logo
After study on insurer profits, Florida regulators didn't follow up, author says

After study on insurer profits, Florida regulators didn't follow up, author says

Miami Herald03-04-2025

Last month, Florida's current and former insurance regulators said the state never finished a 2022 study showing insurers losing millions of dollars while their affiliates were making billions.
On Thursday, the author of that study said she believed it was completed and that regulators never told her it wasn't.
'In our mind, we had our final draft,' said Jan Moenck, an analyst with the Connecticut-based company hired by regulators to produce the report.
To some lawmakers, the testimony appeared to contradict testimony by Office of Insurance Regulation Commissioner Mike Yaworsky and past Commissioner David Altmaier.
'What is being revealed basically said they lied to us,' said Rep. Dianne Hart, D-Tampa.
Yaworsky strongly denied that he misled lawmakers.
'The idea that I lied somehow around that is just flatly false,' he said after the hearing.
Last month, House Speaker Daniel Perez, R-Miami, ordered hearings by a House committee after the Herald/Times revealed that the state had commissioned a study examining insurers' use of affiliate companies.
Florida-based insurance companies have long used affiliate companies, which charge the insurance company for services, such as handling claims or writing policies, sometimes at inflated prices.
The state's study, capturing data between 2017 and 2019, was the deepest dive into the business practice. Moenck found that Florida-based insurers had a net loss of $432 million, while their affiliates had a net income of $1.8 billion.
The industry overall spent $680 million on dividends to shareholders during the period.
The report was produced in April 2022, at the height of the insurance crisis, but never given to lawmakers. Instead, lawmakers focused on making it harder to sue insurance companies.
Altmaier, who commissioned the report, told lawmakers last month that the initial report 'certainly raised some red flags,' and his office intended to follow up.
Yaworsky said he didn't learn of the report until October 2024, when the Herald/Times' lawyers demanded his office turn it over. The newspapers first requested it in 2022, before Altmaier left the office.
Yaworsky said the report was incomplete because 23% of insurance companies never responded to the office's request for data and because it didn't provide the level of detail of insurers' finances that the state needed.
Moenck agreed that it is up to the client to decide when a report is finished. She said more information on finances would be helpful but difficult to obtain.
'I don't know that a person would ever be able to capture that unless you had a forensic accountant looking at each company on an individual basis,' Moenck said.
After turning over her report in 2022, she said she asked whether regulators wanted a verbal presentation about her findings or had any other questions.
'We did not receive any requests for additional work or follow-up on the reports,' Moenck said.
Committee chairperson Brad Yeager, R-New Port Richey, said the fact that regulators didn't follow up was 'telling.'
At least one more hearing, to find forensic accountants who can investigate further, will be scheduled, Yeager said.
'We've asked questions and we've gotten good answers, but I think those good answers have provided more questions and some concern,' he said.
Earlier Thursday, his committee advanced a bill that would require insurance companies to turn over more details about their relationships with affiliate companies.
'The report, I think, made everybody step back,' said the bill sponsor, Rep. Griff Griffitts, R-Panama City Beach, referring to the 2022 report brought to light by the Herald/Times.
Yaworsky said he welcomed getting more details about insurance companies' practices. He has asked for more oversight of insurers' affiliate companies.
'For years now, we have called for more scrutiny in this space,' Yaworsky said. 'We've gotten some, but at other times, the Legislature has said 'No thank you.''

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Justice Department calls Newsom National Guard lawsuit a ‘crass political stunt'
Justice Department calls Newsom National Guard lawsuit a ‘crass political stunt'

Yahoo

time19 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Justice Department calls Newsom National Guard lawsuit a ‘crass political stunt'

The Trump administration is urging a federal judge to reject California Gov. Gavin Newsom's bid to block the military from supporting immigration enforcement activities in Los Angeles, calling the lawsuit a 'crass political stunt' and warning that the restraining order Newsom wants would endanger federal personnel. 'That would be unprecedented. It would be constitutionally anathema. And it would be dangerous,' Justice Department lawyers said in a response delivered to San Francisco-based U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer Wednesday. In a pointed, 32-page filing replete with political overtones, the administration contended that Trump's decision to deploy the military to help suppress unrest — stemming from ICE raids and arrests taking place across Los Angeles — is entirely within his authority as commander-in-chief, and unreviewable by the court. Breyer, a Clinton appointee, is set to hold a hearing Thursday afternoon on Newsom's request. The governor initially asked the court to block the deployment within two hours, but the judge agreed to a Justice Department request for 24 hours to respond. Trump has authorized the Pentagon to call up nearly 4,000 members of California's National Guard contingent on a mission to protect Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities and personnel. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has also deployed 700 Marines to Los Angeles. Though federal law generally bars the use of the military to enforce domestic laws, Trump invoked a provision that permits him to call up National Guard troops to protect federal property and personnel when there is a 'rebellion' or 'danger of rebellion.' The Justice Department described the chaotic situation on the ground over the weekend as 'mobs resisting federal authority in a manner that rises to the level of rebellion,' although city and state officials have emphasized that the unrest has impacted only a few relatively small parts of the sprawling metropolis. DOJ lawyers also urged Breyer not to second-guess the president's assessment that military support was needed. Newsom's claim that the law required Trump to consult him before issuing such an order is both wrong and dangerous, DOJ lawyers argued, because it would give state officials an effective veto of the president's military judgment. DOJ attorneys also dismissed as speculative the state's concern that the National Guard or military forces would take part in law enforcement. Images taken on the streets of Los Angeles Tuesday showed Guard forces standing watch as immigration enforcement officers detained and searched potential deportees. The administration argued that those troops were there to protect ICE officials, a distinct mission from carrying out immigration arrests. Justice Department lawyers salted their brief with a series of thinly-veiled political shots at Newsom, speculating that California officials might be 'unwilling' to put a stop to the violence. Two days after Trump suggested Newsom's arrest, the brief also suggests perhaps the governor had broken the law by failing to pass on Trump's order to state Guard officials, although those troops have responded to the president's directive. 'Even if Plaintiffs' interpretation of the statute were correct, the only party acting unlawfully would be Governor Newsom — not President Trump or Secretary Hegseth,' the attorneys wrote. And the Justice Department also quoted Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.), who recently criticized fellow Democrats over their posture toward the unrest. The DOJ brief also draws an analogy sure to grate on Newsom: comparing him to Arkansas Gov. Orval Faubus, who sought to use that state's National Guard to resist court-ordered school desegregation in the 1950s. The federal statute Trump invoked 'affords no veto to Governor Newsom over the President's decision to call forth the guard, just as it afforded no veto to Governor Faubus when President Eisenhower last invoked the predecessor [statute] to ensure that the enforcement of federal law was not obstructed,' DOJ lawyers wrote.

Altman-Backed Coco Robotics Raises $80 Million for Delivery Bots
Altman-Backed Coco Robotics Raises $80 Million for Delivery Bots

Yahoo

time22 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Altman-Backed Coco Robotics Raises $80 Million for Delivery Bots

Coco Robotics, an urban delivery startup using small autonomous robots, has secured $80 million in new funding from OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and other investors, Bloomberg reported Wednesday. The financing round was led by venture capital firm SNR, with participation from Pelion Venture Partners, Offline Ventures, and Max Altman, Sam's brother. The latest investment brings Coco's total raised capital to over $110 million. The company did not disclose a new valuation. Warning! GuruFocus has detected 7 Warning Sign with DASH. Founded in 2020 and formally known as Cyan Robotics Inc., the Santa Monica-based startup deploys about 1,300 cooler-sized electric robots across cities including Miami, Chicago, Los Angeles and Helsinki. The devices deliver food and small packages and are integrated into logistics platforms from Uber Technologies Inc. (UBER) and DoorDash Inc. (DASH, Financials). Coco also works directly with merchants and recently deepened its partnership with OpenAI. Under a March agreement, the company uses OpenAI's language and vision models alongside its own software stack to help its robots navigate obstacles and make real-time decisions. The two firms also share data from delivery routes to train AI systems. However, CEO Zach Rash said Sam Altman was not involved in structuring that collaboration. Coco is one of several startups racing to bring robotics to last-mile delivery logistics, a segment where cost-cutting and speed remain key challenges. Despite the sector's volatility, investors are betting that Coco's full-stack software and early commercial traction can differentiate it in a growing market. This article first appeared on GuruFocus.

Permitless concealed carry in North Carolina faces uphill battle after some GOP pushback
Permitless concealed carry in North Carolina faces uphill battle after some GOP pushback

Hamilton Spectator

time23 minutes ago

  • Hamilton Spectator

Permitless concealed carry in North Carolina faces uphill battle after some GOP pushback

RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — A bill to let adults carry concealed handguns without a permit cleared the North Carolina legislature on Wednesday, however the path to joining the majority of U.S. states with similar laws remains uncertain. The GOP-backed legislation faces a likely veto from Democratic Gov. Josh Stein, as well as pushback from a handful of Republicans who voted against the legislation in the state House. House Speaker Destin Hall acknowledged those concerns after Wednesday's vote. 'I would imagine that — math being math — that it's probably a low percentage relative to other bills,' Hall told reporters. If the bill becomes law, North Carolina would become the 30th state in the country to legalize permitless carrying of a concealed handgun, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. North Carolina would also be one of the last states in the Southeast to implement that legislation. The legislation allows for eligible people with valid identification over the age of 18 to carry a concealed handgun. More than half of states with permitless concealed carry set their age limit at 21 and older, while the rest have the legal carrying age at 18, according to the NCSL. Currently, a person must be 21 and older to obtain a concealed handgun permit in North Carolina. To qualify, an applicant must pass a firearms safety training course and not 'suffer from a physical or mental infirmity that prevents the safe handling of a handgun,' according to state law. Approving permitless concealed carry has been a goal of gun-rights activists in North Carolina for years, with House Republicans historically supportive of the idea. Some see it as the next step after Republican lawmakers successfully eliminated the permit system that required sheriffs to conduct character evaluations and criminal history checks for pistol applicants in 2023. Conservative advocates for the bill say it would strengthen Second Amendment rights for North Carolinians. Republican lawmakers also disputed that the bill would make the state more dangerous, as 'law-abiding citizens' would be the only people that would benefit from the permit elimination, not criminals, Republican Rep. Brian Echevarria said. 'Rights to keep and bear arms are constitutionally inseparable,' Echevarria said. 'If a person cannot own a firearm, they cannot bear a firearm.' The bill's passage tees up one of the first opportunities for a likely veto from Stein if he stays aligned with his fellow Democrats in the legislature. Stein has a more powerful veto stamp than his predecessor Roy Cooper , after Republicans lost their House supermajority last year that allowed them to override vetoes and enact their legislative agenda with relative ease. Now, House Republicans would need to count on a Democrat to join in their override efforts. Reaching that goal seems especially daunting, considering all of the present House Democrats — and two Republicans — voted against the bill. The governor's office didn't respond to a request for comment on the legislation, but House Deputy Democratic Leader Cynthia Ball said in a committee Tuesday that Stein was opposed to it. Several Democratic legislators said it would make communities unsafe by loosening who can carry a concealed handgun without training. Democrats also raised issue with the age limit set in the bill, saying it would put guns in the hands of young people who aren't yet mature enough to have one. 'Do you not remember when you were 18? We are prone and so susceptible to peer pressure, we are hotheaded, we are emotional,' Democratic Rep. Tracy Clark said on the House floor after retelling her personal experience of losing two friends in college to gun violence. Those seeking a permit for their concealed handgun — such as for the purpose of traveling with a firearm to a state that requires a permit — would still be able to do so. The bill also heightens the felony punishment for those who assault law enforcement officers or first responders with a firearm. A separate bill that makes gun safety courses available at North Carolina community colleges for people 18 and up passed in a near-unanimous House vote directly after the concealed carry permit repeal legislation was approved. ___ Associated Press writer Gary D. Robertson in Raleigh contributed to this report. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store