Search Results

On May 20, 2026, transportation and logistics experts from SPG Logistics, Scopelitis, and Cottingham & Butler gathered for a webinar to break down the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in the Montgomery case and what it means for freight brokers, carriers, and shippers. With over 550 industry professionals in attendance, the discussion covered the history of FAAAA preemption, what the court actually decided, and the practical implications for day-to-day brokerage operations. Here are the top three takeaways from the conversation: The Supreme Court ruling eliminates FAAAA preemption as a defense for brokers in interstate negligent hiring cases. The Montgomery decision means brokers can no longer get negligent hiring claims dismissed early through legal motions — they'll now have to defend these cases all the way through trial, significantly increasing litigation costs and settlement values. Brokers must establish and strictly follow a reasonable carrier vetting policy. At minimum, this means verifying active motor carrier authority, securing a broker-carrier contract, confirming adequate insurance, and consistently checking safety data. Critically, whatever standards you set must be followed 100% of the time — exceptions to your own rules are exactly the kind of evidence that will hurt you in court. The ruling creates both risk and opportunity across the supply chain. Smaller brokers and carriers face the greatest risk, insurance costs are expected to rise, and capacity may shrink as some carriers exit the market. At the same time, carriers with strong safety records and higher insurance limits will be in high demand are expected to thrive. Since most brokers and carriers do not carry high limits, excess coverage becomes a significant competitive differentiator, especially for carriers looking to build direct shipper relationships in an environment where liability exposure is top of mind. Click this link to see where the FAAAA preemption decisions were made by the federal district and circuit court systems. Webinar Presenters Greg Feary President & Managing Partner, Scopelitis, Garvin, Light, Hanson & Feary A national thought leader in transportation law and one of the most recognized voices in the industry. Greg serves as Vice Chair of the ATA/NAFC Risk Management & Insurance Advisory Committee, Chairman of the Lawyer's Subcommittee of the ATA Insurance Task Force, and previously served as ATA's national transportation insurance counsel. Nathaniel Saylor Partner, Scopelitis, Garvin, Light, Hanson & Feary A go-to attorney for freight brokers, forwarders, and 3PLs on contracts, regulatory compliance, and carrier selection issues. Nathaniel serves on the Transportation Intermediaries Association (TIA) Programs Committee and is a regular speaker on broker-carrier contracting. Justin Olsen Chief Risk Officer – Liability & Casualty, SPG Cargo & Logistics 35 years of transportation law experience, including more than a decade as VP of Legal & Risk at England Logistics. Justin serves on the TIA Board of Directors, has chaired TIA's In-House Legal Committee, and was directly involved in the TIA amicus brief work on Montgomery v. Caribe Transport. Scott Cornell Chief Risk Officer - Crime and Theft Specialist, SPG Cargo and Logistics A nationally recognized authority on transportation risk, cargo theft, and supply chain security. Scott chairs the Transported Asset Protection Association (TAPA), Americas Chapter, serves on the TIA Cargo Fraud Task Force, has testified before Congress on cargo theft, and was recently named one of Insurance Business' 100 Best Insurance Leaders in the USA.

What is your wellness program actually trying to accomplish? The answer shapes everything from the benefits you offer to how you measure success. This video explains how to align your wellness strategy to improve culture, support wellbeing, or meaningfully reduce healthcare costs.

"Safety Leadership: Empowering Supervisors to Drive Change," hosted by SMSC Safety Consultant Scott Christenson, explored how Human and Organizational Performance (HOP) principles can become everyday leadership tools. Rather than relying on compliance-driven oversight, attendees learned how to spark meaningful conversations, identify system weaknesses, and champion improvements that actually help people succeed. Key takeaways and insights... Supervisors are the most powerful influence on frontline safety. How you show up, respond, and lead daily sets the tone for your entire team's safety culture. HOP shifts the focus from blaming workers to fixing systems. Human error is normal and expected, and understanding why it happens leads to more effective, lasting solutions. Psychological safety is the foundation of a learning culture. When blame is removed from the equation, workers feel safe to speak up, and real learning can take place. Curiosity drives better outcomes than consequences. Asking "what can we learn?" after an event is more valuable than asking "who was at fault?" True safety success is measured by continuous learning, not just results. Consistently examining systems, drift, and near-misses builds the reliability that prevents future incidents. Click here to the view the presentation.

Author: Ryan Butler, Senior Vice President – Risk Management While thousands of insurance brokerages have been bought and sold, one thing has remained constant at Cottingham & Butler – our commitment to independence and putting people first. Over the past decade, the insurance brokerage industry has undergone a dramatic transformation and while it continues to consolidate at a rapid pace, many of the largest competitors in our space are now navigating multiple challenges at once. These include integrating acquired platforms, rationalizing expenses, debt and capital management, softening market in certain lines of business as insurance rates decline and maintaining a primary focus on “reporting to Wall Street” often at the expense of client and employee experience. There is meaningful data that helps illustrate how this dynamic is unfolding. Over the past twelve months, stock performance for several of the largest insurance brokers has trended down meaningfully. While stock performance is not everything, it does influence decision making and creates additional pressure on leadership teams to regain momentum and will force many of these organizations to make difficult choices around expense management and layoffs while balancing continued acquisition activity. With this noise, we are proud to share that Cottingham & Butler continues its decades-long run of double digit organic growth, industry leading retention, and continued reinvestment in our future. Why Cottingham & Butler Stands Apart We have intentionally built a firm that grows by doing the fundamentals exceptionally well. That means taking great care of clients, solving hard problems, and doing it together as one team. This focus is not accidental. It is a long-term strategy grounded in more than 138 years of culture, discipline, and the collective effort by our colleagues to be the best professionals and experts in their respective practices. We do not rely on constant acquisition activity to manufacture growth. Instead, we continue to deepen our expertise in the industries we serve, invest heavily in our people and their careers, and improve how we deliver outcomes year after year. This discipline allows us to compound our value over time, and one of the reasons we’ve been able to grow organically into the 3rd largest independent and privately held insurance brokerage in the nation. While many firms feel forced to choose between growth, culture, and stability, we believe it is possible to achieve all three by playing the long game, staying aligned, and remaining clear on our mission of becoming Better Every Day. Reinvesting in Our People and the Future A clear example of this long-term mindset is our continued investment in our team. In 2025, we welcomed more than 270 new colleagues to Cottingham & Butler and continued to expand our leadership capabilities with the addition of Mike Hessling as President of C&B. While some of the largest firms in our industry are reducing staff, we remain focused on investing in our colleagues, their careers, and their professional development. The Takeaway In an industry defined by consolidation, it is easy for firms to lose clarity and drift toward a model where growth is something you buy rather than something you earn. When that happens, pressure often shows up quickly and forces restructuring, talent churn, and an ongoing search for the next lever to pull. At Cottingham & Butler, our path is simpler and stronger. Develop great people. Take care of clients. Solve problems. Invest in our colleagues’ careers. Execute on behalf of our clients. Stay aligned as One Team. That is our competitive advantage, and it is exactly why the next chapter for Cottingham & Butler is so compelling. Our future as One Team, working together with purpose and alignment, has never been more exciting. Hear more, directly from our clients, about how we partner with them to create breakthrough solutions that deliver meaningful, measurable impact.

Key Wins 44% Premium Reduction Secured From the Incumbent Carrier $600,000+ in Annual Premium Savings 3 of 4 Carrier DeclinationsOverturned Creating Real Market Competition The Situation A national leader in renewable energy infrastructure and community solar projects came to Cottingham & Butler ahead of a renewal they expected to be expensive and frustrating. At their prior renewal, premiums had increased significantly, with little transparency and no clear justification from their carrier. The client didn't know whether the spike reflected their loss history, broader market conditions, or something else entirely. What made it more frustrating: this was a company with strong operational controls, a sophisticated risk profile, and a track record of responsible project execution. Yet the insurance market wasn't seeing any of that. They were being viewed unfavorably, and they had no visibility into why. The Cottingham & Butler Approach When C&B engaged the broader marketplace, the root cause became clear fast. Four separate carriers declined the risk — not because of loss history, but because of an incomplete and inaccurate picture of the client's operations. The story being told to underwriters was oversimplified. In some areas, it was just wrong. And the client had no idea. That's where our Description of Operations process changed everything. We went deep into project workflows, risk controls, safety practices, field operations, and exposure profile, and rebuilt the underwriting narrative from the ground up in a way that accurately reflected the company's scale, sophistication, and controls. The result: three of those four declinations were overturned, resulting in competitive quotes. Faced with credible market alternatives for thefirst time, a national carrier reassessed their position. The outcome was a 44% premium reduction (over $600,000 in annual savings) along with something equally valuable: a client who now enters every renewal with leverage, clarity, and multiple viable options.

On May 14, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously (9-0) in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC that freight brokers can be sued in state court when they're accused of hiring an unsafe carrier. The Court found that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA) — the federal law brokers have long relied on to block these lawsuits — doesn't apply when safety is the issue. The decision resolves a long-standing split among federal courts and changes the landscape for brokers, carriers, and the shippers who rely on them. We're sharing this as your insurance and risk advisors - not as legal experts. For legal guidance, please work with your attorney. Our goal here is to help you understand what the ruling does, what it doesn't do, and where to focus your attention in the weeks ahead. Background on the Case Truck driver Shawn Montgomery was severely injured — including the amputation of his leg — when a tractor-trailer hauling plastic pots veered off course in Illinois and struck his stopped vehicle. The trucking company involved, Caribe Transport II, had been hired by C.H. Robinson, one of the country's largest freight brokers. According to the opinion, Caribe Transport had a "conditional" safety rating from federal regulators at the time, with documented deficiencies in driver qualifications, hours of service, inspection and maintenance, and crash rates. Montgomery sued C.H. Robinson for negligent hiring, arguing the broker knew — or should have known — that hiring a carrier with that safety record was likely to result in a crash. C.H. Robinson argued the claim was preempted by the FAAAA. Federal courts had been split on the question for years, with the Sixth and Ninth Circuits allowing such claims to proceed, and the Seventh and Eleventh Circuits dismissing them. The Supreme Court took the case to resolve that split. What the Court Decided The FAAAA preempts state laws "related to a price, route, or service" of a broker or carrier, but contains a safety exception that preserves states' authority to regulate safety "with respect to motor vehicles." The Court was asked whether negligent-hiring claims against a broker fall within that exception. The answer was yes, unanimously. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the Court, reasoned that requiring a broker to exercise ordinary care in selecting a carrier "concerns motor vehicles" — most obviously the trucks that will move the goods. That brings the claim within the safety exception and out of preemption. Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence, joined by Justice Alito, agreed with the result but added important context. He noted the ruling "should not be read to mean that brokers will routinely be subject to state tort liability in the wake of truck accidents." Brokers who exercise reasonable care and document their carrier selection decisions remain well-positioned to defend claims. What This Means Practically The legal standard going forward is ordinary care — the same standard that already applies to motor carriers and most other businesses. The question a court will ask is whether the broker acted reasonably in selecting the carrier: Did they review available safety data? Did they have a documented vetting process? Did they identify and address red flags? A few points worth flagging: Brokers will face increased scrutiny on their carrier-vetting processes, including the documentation behind those decisions. Carriers with weaker safety profiles — elevated CSA scores, conditional ratings, recent enforcement actions — may find brokers more selective about hiring them. Shippers who rely on brokers should expect updated contract language around carrier selection, indemnification, and insurance requirements. Insurance underwriters will be evaluating broker accounts under a different lens, and legal analysts are already flagging insurance and indemnity questions as areas to watch. What to Focus On If you're a freight broker: Review your carrier-vetting process. If it's not documented, document it. If it is, make sure it reflects current FMCSA data sources, the criteria you apply, and how you handle red flags. Pull together a record of past vetting decisions — what data you reviewed, what you decided, and when. Talk to your insurance broker about whether your current liability coverage responds to a negligent-selection claim. If you're a motor carrier: Pull your FMCSA SAFER data and review it the way a broker — or a plaintiff's attorney — would. Address out-of-service violations, inspection issues, and open enforcement actions proactively. Treat CSA scores as a business priority. Brokers under new liability pressure will increasingly steer freight to carriers they can defensibly select. If you're a shipper: Review your transportation contracts. Indemnification language, insurance requirements, and carrier-selection standards may need updating. Ask your broker partners about their vetting process — and document what you require. Confirm your own contingent auto and contingent cargo coverage is adequate. Looking Ahead The first wave of post-Montgomery negligent-hiring suits is expected within weeks, and the insurance market will take time to respond. Carrier vetting standards, contract language, and broker liability coverage are all likely to evolve over the coming months. The Court's ruling didn't create a new duty — the duty to exercise reasonable care in selecting a carrier has existed for generations under common law. What changed is that the federal procedural shield is no longer available. Brokers, like carriers and shippers before them, are now accountable for that duty in court. If you have questions about how this ruling affects your business, your Cottingham & Butler team is ready to talk through it alongside your legal counsel.

The Environment We’re Navigating Public sector employers are operating in a labor market that is fundamentally different from the one that shaped many existing pay and benefit programs. Workforce supply has tightened across nearly all job families, retirements are accelerating, and competition for talent is strong. At the same time, public employers face constrained or highly scrutinized budgets, rising wages and benefit costs, increased service demands, and heightened expectations for transparency, equity, and fiscal stewardship. These conditions are exposing misalignment between legacy total rewards programs and today’s workforce realities. Labor Supply & Workforce Demographics Retirements continue to outpace new workforce entrants; US is entering a period of structural labor shortage Millennials and Gen Z now represent the majority of the workforce and place higher value on pay progression, flexibility, and clarity Talent gaps due to labor shortages & educational/training misalignments are creating recruiting and training challenges for public sector Benefits Cost & Design Pressures Chronic physical and mental health conditions drive a growing share of healthcare spend Specialty medications and GLP‑1 drugs are materially increasing plan costs Many public sector plans maintain higher actuarial value and lower employee cost share than market peers Outdated position alignment and wage structures have caused recruiting and retention challenges Legacy pay & benefit offerings often reflect historic labor agreements rather than current workforce needs and may not be aligned with the demands of today’s workers Compensation & Labor Market Movement Midwest public sector employers projected an overall median payroll budget increase of 3.3% for 2026 Market movement has varied by occupation, increasing the importance of targeted adjustments Competitive positioning is shifting more frequently, increasing the risk of falling behind between studies Increased expectations from new workforce entrants for upward mobility and transparency Considerations for Public Sector Employers Revisit total rewards philosophy to confirm current spending aligns with stated goals for competitiveness, equity, and retention Review legacy pay and benefit offerings to determine whether generosity is intentional and sustainable or simply inherited. For example, is your organization aligned with FLSA for OT practices, or are you more generous? Stated practices like paying overtime after 8 hours per day rather than 40 hours per work week can have real impacts on total overtime budgets. Assess compensation structures and pay progression models to ensure they support career growth and are consistently market aligned Examine overtime usage and scheduling practices to distinguish structural cost drivers from temporary staffing gaps The Opportunity By intentionally realigning compensation and total rewards programs with workforce realities, public sector employers can improve attraction and retention, reduce financial pressure without eroding employee value, increase transparency, and ensure limited public dollars are used as intended. Matt Shefchik Assistant VP - Total Rewards Consulting mshefchik@cottinghambutler.com

Healthcare costs continue to climb, but the root causes are often misunderstood. This video explains how key players in the system - from insurers to drug manufacturers- are financially incentivized by higher spend, not better outcomes. Understanding these dynamics is the first step toward smarter health plan decisions. Heather Acerra Sales Executive - Employee Benefits HAcerra@cottinghambutler.com

Pay Transparency Laws and Growing EPL Exposures Pay transparency laws refer to regulations that require applicable employers to disclose certain information regarding employee compensation­ – namely, salary ranges and benefits packages-in job postings for open positions, amid promotions and transfers, and upon request from existing staff. The United States has seen a rapid expansion of these laws over the past few years, with an increasing number of jurisdictions implementing them. While pay transparency laws can certainly help promote pay equity and reduce potential gender­and race-related wage disparities, they also pose additional employment practices liability (EPL) exposures. These laws aren't solely an HR matter, but rather a corporate governance issue that can leave noncompliant businesses and their leadership teams with costly litigation, insurance challenges and lasting reputational damage. As such, it's vital for businesses to better understand these laws and how to reduce their related EPL exposures. This article provides an overview of pay transparency laws, explains their impact on the EPL space, and outlines related mitigation and governance strategies. Pay Transparency Laws Explained A growing number of states and cities have adopted pay transparency laws. These laws vary across jurisdictions, but core requirements include: Salary and benefits disclosures - These laws generally require employers to clearly state the minimum and maximum salary or hourly wage range for all job postings, as well as benefits packages for open positions. Employers must also share this compensation information when workers are transferred or promoted to new positions and upon request. Retaliation protections - Under these laws, employers may be prohibited from retaliating against employees who openly discuss their pay or other compensation information. Salary history bans - In some jurisdictions, these laws may also restrict employers from requesting salary history from job candidates to determine their future pay. Pay reporting - Under certain circumstances, these laws may require employers to periodically report employee compensation data to regulators. Employers must comply with pay transparency laws in any jurisdiction where their employees work. This means that employers operating in multiple states or with remote employees stationed across the country may face a patchwork of regulatory requirements, creating an increasingly complex compliance landscape. Impact on the EPL Space In addition to increasing compliance demands, expanding pay transparency laws have provided greater visibility into employers' pay practices, exposing a variety of previously concealed compensation data. This has helped shed light on prolonged pay disparities, inconsistent compensation structures and patterns of employment discrimination among businesses and their leadership teams, increasing the likelihood of costly litigation. Common forms of pay transparency litigation include: Discrimination and retaliation charges­ - Disclosure of historical compensation data may provide evidence of gender- and race-related pay disparities, prompting former and current employees to file discrimination charges against businesses and their executives. If current staff face adverse employment actions as a result of discussing compensation information or calling out pay disparities, they may allege retaliation. Class-action lawsuits - When employees compare compensation data across different job roles and departments and identify repeated pay disparities, they may come together to file class-action lawsuits against businesses and their leadership teams. A key example of such litigation is a collective wage discrimination lawsuit, in which a business or its board members are sued on behalf of a large group of employees who reported similar pay disparities. Third-party allegations - Besides litigation from former and current employees, businesses and their executives may also encounter lawsuits from job candidates who file pay transparency disputes. This third-party litigation primarily stems from candidates alleging that salary disclosures were missing from job postings or that the compensation information they were provided for an open position was misleading or otherwise inaccurate. When businesses and their leadership teams encounter pay transparency litigation, this may trigger associated EPL claims. Depending on the nature of these claims and specific policy limits and exclusions, businesses may receive only partial coverage for any legal defense costs, settlements and judgments stemming from this litigation. Even if businesses have ample coverage for these losses, repeated EPL claims, especially those involving costly payouts, may result in heightened premiums, restricted capacity and greater underwriting scrutiny going forward. Complicating matters, businesses and executives that fail to comply with applicable pay transparency laws may face severe regulatory penalties and fines, which are generally excluded from EPL coverage. This can exacerbate out-of-pocket costs and place significant financial strain on affected businesses and their leadership teams. What's more, pay transparency litigation and associated regulatory violations are often highly publicized, attracting negative media attention and diminishing stakeholder confidence. This can leave businesses and their board members with lasting reputational damage, potentially threatening continued customer loyalty and overall financial stability. Mitigation and Governance Strategies Fortunately, there are several steps businesses can take to avoid pay transparency litigation, violations and related EPL claims: Strengthen compensation governance. Businesses should consult legal counsel to maintain compliance with applicable pay transparency laws in their respective jurisdictions, including locations where they recruit and employ remote workers. Corporate leaders should also be well-versed in these laws and actively participate in creating a structured framework of standards and processes for determining fair employee compensation. This may entail conducting routine pay equity audits and establishing defensible salary bands, ultimately ensuring compensation aligns with corporate strategy, drives employee performance and minimizes legal exposures. Enhance pay transparency controls and culture. Businesses should also train management on pay transparency laws and their related responsibilities. In particular, managers should be educated on leading pay­related discussions, conducting appropriate hiring practices and maintaining consistent compensation documentation. Managers should also be strictly prohibited from taking adverse employment action against employees who discuss their salaries or raise concerns about pay disparities, thereby fostering open dialogue and a positive company culture. Ensure proper coverage. Having adequate EPL insurance can make all the difference in helping businesses and their leadership teams minimize the financial fallout from pay transparency litigation. Businesses should work with trusted insurance professionals to closely review their EPL policy scope and exclusions, adjusting coverage limits and securing specialized solutions as needed to reflect the latest employment litigation trends. Key topics to address when making policy decisions include wage and hour exclusions, defense cost provisions, and coverage for pay equity and third-party employment claims. Conclusion Looking forward, pay transparency laws will likely continue to expand across the United States. As a result, it's vital for businesses to understand the potential implications of these regulations and take action to reduce their related EPL exposures. By raising awareness of pay transparency and implementing effective mitigation and governance strategies, businesses can better protect their leadership teams and promote a fair compensation environment. Contact us today for more risk management guidance and insurance solutions. Matt Shefchik mshefchik@cottinghambutler.com Asst VP-TRC • Total Rewards Consulting (608) 345-9886

Written by: Cottingham & Butler Food & Agribusiness Group Executive Summary Antitrust enforcement in the United States has entered a materially more aggressive phase—one that increasingly places directors and officers under personal scrutiny. Recent federal investigations reinforce a broader regulatory shift: antitrust risk is no longer limited to transformational mergers or a few headline industries. For boards and executive teams, the financial, operational, and personal consequences of an investigation now warrant proactive attention, particularly in how Directors & Officers (D&O) insurance programs are structured. A More Aggressive Enforcement Environment In April 2026, The Wall Street Journal reported that the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Antitrust Division opened a criminal investigation into major beef processors, examining whether highly concentrated market participants engaged in unlawful coordination affecting pricing and market behavior. While the companies involved have not been accused of wrongdoing—and investigations do not always result in charges—the inclusion of criminal prosecutors alongside civil enforcement signals an escalation that should not be ignored. This case reflects a broader enforcement posture driven by: Industry consolidation and market concentration Price volatility and cost sensitivity for consumers Increased political and public attention on competition For leadership teams, the key risk is not limited to eventual outcomes. The existence of a government investigation alone can trigger substantial legal expense, reputational pressure, and executive distraction. Understanding Modern Antitrust Exposure At its core, antitrust law is designed to preserve fair competition and prevent restraints on trade. Common areas of scrutiny include price‑fixing, bid‑rigging, market allocation, and other forms of coordinated conduct under the Sherman Antitrust Act. What has changed is enforcement emphasis. Historically, antitrust actions were often civil and targeted primarily at corporate entities. Today, regulators are increasingly focused on individual accountability, examining whether directors and officers: Authorized or endorsed certain practices Failed to oversee pricing, data sharing, or competitor interaction Lacked sufficient governance controls or compliance oversight Criminal antitrust matters can carry severe penalties for organizations. For individuals, the risk includes prolonged investigations, personal defense costs, and—at the extreme—criminal exposure. Even where no wrongdoing ultimately exists, investigations themselves are often long‑running and costly. Where D&O Insurance Fits — and Where Risk Often Goes Unaddressed D&O insurance is designed to protect directors and officers from claims alleging wrongful acts in the management of the organization, including regulatory investigations. However, antitrust exposure is one of the most nuanced and unevenly addressed risks within D&O programs. Across the market, antitrust risk is typically handled in one of three ways: Specific endorsements or sublimits providing defined defense‑cost protection Restrictions on entity coverage, particularly for public companies Exclusions that limit coverage unless individuals are named Even when exclusions appear broad, many policies continue to cover defense costs for individual directors and officers until a final adjudication establishes intentional or criminal misconduct. This is a critical distinction, as antitrust investigations can generate millions of dollars in defense expense long before liability is determined. Programs that lack clarity around these provisions may leave executives unexpectedly exposed during the earliest and most expensive phase of an inquiry. Why This Matters Now — Beyond Any One Industry While recent enforcement activity has focused on food and agriculture, the underlying dynamics apply across many sectors. Companies are increasingly vulnerable to scrutiny where there is: Significant market share or pricing influence Benchmarking, information‑sharing, or industry collaboration Heightened regulatory or political sensitivity As a result, antitrust risk should be viewed as a governance issue, not simply a legal one. For boards and executive management, the more relevant questions are: Are we prepared for the cost and disruption of a government investigation? Does our D&O program clearly address antitrust defense and individual protection? Have we assessed how our coverage would respond in the first 30 days of regulatory scrutiny? Early clarity can materially affect outcomes—for both the organization and its leadership. Conclusion Antitrust risk is no longer a remote legal concept reserved for Silicon Valley or mega‑mergers. It is a mainstream exposure tied to scale, governance, and market dynamics. As enforcement becomes more aggressive and more personal, D&O insurance remains one of the few tools available to protect directors and officers during periods of heightened scrutiny. For that protection to be effective, antitrust coverage must be an intentional and informed component of every D&O discussion—not a footnote. Proactive review today can help ensure leadership is protected when scrutiny inevitably arises.

Staying compliant in 2026 means keeping pace with a benefits landscape that isn't slowing down. From new legislation and regulatory updates to evolving employer obligations, the details matter, and missing them can be costly. Our 2026 Compliance On-Demand Series is designed to keep you informed, prepared, and confident heading into every quarter. Check out the full recordings of past webinars below! Want to catch us live? Check out our upcoming webinars! ACA Employer Reporting Check out our latest webinar on ACA employer reporting, held right in the midst of the 2025 filing season. We walked through the key requirements for Forms 1094 and 1095 and highlighted common pitfalls, best practices, and practical tips to ensure accurate, complete, and compliant reporting. ERISA Fiduciary Duties This session is on ERISA fiduciary duties for health and welfare plans, designed to help employers understand their obligations as plan sponsors. We reviewed key ERISA requirements, highlight common compliance pitfalls, and shared practical best practices to minimize fiduciary risk. Navigating Employer-Sponsored Coverage & Medicare During this time we discuss how Medicare interacts with employer-sponsored health plans, an increasingly important topic as more employees continue working past age 65. We broke down eligibility and enrollment timing for Medicare Parts A, B, and D, clarify how Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) rules impact group plan coordination, and highlight key considerations such as HSA eligibility, COBRA timing, and employer premium reimbursements. Compliance Checklist & Regulatory Updates In this compliance refresh webinar, we walked through key deadlines, best practices, and 2026 regulatory updates — giving you a clear roadmap for the rest of the year.

Get the facts directly from Dean Croke, DAT's Market Analyst and one of the industry's most trusted voices on freight markets. In this exclusive 10-minute video interview, Dean breaks down: Capacity Exits are Driving Rates Higher — Rates are up 20–25% YoY with supply exits, not demand, driving the increase as trucks have left the market. Government Pressures are Shrinking Carrier Supply — English proficiency enforcement, ELD issues, and thousands of closed CDL schools have pushed carriers out of the market. Diesel Prices are Accelerating Carrier Departures — Cash flow pressure is pushing smaller spot-market carriers out of the industry, which is further tightening available capacity heading into spring. AI is Booming While Consumer Freight Softens — Data center freight is up 18% YoY, but towables are down 15%. Higher spot rates aren't a sign of economic recovery, as the underlying freight demand picture remains unclear. May Could Be the Most Volatile Month Yet — California and Florida produce loads are topping $10K. When Road Check Week collides with Mother's Day florals and peak produce season, there won't be enough trucks to absorb the volume - expect serious rate spikes.