed as the agency’s owner.

Initially, the agency arranged a policy with Nationwide. A year later, Jones switched to North Carolina Farm Bureau, but was convinced to return through a GeoVera Specialty policy, which the agency said offered similar coverage at a lower premium. According to the complaint, Jones was instructed to sign a blank application, pay the first premium, and let the agency handle the rest.

The agency reportedly inspected the property and took photos. A year later, Jones renewed the GeoVera policy. The court documents don’t specify why the agent may have failed to include certain property features.

In September 2018, Hurricane Florence hit the region, causing major damage to Jones’ home, including torn-off roof shingles and interior destruction. The family had to relocate temporarily.

Although GeoVera initially indicated the damage would be covered, the insurer later denied the claim. The denial was based on the policy application not disclosing a large pond in front of the house or that the property spanned nearly eight acres and included farmland—details the carrier considered significant misrepresentations.

Jones responded by suing the Hatcher agency, GeoVera, and a surplus lines broker, citing negligence, gross negligence, and seeking punitive damages. A New Hanover County trial judge sided with the agency and dismissed the case, agreeing that Jones had been negligent by signing a blank form.

The Court of Appeals overturned that decision, and both parties appealed to the Supreme Court. The high court agreed with Jones, stating that proving contributory negligence requires evidence that the injured party failed to use reasonable care and that this failure directly led to the harm.

While the court acknowledged that people generally have a duty to read documents before signing, it clarified that Jones’ case was based on negligence, not a breach of contract. Given the homeowner’s past reliance on the agent and the agency’s assurances, it was not unreasonable for Jones to trust the agent to complete the form properly.

“Jones’ allegations of prior dealings and specific assurances from the agency are sufficient to argue that he was reasonably led to trust the agent, and thus may not be contributorily negligent,” the court stated.

Homeowners should be able to expect that an agent, who earns a commission for their service, will handle their responsibilities with care.

“Asking customers to always double-check their agent’s work—regardless of context—is inconsistent with common expectations in society,” the ruling added.

Since there’s no clear evidence that Jones was at fault for the denial, the matter must now be evaluated by a jury.

However, the Supreme Court did disagree with the Court of Appeals on one point. The appeals court had ruled that Jones couldn’t seek punitive damages because he hadn’t identified specific individuals in the agency. But the Supreme Court disagreed, noting that an agent had signed the application on behalf of the agency and had authority to represent the business.

Additionally, the court found that Jones had presented enough facts to support his claims of willful or reckless conduct, meaning his gross negligence claim could also proceed.

Justice Trey Allen wrote a partial dissent. The case will now return to the lower court for further proceedings or possible settlement discussions.

An Arizona-based auto mechanic has been sentenced to nearly three years in federal prison and ordered to pay over $1.37 million in restitution after orchestrating a years-long fraud scheme that victimized numerous individuals, including a Missouri resident. The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Missouri announced the sentencing last week, detailing the extent of the mechanic’s deceptive conduct and financial exploitation.

Andres “Manny” Lopez, 37, operated under the business name All Performance Tuning and Diesel Repair LLC, and beginning in November 2019, he systematically defrauded clients by accepting large payments for vehicles, performance upgrades, and auto parts—services he either never intended to fulfill or never delivered. According to court documents and statements from federal prosecutors, Lopez not only failed to provide the goods and services promised but in some cases actively damaged client vehicles or loaned them out to others without their owners’ knowledge or approval.

Among the victims was a Missouri man who had intended to purchase a Toyota RAV4 as a gift for his mother. He wired $45,000 to Lopez based on assurances that the vehicle had been acquired and was ready for delivery. Lopez then strung the customer along with a series of fabricated excuses, blaming delays on alleged product recalls and other issues. In a particularly egregious deception, Lopez even impersonated a Florida Toyota dealership’s general manager, using text messages to communicate false information directly to the victim’s mother.

Despite being indicted in October 2023 for wire fraud, Lopez continued his pattern of criminal behavior. Prosecutors revealed that while out on bond, Lopez defrauded yet another individual, extracting approximately $567,892 through similar false representations and promises that ultimately went unfulfilled.

Investigators believe that the money Lopez collected from his victims was not used for business expenses but rather to fund his personal lifestyle, highlighting the calculated and self-serving nature of the scheme.

In February 2025, Lopez formally pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud in U.S. District Court in St. Louis. His guilty plea acknowledged the systematic manipulation he employed to deceive his customers over several years.

One victim submitted a heartfelt letter to the court, describing Lopez’s long-running manipulation tactics:

“Promise… then a reason why I cannot meet that promise… then a new promise… then repeat the string (for years).”

U.S. District Judge sentenced Lopez to 33 months in federal prison and ordered him to pay a total of $1.37 million in restitution to his victims.

FBI Special Agent in Charge Chris Crocker, who oversaw the investigation from the St. Louis Division, emphasized the seriousness of the defendant’s conduct:

“For years, Andres Lopez lied to customers to line his own pockets. The lies and manipulation continued even after he had been charged for the crime and released on bond. Today, Lopez earned every day of his prison sentence for victimizing people with his fraudulent business practices.”

The investigation into Lopez’s activities was conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Derek Wiseman.

This case serves as a stark reminder of how even trusted service providers can exploit customers through elaborate deception, and how federal authorities are prepared to pursue justice for victims of financial fraud, regardless of how long the scheme persists.

In a filing made on May 28 in the U.S. District Court for Connecticut, Liberty Mutual notified the court that the parties had reached an agreement and anticipated finalizing the settlement within 60 days. Liberty Mutual also stated its intention to withdraw the suit against Travelers once the settlement is finalized.

The lawsuit originated from Liberty Mutual’s attempt to compel Travelers and its affiliated companies to provide defense and indemnification for Suffolk Construction Co., Inc., which was being sued by Oscar Marin, an NYU Hospital facilities engineer who was seriously injured during a project on city-owned property in New York used by the hospital.

Suffolk had been hired by the City of New York to complete renovation work on the site and had subcontracted plumbing work to Maccarone Plumbing, Inc. According to court filings, on March 12, 2020, two Maccarone employees asked Marin to open a door to an unused elevator shaft to assess whether piping could be run through that space. The door was located in the building’s subbasement. Marin claims that when he opened the door, he fell into the shaft and sustained significant injuries.

Marin filed a personal injury lawsuit on February 24, 2021, naming both Suffolk and Maccarone as defendants.

After receiving the lawsuit, Suffolk turned to its insurer, Liberty Mutual, for legal defense and indemnification. Liberty Mutual, which provided Suffolk with commercial general liability coverage, agreed to take on those responsibilities. As of February 27, 2025 — the date Liberty Mutual filed its lawsuit against Travelers — it had spent over $75,000 on Suffolk’s legal defense related to Marin’s claim.

Liberty Mutual argued, however, that Travelers was the insurer that should be covering Suffolk’s defense and potential liabilities. In its court filings, Liberty Mutual cited the subcontract agreement between Suffolk and Maccarone, which contained a clause requiring Maccarone to “defend, indemnify, and save harmless” Suffolk from claims arising out of the subcontracted work, except in cases of Suffolk’s sole negligence.

According to Liberty Mutual, Maccarone provided proof of insurance coverage in accordance with the contract, listing a Travelers Property Casualty Co. policy and an umbrella policy from Travelers Indemnity Insurance Co. Both policies allegedly named Suffolk as an additional insured.

On February 22, 2022, Liberty Mutual formally requested that Travelers assume the defense and indemnity of Suffolk in the Marin matter, citing Suffolk’s status as both an additional insured and a contractual indemnitee. However, Travelers responded on April 13, 2022, rejecting the request and denying any coverage obligations.

Liberty Mutual sent follow-up letters on September 27 and October 22, 2024, urging Travelers to reconsider its position. Travelers did not respond to the requests, nor did it take over Suffolk’s defense or reimburse Liberty Mutual for any legal expenses.

Liberty Mutual then filed suit seeking a court ruling affirming that Suffolk qualifies as an additional insured under Travelers’ policies and is entitled to defense and indemnity coverage up to the policy limits. Liberty Mutual also requested reimbursement for the costs it had already incurred in defending Suffolk.

With the recent notice of settlement, the long-running insurance dispute appears to be nearing its conclusion.

The insurance industry may soon face a significant data shortfall following the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) decision to discontinue updates to its widely used Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters database. This move, announced in late May, could have far-reaching consequences for how insurers assess, price, and manage risk — especially in light of rising secondary perils.

NOAA has confirmed that it will retire the database — a public resource that cataloged climate and weather events in the United States causing at least $1 billion in damages — after finalizing the 2024 data set. While the historical data from 1980 to 2024 will be archived and remain accessible, the absence of ongoing updates leaves a critical information gap in a time of escalating climate volatility.

A Blow to Industry Analytics and Risk Forecasting

Rating agency AM Best has expressed concern that the discontinuation could disrupt insurers’ ability to monitor and respond to emerging weather-related risks. In a statement, Sridhar Manyem, AM Best’s Senior Director of Industry Research and Analytics, emphasized the importance of consistent and authoritative data sources.

“Having a common and agreed-upon data source would help insurers trend these losses in their modeling and use the data for pricing, reinsurance and risk management,” Manyem said. “It also allows the industry to assess the gap between insured losses and economic losses and work toward minimizing that gap.”

The NOAA database has long been regarded as a benchmark for evaluating the financial toll of extreme weather events. Its retirement means insurers could lose a vital tool in tracking the frequency, intensity, and financial impact of secondary perils such as wildfires, flash floods, and severe convective storms — perils that have grown increasingly costly and common, particularly in North America.

The Rise of Secondary Perils: A New Norm in Catastrophic Loss

Secondary perils are smaller-scale events compared to primary catastrophes like major hurricanes or earthquakes, but they are collectively responsible for a growing share of insured losses. In 2023 alone, NOAA recorded 27 separate billion-dollar weather events — a stark indicator of climate trends that continue to challenge the industry’s capacity to manage cumulative risk.

Without NOAA’s consistent tracking of these events, insurers may struggle to detect emerging patterns or recalibrate their models in real time. This could lead to pricing inefficiencies, insufficient reinsurance strategies, and gaps in coverage availability in high-risk areas.

Parametric Insurance and CAT Bonds Could Be Affected

Manyem also noted that NOAA’s decision could have unintended implications for innovative insurance products like catastrophe bonds and parametric insurance, which rely on specific environmental data triggers.

“If more databases disappear, parametric triggers within catastrophe bonds, which depend on measurement by NOAA, may need to be redesigned,” he warned.

Parametric insurance products are designed to pay out automatically when certain criteria — such as wind speed, rainfall amount, or temperature threshold — are met. These criteria are often based on data from government agencies like NOAA. The loss of reliable, standardized data may force insurers and reinsurers to rework these triggers or seek alternative data providers.

Can the Private Sector Fill the Void?

While other nations have government-run agencies tasked with climate risk tracking, the U.S. has long relied on publicly funded and scientifically credible sources like NOAA. With this shift, private companies may attempt to step into the gap, offering proprietary climate risk data and forecasting services.

However, AM Best cautions that building trust in these private data sources could take years — if not decades. “Private companies may have to step in to fill the void, but it could take time to build credibility and trust among market participants,” Manyem added.

A Call for Industry Collaboration

The unexpected loss of the NOAA disaster database has sparked conversations across the insurance and climate science communities. Industry stakeholders are now weighing the potential need for collaborative solutions — possibly through public-private partnerships or third-party data standards — to ensure the continuity of robust, reliable climate loss records.

As secondary perils continue to reshape the landscape of catastrophic risk, the retirement of this key NOAA resource may become a pivotal moment that tests the resilience and adaptability of insurers around the world.

Insurance is a contract, represented by a policy, in which a policyholder receives financial protection or reimbursement against losses from an insurance company. The company pools clients’ risks to make payments more affordable for the insured. Most people have some insurance: for their car, their house, their healthcare, or their life. Insurance policies hedge against financial losses resulting from accidents, injury, or property damage. Insurance also helps cover costs associated with liability (legal responsibility) for damage or injury caused to a third party

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Insurance is a contract (policy) in which an insurer indemnifies another against losses from specific contingencies or perils.
• There are many types of insurance policies. Life, health, homeowners, and auto are among the most common forms of insurance.
• The core components that make up most insurance policies are the premium, deductible, and policy limits.

How Insurance Works

Many insurance policy types are available, and virtually any individual or business can find an insurance company willing to insure them—for a price. Common personal insurance policy types are auto, health, homeowners, and life insurance. Most individuals in the United States have at least one of these types of insurance, and car insurance is required by state law.

Businesses obtain insurance policies for field-specific risks, For example, a fast-food restaurant’s policy may cover an employee’s injuries from cooking with a deep fryer. Medical malpractice insurance covers injury- or death-related liability claims resulting from the health care provider’s negligence or malpractice. Businesses may be required by state law to buy specific insurance coverages.

There are also insurance policies available for very specific needs, such as kidnap, ransom and extortion insurance (K&R), identity theft insurance, and wedding liability and cancellation insurance.

Insurance Policy Components

Understanding how insurance works can help you choose a policy. For instance, comprehensive coverage may or may not be the right type of auto insurance for you. Three components of any insurance type are the premium, policy limit, and deductible.

Premium

A policy’s premium is its price, typically a monthly cost. Often, an insurer takes multiple factors into account to set a premium. Here are a few examples

• Auto insurance premiums: Your history of property and auto claims, age and location, creditworthiness, and many other factors that may vary by state.
• Home insurance premiums: The value of your home, personal belongings, location, claims history, and coverage amounts.
• Health insurance premiums: Age, sex, location, health status, and coverage levels.
• Life insurance premiums: Age, sex, tobacco use, health, and amount of coverage.

Much depends on the insurer’s perception of your risk for a claim. For example, suppose you own several expensive automobiles and have a history of reckless driving. In that case, you will likely pay more for an auto policy than someone with a single midrange sedan and a perfect driving record. However, different insurers may charge different premiums for similar policies. So finding the price that is right for you requires some legwork.

Policy Limit

The policy limit is the maximum amount an insurer will pay for a covered loss under a policy. Maximums may be set per period (e.g., annual or policy term), per loss or injury, or over the life of the policy, also known as the lifetime maximum.

Typically, higher limits carry higher premiums. For a general life insurance policy, the maximum amount that the insurer will pay is referred to as the face value. This is the amount paid to your beneficiary upon your death.

The federal Affordable Care Act (ACA) prevents ACA-compliant plans from instituting a lifetime limit for essential healthcare benefits such as family planning, maternity services, and pediatric care.4

Deductible

The deductible is a specific amount you pay out of pocket before the insurer pays a claim. Deductibles serve as deterrents to large volumes of small and insignificant claims.

For example, a $1,000 deductible means you pay the first $1,000 toward any claims. Suppose your car’s damage totals $2,000. You pay the first $1,000, and your insurer pays the remaining $1,000.

Deductibles can apply per policy or claim, depending on the insurer and the type of policy. Health plans may have an individual deductible and a family deductible. Policies with high deductibles are typically less expensive because the high out-of-pocket expense generally results in fewer small claims.