Relation Insurance Services (“Relation”) acquired the assets of Forest Insurance Agency, Inc. (“Forest”). The transaction went into effect on December 1, 2024; terms of the transaction were not disclosed. "Becoming part of Relation allows us to enhance the level of service we provide to our clients," said Dan Browne, President of Forest. "With Relation's deep expertise and extensive carrier network, our clients gain access to tailored coverage options that align with their needs." Specializing in personal and business insurance, Forest is based in Forest Park, Illinois. Dan will continue managing that office as a valuable part of the Relation family. "Forest is highly regarded in their community, and Relation is proud to have them join our organization," said Tim Hall, Chief Executive Officer for Relation. "Founded in 1957, their agency brings generational relationships as well as deep experience in providing comprehensive insurance solutions to their clients. We are excited to welcome them to our team." About Relation’s Mergers & Acquisitions Relation Insurance Services is actively seeking partnerships to expand its offerings, industry expertise, and geographic footprint. Relation offers a seat at the table to insurance entrepreneurs with equity ownership opportunities and a people-first approach that optimizes outcomes for employees and clients. For more information on joining the Relation family of brands, visit www.relationinsurance.com/partner-with-us. About Relation Insurance Services Relation Insurance Services is an insurance brokerage firm that offers superior risk management and benefits consulting services across the United States. It is ranked by Insurance Journal within the top 25 largest agencies in the country by revenue and has approximately 1,350 employees across more than 100 locations nationwide. Relation is a privately held corporation backed by Aquiline Capital Partners, a private equity firm based in New York and London investing in businesses globally across financial services and technology. Visit: www.relationinsurance.com for more information.  

A new California law has taken aim at the increasing role of artificial intelligence in health care decision-making. Senate Bill 1120, signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in September, now prohibits health insurance companies from relying solely on AI algorithms to deny coverage, ensuring that a human perspective remains central to each decision.

High Denial Rates Spark Calls for Reform

Despite California’s reputation for progressive health care policies, denial rates have remained high. About a quarter of all health insurance claims were denied in the state last year — reflecting a national trend that has fueled public frustration. • More than 49 million claims were denied nationwide in 2021, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation • Fewer than 0.2% of denied claims were appealed by policyholders • Last month’s killing of a UnitedHealthcare executive in New York City further ignited outrage and calls for more scrutiny of health insurance practices

Key Provisions of Senate Bill 1120

Dubbed the “Physicians Make Decisions Act,” SB 1120 demands that medical professionals, not algorithms, hold the final say on whether a treatment is medically necessary. • AI tools cannot be used to deny, delay, or alter services doctors deem necessary • Insurers must make standard coverage decisions within five business days, and urgent cases within 72 hours • State regulators can fine companies for missing deadlines or misusing AI in coverage decisions

Voices from the Health Care Community

Many in the medical field see the new law as a critical step toward safeguarding patients’ access to essential care. • The California Medical Association co-sponsored SB 1120, emphasizing AI’s potential to support — not replace — physician judgment • Nonprofit caregivers like Avenidas Care Partners report families facing immense stress when claims are denied • Supporters of the law believe a human perspective ensures individualized patient care, preventing “one-size-fits-all” technology errors

A Possible National Blueprint

California’s bold move has captured attention well beyond state lines. With 19 other states reportedly exploring similar legislation, and multiple congressional offices expressing interest, the Golden State’s stance could shape policy across the country. • California’s Department of Managed Health Care will oversee enforcement and transparency measures • Penalties for noncompliance are determined by state regulators • Lawmakers, health care advocates, and the public alike are monitoring the law’s impact As concern grows over AI’s expanding role in crucial health care decisions, California’s SB 1120 stands as a clear statement: no algorithm alone can replace the nuanced judgment of a trained physician. And with nationwide reform on the horizon, this legislation may well be the first of many to reaffirm the importance of human empathy in health insurance.

Tragedy struck New Orleans on New Year’s Day when a driver intentionally rammed a pickup truck through crowds of revelers on Bourbon Street, leaving multiple fatalities and many more injured. As the city reckons with the emotional and logistical fallout, new questions arise about liability, public safety, and the vital role of insurance. In the aftermath, insurance insiders examine how ongoing construction on protective bollards, the nature of terror-related acts, and shifting risk assessments can directly influence insurance coverage for individuals, businesses, and government entities. Below are several ways this tragic event could raise or highlight insurance concerns:

Municipal and Contractor Liability

• City responsibility: If the replacement of the bollards was delayed or if the construction process allowed a gap in security, victims or their families might consider whether the municipality was negligent in maintaining safe conditions.
• Contractor coverage: If a private contractor was involved in removing or installing bollards, questions may arise as to whether any negligence on their part contributed to the vulnerability. Their general liability insurance might come into play if a lawsuit alleges errors in installation or failure to meet safety standards.

Premises Liability for Local Businesses

• Injury on/near business premises: Even though the street is public property, lawsuits sometimes name local property or business owners if an argument is made that their security measures (or lack thereof) contributed to the harm. Business owners typically carry liability coverage that could respond if such claims arise.
• Impact on insurance premiums: If the area is seen as a higher-risk zone (because of public infrastructure vulnerabilities or repeated incidents), insurers may raise premiums for businesses or impose stricter policy terms.

Auto Insurance and Criminal Acts

• Personal auto coverage: Under most personal automobile policies, intentional or criminal acts like using a vehicle as a weapon are excluded from liability coverage. This means victims might face an uphill battle in recovering damages from the driver’s auto policy (or the driver might have no coverage at all, depending on policy specifics).
• UM/UIM coverage: If victims have uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) coverage on their personal auto policies, they may be able to collect from their own insurance, though exclusions could apply if this is deemed terrorism or an intentional act.

Terrorism Coverage

• Business policies: Many commercial insurance policies include an optional terrorism endorsement. If this event is officially declared a terrorist act, organizations with such coverage might be able to file claims for losses (e.g., business interruption or property damage).
• Government backstop: The federal Terrorism Risk Insurance Program (TRIA) may be triggered for large-scale events deemed acts of terrorism, allowing insurers and policyholders to recover some losses through a government “backstop.”

Event and Public Gathering Coverage

• Special event insurance: Large city gatherings often involve specialized event insurance covering liabilities. Whether or not the city or event organizers had a policy that addressed a terror or security event is a question, and any existing coverage could help address claims from victims.
• Enhanced future requirements: This incident may prompt stricter guidelines for organizations hosting public events to carry certain limits of coverage or meet new safety requirements (like fully functioning bollards or barriers).

Workers’ Compensation

• Injured employees: If any local business employees, event staff, or public safety officers were hurt in the attack, workers’ compensation insurance might step in to cover medical expenses and lost wages, assuming their injuries occurred “in the course of employment.”

Long-Term Risk Management Implications

• Increased scrutiny of safety infrastructure: As local governments and insurers evaluate public spaces, incomplete infrastructure projects or malfunctioning security equipment can become significant underwriting factors.
• Higher security standards: Future contracts for bollard installation may require more thorough risk assessments, bonding requirements for contractors, and strict completion timelines—potentially leading to new or higher-cost insurance requirements for municipal construction projects.

From the insurance perspective, these concerns play into who may be held liable, whether coverage applies to intentional or terror-related acts, and how risk management measures—like working bollards—affect underwriting and premiums in the future. Ultimately, if the construction process or city oversight is found to have contributed to a lapse in security, legal and insurance claims could follow, underscoring the importance of robust municipal risk mitigation measures.