Lawmakers had passed a short-term extension earlier this year, but no long-term solution was reached before the September 30 deadline. With no reauthorization in place, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) — which oversees the NFIP — can no longer issue new flood insurance policies or renew existing ones. However, FEMA says it will continue paying claims on active policies using current available funds.

Closings Delayed, Transactions Stalled

The expiration of the NFIP is already creating waves in the real estate sector. According to the National Association of Realtors (NAR), roughly 1,300 home sales per day — or around 40,000 per month — are at risk of delay, especially in flood-prone areas where insurance is mandatory for mortgage approval.

NAR is calling for not just an extension, but a full overhaul of the program. In a recent letter to Congress, the group recommended comprehensive reforms including updated flood mapping, stronger mitigation investments, and revised pricing models. Based on its research, NAR says NFIP plays a vital role in facilitating approximately 500,000 property transactions annually.

Warnings Ahead of Deadline Went Unheeded

Despite repeated appeals from state officials and insurance industry leaders, Congress allowed the program to expire. New York Assemblywoman Pamela Hunter, who serves as president of the National Conference of Insurance Legislators (NCOIL), warned in the final days before the deadline that failing to extend the NFIP would be a dangerous misstep.

“We are in the thick of hurricane season,” Hunter said. “Letting this program lapse, even temporarily, puts families, businesses, and entire communities at risk. A long-term fix is essential, but in the meantime, Congress needed to act.”

Jimi Grande, senior vice president of federal affairs for the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies (NAMIC), echoed those concerns before the expiration date. “Homeowners need this protection now more than ever. Congress cannot afford to wait,” he said.

After the deadline passed, NAMIC President and CEO Neil Alldredge warned that the consequences of inaction will escalate daily. “With two months left in hurricane season, each day this program remains inactive puts more Americans at risk of catastrophic losses,” he said.

Alldredge also criticized systemic failures, including outdated flood maps and flawed subsidy structures that have led to risky development in vulnerable zones. “Many Americans did the right thing by buying flood insurance. They shouldn’t be left unprotected because Congress failed to act.”

Insurance Industry Sounds the Alarm

Other voices from the insurance industry joined the call for swift congressional action. Sam Whitfield, senior vice president of federal government relations at the American Property Casualty Insurance Association (APCIA), emphasized that the program lapse is also disrupting mortgage closings.

“Without flood coverage, many buyers can’t close on their homes. This isn’t just an insurance issue — it’s a housing crisis in the making,” Whitfield said.

Lizzy Price, spokesperson for the Insurance Fairness Project, tied the situation to broader climate-related pressures. “The NFIP lapse only adds to the growing insurance instability we’re seeing across the country. As extreme weather becomes more frequent, access to affordable flood insurance is more important than ever,” she said.

Decade of Delays and Short-Term Fixes

The NFIP has faced repeated short-term reauthorizations — more than 30 since 2017 — without comprehensive reform. The latest extension was passed in March 2025, just after FEMA borrowed $2 billion from the U.S. Treasury to help pay for a surge in claims following Hurricanes Milton and Helene in 2024.

FEMA later said the volume of claims had nearly exhausted NFIP’s reserves. According to the Congressional Research Service, the program had just $615 million in available funds as of January 25.

According to the latest Mortgage Monitor from Intercontinental Exchange Inc., the average annual insurance cost for a mortgaged single-family home in the U.S. climbed to nearly $2,370 in the first half of 2025. That’s a 4.9% increase since the beginning of the year — the steepest jump on record.

Disaster Zones See Steepest Premium Hikes

While insurance costs are rising nationwide, the most dramatic increases have been concentrated in areas hit hardest by recent natural disasters.

In California, which experienced widespread wildfires in January, insurance costs have surged. In Los Angeles, where firestorms destroyed entire neighborhoods, premiums climbed 9% during the first six months of the year — a 20% increase compared to mid-2024.

North Carolina and South Carolina also experienced sharp premium spikes, driven by the lingering aftermath of Hurricane Helene, which caused destructive flooding across both states in late 2024.

Climate Change Drives Industry Instability

The growing cost of property insurance reflects deeper instability in the housing and insurance markets. As climate change increases the frequency and intensity of extreme weather, insurers are being forced to rethink how — and where — they do business.

Many are raising premiums to cover mounting losses. Others are scaling back coverage, refusing to renew policies, or withdrawing from high-risk areas altogether. For homeowners in vulnerable regions, the result is a shrinking pool of insurers and a dramatic rise in premiums — if coverage is available at all.

California Still Has Relatively Low Premiums — For Now

Despite its wildfire exposure, California still maintains some of the lowest average home insurance premiums in the country. This is largely due to state regulations that limit how much insurance companies can increase rates.

However, analysts warn that this situation may not be sustainable. As wildfire seasons grow longer and more destructive, insurers are lobbying for changes to rate-setting policies. Some have already begun to reduce their presence in the state, signaling that costs may rise even more in the years ahead.

Southern States Pay the Most for Insurance

In contrast, states across the South and Midwest — particularly those prone to hurricanes, storms, and hail — bear the highest property insurance costs in the nation.

In Florida, a series of legislative reforms has attempted to stabilize the troubled insurance market and attract private insurers back into the state. For years, Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, the state-run provider, served as the last resort for many homeowners unable to find affordable coverage elsewhere.

Those reforms are starting to have an impact. In Miami, where insurance is more expensive than anywhere else in the country, the percentage of mortgage-holding homeowners with Citizens coverage has dropped from 46% to 27% over the past 18 months. Although this shift signals a return of private carriers, it also means higher premiums for many policyholders.

The Path Forward: Higher Costs, Fewer Options

As the climate crisis deepens, experts expect that home insurance will continue to grow less affordable and harder to access, especially in high-risk regions.

The insurance industry is adapting by raising rates and tightening coverage criteria, but that leaves homeowners facing difficult decisions — pay more, accept reduced coverage, or go without insurance altogether.

Without meaningful investments in climate resilience, infrastructure, and disaster mitigation, the gap between risk and affordability is likely to widen. For millions of Americans, rising insurance costs are no longer just a financial inconvenience — they are becoming a barrier to homeownership and long-term housing stability.

The financial terms of the transactions were not disclosed.

Headquartered in Ann Arbor, Michigan, Terralink provides property and casualty, employee benefits, and high-net-worth personal insurance solutions. The company’s growth model focuses on combining the local expertise of independent agencies with the scale, technology, and support of a national platform.

“These agencies are among the most trusted in their communities,” said Ethan Rowe, CEO of Terralink Insurance. “Each brings unique strengths to our organization, and more importantly, they share our core values—integrity, ownership, leadership, and service.”

A Strategic Addition of Talent and Expertise

With these acquisitions, Terralink gains strong footholds in key markets across the Upper Midwest and the South. The agencies will now operate under the Terralink brand, while retaining their existing teams and client relationships.

To promote shared growth, all employees from the acquired firms will join Terralink’s Employee Purpose Plan—an equity incentive program designed to give every team member an ownership stake in the company’s long-term success.

“We believe every employee should benefit from the value we create together,” Rowe said. “The Employee Purpose Plan reflects that commitment.”

The Eight Acquired Agencies

Michigan

• Warrendale Insurance Agency (Livonia)
  Led by Barb Kunina, Warrendale delivers multiline P&C coverage, including solutions for specialized industries and niche markets.

• U.P. Insurance Agency (Iron Mountain)
  Under the leadership of Todd Lysinger, U.P. Insurance provides commercial and health insurance to businesses across the Upper Midwest.

• Entrust Insurance and Financial Services (St. Clair Shores)
  Run by Dan LaLiberte, Entrust is known for its high-touch personal lines service, particularly for high-net-worth individuals.

• Canopy Insurance Group (Birmingham)
  Co-led by Janell Evans-Olsey and Joseph Simon, Canopy focuses on large national commercial accounts with complex coverage needs.

Texas

• Infiniti Insurance Services (Spring)
  Led by Hazel Moreno, Infiniti specializes in large commercial accounts and has earned a strong reputation across Texas.

• King Phillips Insurance (Houston)
  Headed by Troy White, King Phillips provides full-service insurance programs to middle-market commercial clients.

Louisiana

• Beasley Keith Insurance (Bossier City)
  A middle-market commercial agency led by Gail Rinchuso, Beasley Keith serves clients throughout Louisiana and the Houston region.

• Safe Harbor Insurance (Bossier City)
  Directed by Ashlin Strother, Safe Harbor focuses on high-net-worth personal lines, offering tailored risk solutions and concierge-level service.

Technology-Driven Growth with Lead Nexus

The newly acquired agencies will benefit from access to Terralink’s Lead Nexus platform—a proprietary, AI-powered growth engine that supports smarter prospecting, predictive analytics, and seamless onboarding for clients.

“Lead Nexus allows our teams to work smarter, not harder,” said Rowe. “It enhances everything from client acquisition to service delivery, all while keeping relationships at the center of the experience.”

By integrating Lead Nexus, each agency gains immediate access to centralized tools that help scale operations, deepen client insights, and unlock new revenue opportunities.

A Stronger, National Platform—Backed by Local Strength

These eight acquisitions advance Terralink’s mission to build a national platform rooted in local expertise. By bringing together successful independent agencies and giving them the tools to grow, Terralink aims to offer a differentiated experience to clients, carriers, and employees alike.

“Our approach is simple,” Rowe explained. “Find great people doing great work, give them the technology and support to grow, and make sure they share in the success.”

With stronger coverage across Michigan, Texas, and Louisiana—and enhanced offerings in both commercial and personal lines—Terralink is well positioned for continued expansion.

About Terralink Insurance Services

Terralink Insurance Services is a national insurance brokerage based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, offering comprehensive solutions in property & casualty, employee benefits, and personal lines. Terralink partners with top-performing agencies across the U.S. and empowers them with advanced technology, shared ownership opportunities, and centralized support—creating a modern insurance experience built on trust, service, and innovation.

This figure represents a more than twofold increase from the first quarter of 2025, signaling a sharp rise in manufacturer-initiated safety campaigns across the automotive industry.

Ford Leads Recall Totals with Over 3.3 Million Vehicles Affected

At the forefront of this quarter’s recalls is Ford Motor Company, which was responsible for more than 3.3 million vehicle recalls across 49 separate campaigns—accounting for nearly half of all affected vehicles during the quarter.

Following Ford, General Motors and Honda were the next most impacted automakers, rounding out the top three in terms of volume.

The increase in recalls comes at a crucial time, as many families across the country are preparing for summer road trips and extended travel.

“This spike in recalls comes just as families are preparing for summer travel,” said Ryan Maher, CEO of BizzyCar. “Most of these issues involve serious safety risks, so it’s critical that drivers schedule repairs without delay.”

Nearly 95% of Recalls Involve Potential Crash or Injury Hazards

A notable—and concerning—statistic from the report is that 94.6% of all recalled vehicles this quarter had issues that could increase the risk of a crash or cause injury if left unaddressed.

These high-risk defects range from advanced driver assistance system malfunctions to mechanical component failures that could compromise steering, braking, or engine performance.

Back-Over Prevention Systems Top the List of Safety Concerns

The most significant contributor to this quarter’s recalls was malfunctions in back-over prevention systems, which affected an estimated 2.59 million vehicles. These systems, which typically include rearview cameras, sensors, and other technologies to detect obstacles while reversing, have become standard in modern vehicles—but defects in these components can pose a serious hazard, particularly to children and pedestrians.

Other major categories of concern included:

• Engine and engine cooling system defects (1.14 million vehicles)

• Hydraulic service brake issues (775,000 vehicles)

These categories underscore the ongoing importance of maintaining critical vehicle systems that are essential for safe operation.

“Do Not Drive” and “Park Outside” Advisories Issued

The severity of this quarter’s recalls is also reflected in the issuance of three “Do Not Drive” advisories and three “Park Outside” alerts, which are generally reserved for vehicles at immediate risk of fire, brake failure, or other critical safety issues.

Such advisories emphasize the urgency for affected vehicle owners to take action quickly to prevent potential harm.

Over-the-Air Repairs Gaining Ground, but Still Limited

While vehicle technology has evolved to allow for remote software updates, only about 14.7% of all recalls since early 2022 have been resolved using Over-the-Air (OTA) updates, BizzyCar reports.

This quarter, more than one million vehicles were eligible for OTA repairs—a notable milestone that showcases progress in digital service capabilities. However, most recall repairs still require physical servicing at a dealership, especially when it comes to hardware-related issues.

“OTA updates offer convenience, but they also eliminate critical dealership touchpoints,” said Maher. “Many safety fixes still depend on trained technicians and certified parts. Dealerships remain the front line of recall completion.”

Why Timely Recall Completion Still Matters

Though the rise of digital vehicle management tools like OTA updates can streamline some safety fixes, most recall issues—especially those involving brakes, steering, seat belts, airbags, or mechanical systems—still require trained technicians to inspect, replace, or repair physical parts.

Industry experts warn that delaying recall service can put drivers and passengers at serious risk, even if the defect may seem minor.

Automakers typically provide recall repairs free of charge, and manufacturers or dealers are legally obligated to notify owners of safety-related recalls. However, recall completion rates continue to lag, particularly when vehicle owners delay or ignore repair notices.

Final Thoughts: An Urgent Reminder for Vehicle Owners

With millions of cars on the road now subject to recalls—many involving crash or injury risks—drivers are urged to check whether their vehicle is affected and to schedule repair appointments as soon as possible.

As automotive technology grows more complex and interconnected, the need for consistent safety oversight, timely manufacturer responses, and proactive consumer action is greater than ever.

BizzyCar’s report serves as a powerful reminder of how important recall awareness, access to service, and cross-industry collaboration are for ensuring safer roads for everyone.

“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.