Provided by our partners at LumeLight. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) created a new employer-sponsored benefit opportunity through Internal Revenue Code §128. Employers may now make tax-favored contributions of up to $2,500 annually to the Trump Account of an employee or an employee's dependent through a Trump Account Contribution Program (TACP). For employers seeking family-focused benefits, TACPs provide a way to help employees save for a child's future while receiving favorable federal income tax treatment. Proposed regulations issued in August 2026 provide the initial administrative framework and may be relied upon immediately, even before final regulations are published. Trump Accounts Trump Accounts are a type of IRA designed to help families save for a child's future. Accounts generally may be established for children under age 18 with a valid Social Security number. During the account's growth period, contributions are subject to special rules, annual limits, and investment restrictions. The growth period generally ends on December 31 of the year the beneficiary turns 17, after which traditional IRA rules generally apply. In general, contributions made during the growth period from sources such as employers, parents, children, or other individuals are subject to an aggregate annual contribution limit of $5,000 for 2026 and 2027, indexed thereafter. Certain contributions, including federal pilot contributions, qualified general contributions, and qualified rollover contributions, are not counted toward that limit. Children born between January 1, 2025, and December 31, 2028, may also qualify for a one-time federal pilot contribution of $1,000. Trump Account Contribution Programs (TACPs) A TACP is an employer-sponsored program established under Internal Revenue Code §128 that permits employers to make tax-favored contributions to the Trump Account of an employee or an employee’s dependent. A TACP must be established through a separate written plan maintained for the exclusive benefit of employees and must satisfy specified requirements relating to eligibility, contributions and benefits, employee notification, reporting, and nondiscrimination. Under the proposed regulations, a TACP may also be coordinated with a §125 cafeteria plan to permit employees to fund contributions through salary reduction on a tax-favored basis. However, salary reduction contributions may only be made to a dependent’s Trump Account, not to an employee’s own Trump Account. TACP Contributions TACP contributions may be made only to the Trump Account of an employee or an employee's dependent (as defined under §152) while the account beneficiary remains in the account's growth period, which generally ends on December 31 of the year the beneficiary turns 17. For purposes of §128, eligibility is limited to common-law employees. As a result, self-employed individuals, including sole proprietors, partners, and 2% S corporation shareholders, cannot participate in a TACP, but they can sponsor a TACP for their employees. Qualifying employer contributions are excluded from an employee's gross income up to $2,500 annually for 2026 and 2027, with the limit indexed thereafter. However, unlike many employer-provided benefits, the contributions remain subject to FICA, FUTA, and RRTA taxes. The exclusion applies on a per-employee basis rather than per Trump Account or dependent. Contributions from multiple employers are aggregated when determining the annual limit. Although an employer may divide contributions among the Trump Accounts of multiple dependents, the total amount attributable to a single employee remains subject to the annual exclusion cap. Plan Documentation A TACP must be established and maintained under a separate written plan. The document should describe the plan year, eligibility, contributions, whether salary reductions through a cafeteria plan are permitted, Trump Account designation procedures, employee certifications, notice and reporting obligations, and correction procedures. Employers must operate the program consistently with the written terms to preserve §128 tax-favored treatment. §125 Integration Employers may integrate a TACP with a §125 cafeteria plan, allowing employees to fund contributions to a dependent's Trump Account through salary reduction. Salary reduction contributions to an employee's own Trump Account are not permitted. The combination of employer contributions, if any, and employee salary reductions cannot exceed the §128 contribution limits (e.g., $2,500 for 2026 and 2027). A cafeteria plan offering this benefit must be amended to include and describe the TACP offering. In regard to employee elections, unlike many cafeteria plan benefits, TACP elections may generally be made, changed, or revoked prospectively throughout the year, provided changes become effective before the related compensation is currently available, similar to the flexibility generally available for HSA elections. Administrative Requirements Employee Notice A TACP must provide reasonable notification of the program's availability and terms to all eligible employees, so they have a meaningful opportunity to participate and understand the basic rules governing eligibility, elections, and contributions. The proposed regulations do not prescribe a specific format or delivery method. Annual Reporting Employers must furnish each participating employee with an annual written statement showing the amount of §128 contributions made with respect to the employee during the preceding calendar year. The annual statement requirement may be satisfied through Form W-2 reporting in accordance with IRS instructions. For 2026 reporting, §128 contributions should be reported in Box 12 using Code TA. Trustee Selection Not Permitted The proposed regulations prohibit employers from limiting TACP contributions to Trump Accounts maintained by selected trustees or financial institutions. Because only one Trump Account may exist for a beneficiary, employers must permit contributions to any valid Trump Account designated by an eligible employee. Verification and Correction Employers generally may rely on specified written employee certifications unless they have actual knowledge that the information is incorrect. The certification may be provided on paper or electronically and must include representations that: the beneficiary is or will be the employee’s dependent for the applicable taxable year; the beneficiary’s date of birth; and the employee knows of no facts that would make the beneficiary ineligible to receive the contribution. Employee certification alone, however, is not sufficient to establish that the receiving account is a valid Trump Account. Employers must use reasonable verification procedures, directly or through vendors, payroll providers, or trustees. In addition, when an employer transmits a qualifying contribution to a trustee, the employer must affirmatively identify the amount in writing as a §128 contribution. If an employer later determines that an amount previously treated as a §128 contribution was ineligible, the employer must notify the trustee and provide corrective information. The proposed regulations include a 21-day safe harbor for providing corrective notice after the employer identifies the error. Nondiscrimination Requirements Because of the favorable tax treatment, TACPs are subject to nondiscrimination testing modeled after the rules applicable to §129 dependent care assistance program (DCAPs). A TACP must satisfy three tests: (i) the eligibility test; (ii) the contributions and benefits test; and (iii) the 55% average benefits test. Unlike a DCAP, a TACP has no separate owner concentration test because self-employed individuals cannot participate. The nondiscrimination rules prohibit plans from favoring highly compensated employees (HCEs). For 2026 testing purposes, HCEs generally include certain owners and employees who earned at least $160,000 during 2025. A nondiscrimination failure generally affects the tax treatment of HCEs rather than causing the entire arrangement to lose TACP status. Related employers that constitute a controlled group or affiliated service group are treated as a single employer for purposes of these testing requirements. Special Safe Harbor for Employer Pilot Matches The proposed regulations include a safe harbor for employers that want to match the federal government's $1,000 pilot contribution for eligible children born from 2025 through 2028. If a qualifying pilot-match contribution is made available on the same terms and conditions to all non-excluded employees with qualifying dependents, the matching contributions are disregarded for the contributions and benefits test and the 55% average benefits test, but not for the eligibility test. Effective Date and Reliance Although the regulations would apply prospectively to plan years beginning on or after publication of final regulations, the IRS expressly permits taxpayers to rely on the proposed regulations before finalization. Employers therefore have a framework for implementing TACPs while final guidance remains pending.

Karen Young serves as President of the Bay Family of Companies, a construction organization focused predominantly on insulation, including mechanical and metal building insulation, with more than 80 locations coast to coast and into Canada. In a recent conversation, she shared how a decades-long partnership with Cottingham & Butler has shaped the way Bay approaches risk and benefits. Four Decades of Partnership Bay has worked with C&B for more than 40 years. Karen, who joined the team in 2019, credits the expertise and accessibility of the C&B team as an integral part of the relationship. They stay responsive, build relationships across Bay's people, and continually bring ideas and best practices that help the company think more strategically about its business and risk as a whole. Measurable Results on the Benefits Side That guidance has produced measurable results. In 2023, Bay moved to Med One on a recommendation from C&B and saved at least around $650,000 over the course of a couple of years. Karen noted that transitions of that size come with pain points, and the C&B team helped navigate those conversations with employees to make the change successful. Finding Stability Through a Captive Bay was also an early adopter of the Guide Re captive on the benefits side. After managing the volatility of stop loss rates and premiums in the traditional market, the captive brought greater stability. It streamlines stop loss premiums and gives Bay insight into what other partners are doing across a membership that spans industries, including distribution, manufacturing, and trucking. More Holistic Than Buying Insurance For Karen, the captive is more holistic than going to market and buying insurance. It brings together operations, safety, and the financial side, and it holds members accountable to one another. Bay still quotes the market occasionally, but its most recent review confirmed the captive remained the better route. Advice for Others Considering a Captive Her advice for anyone considering a captive: they can feel scary at first, but trust the process and develop the relationships with your brokers. For Bay, that trust has become a success story. Contact our Stop Loss Captive Experts Today!

Our recent webinar, "Emerging Risks Facing the Ready Mix Industry," hosted by C&B Risk Management Consultant Jace Glenn, explored the exposures reshaping the industry, where the marketplace is heading and the specific coverage and risk control moves producers are making to protect their bottom line. Key takeaways... Liability costs keep climbing, and renewals are only getting harder. Market conditions point to continued upward pressure, meaning ready mix operators should plan for tougher renewal conversations rather than expecting rates to level off anytime soon. Concrete performance claims often fall outside general liability. Many companies don't realize the gap exists until a claim tied to product performance hits. By then, there are specific coverage options available to help close it before it becomes a problem. Nuclear verdicts, fueled by third-party litigation funding, are driving settlements past what most operators have budgeted for. This is changing how claims are valued and litigated, and some states are now enacting reforms aimed at curbing the impact. Click here to the view the presentation.

Based on a presentation by Joseph C. Baiocco, Chair of the Complex Tort and General Casualty Team at Wilson Elser, delivered at the Cottingham & Butler Transportation Summit. Joseph C. Baiocco Chair, Complex Tort and General Casualty Team, Wilson Elser Trucking companies are doing more to operate safely than ever before, and they are still watching their insurance costs climb. That contradiction sits at the center of the staged-accident problem, and it is the reason Joe Baiocco has spent so much of his practice helping carriers and fleets recognize fraud, respond to it quickly, and fight back when the evidence supports it. The goal of his work is straightforward: help trucking companies prepare for, identify, and combat staged accidents. The strategy behind it is anything but simple, because the people orchestrating these schemes have organized themselves to look legitimate at every step. The Safer-Yet-Costlier Paradox The numbers tell a story that should frustrate any fleet owner. Fatal crashes per 100 million miles traveled dropped from 2.23 to 1.47 between 2000 and 2020, a meaningful improvement that reflects real investment in safety. Over roughly the same stretch, insurance premium costs per mile rose by 47 percent. Put plainly, trucking companies are getting safer while their premiums move in the opposite direction. Rising verdicts, aggressive litigation, and outright fraud are a large part of why. When a fleet cannot separate a genuine accident from a manufactured one, every claim carries risk, and that risk gets priced into premiums that honest operators end up paying. What Fraud Actually Is Fraud is a specific legal concept, not a catch-all label for any claim that feels suspicious. To rise to the level of fraud, five elements generally need to be present: Intentional misrepresentation. A false statement made on purpose, not by mistake. Knowledge of falsity. The person making the statement knows it is not true. Intent to deceive. Intent is the key. The false statement is designed to mislead. Reliance. The victim reasonably relied on the false statement in some way. Damages. The victim suffered actual harm or loss as a result. Each element matters. Weakness in any one of them can be the difference between a claim that can be prosecuted as fraud and one that cannot. Understanding this framework early helps a fleet and its defense team decide how hard to push and where to focus their evidence. Fraud Versus Exaggeration Many claims involve some degree of exaggeration without ever crossing into fraud, and the distinction is worth taking seriously. The dividing line is intent. Fraud involves intentional deception in pursuit of financial gain. Exaggeration inflates the severity of a claim that is otherwise legitimate. A claimant who overstates how much a real injury hurts is exaggerating. A claimant who was never injured at all, or who staged the event that supposedly caused the injury, is committing fraud. The consequences differ just as sharply. Fraud is treated as a serious criminal and civil offense that carries severe legal penalties. Exaggeration is a lesser matter, though it can still lead to denied claims and smaller civil penalties. The examples make it concrete. Staging accidents, submitting false claims, and fabricating injuries are fraud. Overstating the extent of damages or injuries in an otherwise valid claim is exaggeration. Sorting a claim into the right category shapes every decision that follows. Injury Fraud and Liability Fraud Fraud in this space tends to fall into two buckets, and the strongest cases involve both. Injury fraud means making false claims about injuries in order to receive compensation. Classic examples include falsely claiming soft-tissue or whiplash injuries after a minor collision, or exaggerating the harm from a fall in a public space. Liability fraud means making false claims about how a loss happened, or intentionally creating harm, with the goal of collecting compensation. This includes deliberately staging or causing a collision, orchestrating an intentional slip and fall, or knowingly lying about the circumstances of the loss. The cases worth prosecuting are the ones that contain both injury fraud and liability fraud. When a claimant has manufactured the event and fabricated the resulting injuries, the case for aggressive defense and prosecution is at its strongest. How a Company Becomes a Target Fraud rings do not spread their activity randomly. They tend to concentrate, and that concentration is often the first sign something is wrong. In one situation Baiocco described, suspicions grew as a pattern came into focus: Multiple accidents kept occurring on the same roadway. The same attorneys and medical providers were operating out of the same building. The same attorneys kept appearing across unrelated cases. Drivers were reporting that the accidents themselves appeared staged. Individually, any one of these could be a coincidence. Together, they form a fingerprint. A fleet that trains its people to notice and report these signals gives itself a real head start. A Plan Forms Recognizing a pattern is only useful if it leads to action. In February 2024, the insurer and third-party administrator joined forces with the client and their defense firm to build a coordinated strategy for combating staged accidents. The plan came down to a few core commitments. The team drafted a blueprint to aggressively defend and prosecute fraud rather than settle it away quietly. They weighed the real math of "pay now versus pay later," recognizing that paying to fight a fraudulent claim today can prevent far larger losses down the road. They committed to investing in technology. And they agreed to share information with other insurance companies and with state and federal investigators, so that a scheme uncovered in one case could help expose it elsewhere. A Team Approach The defense against staged accidents only works when everyone involved knows their role and moves fast. The strategy divides responsibilities across three groups. Client Responsibilities The trucking company sets the foundation. That starts with technology investments, including outward-, inward-, and rear-facing cameras that can capture what actually happened. It continues with driver training and thorough post-accident investigation. Just as important is discipline in the hours and days after a loss. That means immediate reporting of every loss to the insurer or TPA and to defense counsel, careful preservation and documentation of equipment following any accident, and preservation of the records litigation will eventually demand, such as driver logs, driver qualification files, personnel records, and maintenance records. Driver Responsibilities The driver is the first person on the scene, and what they capture in those first minutes can decide a case. Their job is to document thoroughly and report immediately. That includes capturing a photo essay at the scene, reporting the accident to dispatch and safety right away, and gathering all the police information available, including the report number and officer names. It also means recording details about the people and vehicles involved: year, make, model, and plate of each vehicle, along with the number of people present and their names and descriptions. Insurer and Defense Responsibilities Speed is everything on the defense side. Within 48 hours, the team works to get an accident reconstructionist to inspect the scene, download and inspect the tractor and trailer’s ECM, and request preservation of the claimant’s vehicle so it can be inspected and downloaded as well. From there, the effort broadens. A private investigator canvasses the area for surveillance footage. The team pulls the vehicle history on the claimant’s vehicle, conducts internet mining and ISO investigation, assigns surveillance to locate and monitor claimants, and searches court records for prior activity. Finally, a preservation demand goes out to the claimant or claimant’s attorney, locking in the evidence before it can disappear. The Takeaway Staged accidents succeed when they blend in, and they blend in because fraud rings have learned to mimic the look of legitimate claims. The counter, as Baiocco lays it out, is a fast, coordinated, evidence-driven response that starts before anyone knows for certain whether a claim is fraudulent. Cameras, training, rapid reporting, and a defense team ready to move within 48 hours give trucking companies the ability to tell real accidents apart from manufactured ones, and to fight back hard when the evidence is on their side. Joseph C. Baiocco is Chair of Wilson Elser’s Complex Litigation Team and a Partner based in White Plains, New York. He can be reached at 914.872.7338 or joseph.baiocco@wilsonelser.com.

Hosted by SMSC Safety Consultant Austin Smith, "Safety Training That Sticks: Learning Principles in Action" examined the common reasons safety training fails to stick, along with strategies to address them. From understanding how adults actually learn to applying stronger facilitation techniques, designing cleaner training materials, and using reinforcement strategies like micro-reminders and peer safety moments, this session provided practical tools for turning passive attendees into active participants and driving stronger safety performance on the job. Key takeaways... Most safety training fails because it's lecture-heavy, disconnected from real tasks, and never reinforced. Adults learn differently. They need the "why," relevance to their own work, and a say in the process. Doing beats hearing. Explain, demonstrate, have them do it, then have them teach it. Delivery and design both matter. Facilitate instead of lecture, and keep slides clean, consistent, and readable. Reinforcement makes training stick. Micro-reminders, supervisor follow-ups, drills, and peer safety moments turn a one-time session into lasting behavior Click here to the view the presentation.

The Supreme Court's decision in Montgomery v. C.H. Robinson has freight brokers rethinking how they vet the carriers they hire. Here's what the ruling actually means, and the practical steps brokers should be taking as the legal landscape continues to evolve, because carrier vetting isn't just an operational function now but a risk management function too. Executive Summary The Montgomery decision does not establish new federal insurance requirements for freight brokers. It does, however, reinforce the importance of demonstrating a reasonable, documented carrier selection process. Key themes: Courts will continue defining reasonable carrier vetting. Maintain documented qualification standards. Technology supports, but does not replace, your vetting process. Shippers may also face increased scrutiny. Review insurance programs for today's liability environment. Five Immediate Actions for Freight Brokers Document your carrier vetting standards. Document minimum insurance requirements, safety thresholds, required documentation, alert response procedures, and exception approval processes. Review your carrier database. Review "Do Not Use" lists and ensure exclusion decisions align with documented standards. Technology supports the process — it doesn't replace it. Platforms such as Highway and CAB are valuable tools, but the broker remains responsible for establishing and applying carrier qualification standards. Review broker-carrier agreements. Consider requiring carriers to report significant safety changes, notify brokers of material issues, and correct inaccurate public information. Review your insurance program. Review Truck Broker Liability coverage, General Liability, Contingent Cargo, defense provisions, and all coverage limits. Frequently Asked Questions Broker Liability Will insurance requirements increase? No statutory insurance requirements were created. However, many shippers are expected to require higher liability limits. Will courts establish clearer negligent selection standards? Yes. Future case law will likely continue defining minimum carrier vetting expectations. Does Professional E&O protect brokers? Truck Broker Liability coverage is generally the more appropriate coverage because many Professional E&O policies exclude bodily injury and property damage claims. Do broker-to-broker agreements help? Intentional co-broker relationships may reduce exposure, while unauthorized double brokering can still create significant liability. Carrier Vetting Are Highway and CAB enough? Technology platforms execute the broker's standards but do not replace the broker's responsibility for carrier selection. Should brokers maintain written standards? Yes. Written carrier qualification standards help demonstrate consistency. How should brokers approach new carriers? Develop consistent standards for evaluating newer carriers lacking extensive safety history. Shipper Liability Does this decision affect shippers? Potentially. Shippers selecting carriers primarily on price or knowingly using inadequate vetting practices could face increased scrutiny. Can liability extend beyond brokers? Generally, brokers remain the primary focus, although shipper involvement in carrier selection may increase exposure. Final Thoughts The Montgomery decision reinforces the importance of aligning operations, contracts, technology, and insurance. As the legal standards surrounding negligent carrier selection continue to evolve, brokers can strengthen their position by implementing a documented, consistently applied carrier vetting process supported by appropriate insurance and operational controls.

A quick-reference summary of key compliance changes employers should confirm before the 2026 plan year — inflation-adjusted limits, plan design updates, and required participant notices. 2026 Cost-Sharing & Contribution Limits Limit 2025 2026 Change HSA Contribution — Self-only $4,300 $4,400 +$100 HSA Contribution — Family $8,550 $8,750 +$200 HSA Catch-Up (age 55+) $1,000 $1,000 No change HDHP Min. Deductible — Self-only $1,650 $1,700 +$50 HDHP Min. Deductible — Family $3,300 $3,400 +$100 HDHP OOPM — Self-only $8,300 $8,500 +$200 HDHP OOPM — Family $16,600 $17,000 +$400 ACA OOPM — Self-only / Family — $10,600 / $21,200 — Health FSA Limit $3,300 $3,400 +$100 EBHRA Limit $2,150 $2,200 +$50 ACA Affordability % 9.02% 9.96% +0.94 pts Plan Design Action Items • ACA Affordability: confirm at least one plan meets the 9.96% standard (use a safe harbor). • OOPM Compliance: embed individual OOPM ($10,600) in family coverage; confirm HDHP limits. • Preventive Care: confirm coverage of latest USPSTF/ACIP/HRSA items, incl. added breast cancer imaging & navigation services, with no cost sharing. • Health FSA: cap pre-tax contributions at $3,400 and communicate to employees. • HSA/HDHP: update plan limits and communicate new HSA contribution caps. • Telehealth: decide (optional) whether to waive HDHP deductible for telehealth — now permanent under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. • EBHRA: set 2026 contribution (up to $2,200) and communicate. • Wellness Surcharges: confirm HIPAA nondiscrimination compliance amid rising tobacco-surcharge litigation. • MHPAEA NQTLs: confirm comparative analyses are current with issuer/TPA. Open Enrollment Notices Checklist • Summary of Benefits & Coverage (SBC) — annually • Medicare Part D creditable coverage notice — annually, by Oct. 15 • Annual CHIP notice (where applicable) • Initial COBRA notice — within 90 days of coverage • SPD — new hires within 90 days; updates per 5/10-yr rule • Notice of Patient Protections (if PCP designation required) • Grandfathered plan notice (if applicable) • HIPAA special enrollment rights notice • HIPAA Privacy Notice (self-insured plans) • WHCRA mastectomy-benefits notice — annually • Summary Annual Report (SAR), if Form 5500 applies • Wellness program notices (HIPAA & ADA, as applicable) • ICHRA notice — 90 days before plan year (if applicable) Also confirm: any 2026 plan changes are reflected in an updated SPD or SMM before open enrollment. Provided by Cottingham & Butler. This overview is for general reference only and is not exhaustive or legal advice; consult legal counsel for guidance specific to your plans. Source: Zywave, Inc. 2026 Open Enrollment Checklist.

Usher Transport has been on the road for 80 years. A fourth-generation, family-owned bulk liquid hazmat carrier based in Louisville, Kentucky, the company hauls some of the most demanding freight in the industry — with a fleet that's grown from 50 to 200 power units. Raising the Bar For a company built on precision, claims handling became the area where growing pains showed up most. "Claims handling is really the make or the break of any insurance program, in my opinion," says Beau Mosley, Chief Risk Officer at Usher Transport. "We wanted more say-so in settling claims — in the day-to-day interactions with claimants and attorneys." The Perfect Storm Then came a stretch that changed everything. "We hit a stretch of back-to-back months with some large settlements," Beau recalls. "Around the same time, we got invited to the transportation summit C&B hosts — the perfect storm." One conversation at the Summit led to an invitation to Dubuque, and a meeting with the full Transportation Insurance Group. What happened next reshaped how Usher thinks about risk entirely. A Partnership Built to Last Eighty years in business. Fourth-generation leadership. A National Tank Truck Carriers Safety Award on the wall. Usher Transport has never settled for "good enough" — and that standard now extends to their insurance program. "This is the only way to do insurance moving forward," Beau says. Watch the video to see the numbers behind Usher's transformation — and why Beau says getting paid finally "feels refreshing."

A best-in-class processing equipment manufacturer had been seeing an improvement in their loss experience, yet they were not seeing a decrease in how much they were paying for insurance. They were curious to learn if there was a way to incentivize their increased focus on safety and best practices. Their current program was "off the shelf" and was not designed to meet their specific needs. After engaging with Cottingham & Butler's Risk Management Assessment (RMA), they quickly learned that there was not only a better way to buy insurance, but that there were significant coverage deficiencies in their program. The company recognized the value of a customized loss-sensitive program, as well as having a broker partner who would advocate on their behalf for claims. Program Design Delivered a loss-sensitive program option, Horizon, that would allow the company to receive up to 50% of their premium back for good loss years. Identified 3 carriers that had never seen the account before, and had an interest in the business. Coverage Identified 20 coverage deficiencies in their existing program. Significant deficiencies include: Multiple sub-limits were inadequate compared to their operations. The policy was designed for Architect and Engineering Professionals, NOT for Manufacturers. Multiple exclusions related to the core business operations of the company were present. No flood/earthquake coverage in a high-risk area. Contractual Risk Transfer Highlighted areas of concern and how their current risk transfer methods were inadequate for their industry and line of work. Cottingham & Butler put together recommendations and corrected critical mistakes in policy language Stability After joining Horizon, the company experienced a large loss in its first year of implementation. At their first renewal, their pay-in premium did not increase significantly. Had they stayed in the ‘standard’ guaranteed cost marketplace, they would have experienced a significant premium increase. Since then, the company has received a return of premium of over $80,000 each year for their good loss experience. Under a guaranteed cost insurance program, they would have received NO returns. Claims Advocacy While the company had great loss experience, they had not previously received any claims reviews or advocacy services. After being made aware of the impacts of delayed reporting, their claims reporting processes were improved and consistent claim reviews were scheduled with the team.

On August 4th, Jared Sweeney, Danny Badovinac, and Andy Schmidt hosted a live webinar tackling one of the biggest questions in trucking insurance: is captive insurance really too good to be true? With commercial auto rates climbing for nearly 15 years straight, it's fair to be skeptical of any program promising a better way. This webinar cuts through the noise with real captive member results, comparing them head-to-head against the standard market. A few takeaways from the conversation: Why captive members are seeing dramatically different renewal outcomes than the rest of the industry—even during one of the hardest markets on record. What separates a well-run captive from the rest, and why not every captive delivers the same results. How the captive model turns insurance from a sunk cost into a long-term financial opportunity for the right kind of trucking company. Watch the full recording to see the data behind these results and decide for yourself if it's too good to be true.

For Brite Logistics, joining a captive took multiple years of diligent work. The results speak for themselves. Before partnering with Cottingham & Butler, Brite was in the general market, where the relationship felt purely transactional. Every claim or incident meant going to a different adjuster, making it hard to stay on top of issues from start to finish. That changed when Brite joined the Pursuit captive. What changed: One point of contact for every claim — instead of bouncing between adjusters, the team gets a clear view from start to finish on every issue. Visibility into their risk profile — Brite now knows what's driving renewal costs and what to expect heading into the next one. Reportable accidents dropped 65% in two years — a direct result of tighter claims oversight and risk management. Joining Pursuit was a major milestone — one they describe as a huge achievement for the whole team, and one step closer to being recognized among the safety elite companies in their region. Our team at Cottingham & Butler understands the trucking landscape. With decades of industry experience, we offer a complete 360-degree suite of property & casualty, employee benefit, claims administration, safety and risk management services. Interested in learning more about captive programs? Contact your Cottingham & Butler representative.

A freight claim doesn't start with the accident. It starts, or is prevented, months earlier, in the contracts, policies, and conversations carriers and brokers put in place long before anything goes wrong. "You need to plan for the day when there's a freight claim — before it happens." Rob Moseley, Transportation Attorney, Moseley Marcinak Law Group LLP Cottingham & Butler sat down with transportation attorney Rob Moseley to break down what carriers and brokers can do to get ahead of it. Three Contract Opportunities That Shape Every Claim Every motor carrier has three documents that shape how a freight claim plays out: the shipper-carrier agreement, the bill of lading, and the carrier tariff. Handshake deals leave all of this to chance, while a contract gives carriers and brokers something to negotiate from that they wouldn't otherwise have. Moseley covers what to look for in each one, including where Carmack Amendment defenses and load valuation come into play. Put Limitation of Liability and Salvage Rights in Writing Assumptions don't hold up in a claim dispute. A shipper who hands over a high-value load without disclosing its worth robs the carrier of the chance to take proper precautions or buy the right insurance. Salvage rights carry similar stakes: if a load is damaged but still sellable, who has the right to move it, and what happens if that right isn't granted? Both need to be settled in writing well ahead of time. Eliminate the Most Common Claim Triggers Many claims trace back to gaps in driver and customer education, not a single bad moment on the road. Moseley shares how a little planning on both fronts, from how freight is loaded and secured to how it's communicated about, can prevent the most common claims before they start. Know Your Exposure: Cargo Theft, Imposter Carriers, and High-Value Loads Cargo theft is evolving fast, and brokered freight has made it worse. Carriers today are dealing with more than opportunistic theft: imposter carriers are finding new ways to get access to loads. High-value and high-theft-risk freight needs to be flagged and handled differently from the start. The carriers who avoid the worst claims aren't lucky. They put the right agreements in writing, knew their exposure, and had the hard conversations before a claim ever came in. That's the kind of groundwork worth laying now, not after something goes wrong.