If you weren’t there, you could feel the buzz Monday morning from those who were.

Future PLUS kept the energy rolling with a creative networking event that blended strategy, collaboration, and a dash of competition on Monday afternoon. Attendees jumped into Networking Bingo, where every handshake and conversation helped fill in the squares and earn prizes. The atmosphere was relaxed, social, and filled with memorable moments.

A big thanks to Future PLUS for hosting these events to make sure we get everything started off on the right foot. If you haven’t yet run into any enthusiastic Future PLUS members, here’s a bit about the generous host… Future PLUS isn’t just for new talent. It’s a pipeline containing the next generation of leaders that will step into key roles, address evolving industry demands, and ensure continued growth and innovation within professional liability.

These two events didn’t just welcome attendees—they energized them, connected them, and reminded everyone that when you build community, you build leaders.

This year, the PLUS community partnered with the Orlando Fisher House, an organization that provides free lodging and a supportive, comforting environment for the families of military service members and veterans receiving care at the Orlando VA Medical Center. Fisher House isn’t just a place to stay—it’s a lifeline during stressful, emotional, and uncertain times.

During today’s event, attendees wrote dozens of heartfelt, handwritten notes filled with gratitude, encouragement, and hope. These messages will be placed in welcome bags for families arriving at the Fisher House in the coming months—each one offering a personal reminder that they are seen, supported, and appreciated.

As pens moved and conversations sparked, one thing was undeniable:
Service is part of who we are.

Since 2004, Conference Cause has thrived because of dedicated people like you—industry professionals who show up, roll up their sleeves, and choose to give back. Your involvement has contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars and countless volunteer hours to organizations in conference host cities nationwide.

By supporting the Orlando Fisher House—one of 84 Fisher Houses across the U.S. and overseas—PLUS attendees helped honor the courage and sacrifice of our nation’s heroes and their families.

Thank you to everyone who participated today. Your impact will be felt long after the conference ends.

The Escalating Cost of Workforce Volatility

Across the commercial landscape, EPLI losses are becoming more volatile and harder to predict. Marsh McLennan has reported a steady rise in both nuclear verdicts (jury awards exceeding $10 million) and thermonuclear verdicts (jury awards exceeding $100 million) that have reshaped claim exposure across management and employment lines.

Meanwhile, this pattern is amplified by what insurers call social inflation — liability claim costs rising faster than general inflation because of evolving jurisprudence, plaintiff-friendly environments, litigation funding and new societal expectations (Swiss Re Institute; NAIC).

For brokers and carriers alike, rising workforce volatility is showing up in the numbers: higher claim frequency, escalating defense costs, and shrinking contingency margins as loss ratios creep upward. For example, Travelers Insurance Insights attributes rising professional-liability costs to increased frequency, defense costs, and social inflation factors.

In many cases, the earliest drivers of those losses—harassment allegations, leadership
breakdowns, communication failures—surface months before a claim is ever filed. Without early visibility, these issues evolve quietly into payouts, renewals lost, and missed profit targets that could have been prevented.

From Reactive Management to Predictive Prevention

In high-reliability environments—from U.S. Special Operations and federal agencies with offices in every state to global manufacturers—researchers have long observed that the same communication fractures and operational breakdowns that lead to mission failure often precede workforce incidents that escalate into costly claims.

Early research suggests that predictive feedback systems can reduce those incidents by 20–30%, and in some controlled cases, eliminate them entirely.

These prevention frameworks—originally designed for environments where failure costs lives or millions of dollars—are now informing a new era of risk management across insurance portfolios. The underlying principle is simple but transformative: detect and resolve workforce volatility before it triggers a claim.

Rather than waiting for complaints, investigations, or legal escalation, continuous sentiment and communication analytics can surface early indicators of friction. Handled with confidentiality and expert interpretation, these signals enable quiet interventions long before they translate into financial exposure.

Why Brokers and Carriers Should Care

For the insurance ecosystem, prevention is not a moral issue—it’s a financial one. The average EPLI claim can exceed $185,000 in combined defense and indemnity costs. Reducing frequency even slightly can materially shift a book’s combined ratio.

Brokers who support clients in preventing workforce-related losses also protect the contingency bonuses tied to their carrier loss thresholds. Carriers that integrate proactive prevention into their portfolios gain measurable loss-ratio improvement, stronger renewal retention, and reputational differentiation in an increasingly commoditized market.

In that sense, Workforce Risk Prevention™ represents the next logical layer of loss
control—similar to how telematics reframed auto underwriting or how IoT sensors reshaped property risk. It introduces a predictive human analytics layer that operates quietly in the background, complementing the actuarial and legal infrastructure carriers already rely on.

Evidence From Other Sectors

The case for prevention isn’t speculative. Federal and enterprise environments have
demonstrated the same pattern repeatedly: when people feel heard, guided, and aligned, risk exposure drops dramatically. For example, the ADP Research Institute notes that early identification of at-risk workforce patterns can improve retention outcomes by roughly 30%, underscoring the predictive power of behavioral analytics in managing human risk.

Early frameworks developed in mission-critical and enterprise settings show that targeted communication feedback loops can mitigate between 20–30% of incidents—and, in some scenarios, prevent them entirely. Those same methods are now being evaluated by insurers and brokers as measurable prevention layers that protect both clients and profitability.

The Economics of Prevention

Consider the compounding impact across an insurance portfolio: A carrier insuring 2,000 businesses, each averaging 75 employees, might expect roughly one EPLI claim per thousand 2 employees per year. At $185,000 per claim, even a 10% reduction in frequency could preserve more than $25 million in claim costs across a three-year period.

Because Workforce Risk Prevention™ acts upstream—long before legal involvement—the savings are realized immediately, not after litigation. Equally important, insured employers that implement prevention programs often show greater organizational stability and lower incident frequency, which translates into stronger renewal performance, improved portfolio retention, and measurable loss-ratio improvement across the book.

Looking Ahead: The Next Competitive Edge

Insurance has always rewarded those who recognize change before it shows up in loss ratios. Workforce Risk Prevention™ is emerging as one of those changes — a discipline that applies the same predictive rigor used in cyber and property risk to the workforce itself.

The organizations that lead this shift won’t simply insure against human risk; they’ll measure, trend, and prevent it. For carriers and brokers, that represents not a new product line but a new way to strengthen every line they already write. In the years ahead, competitive advantage will come from proactive loss avoidance, not post-claim efficiency.

Closing Thought

Every preventable claim begins as a preventable conversation. By applying predictive science and prevention frameworks long proven in high-stakes environments, the insurance industry can finally close its last major prevention gap—protecting not only margins, but people, the foundation of every enterprise it insures.

References

Marsh McLennan. Nuclear verdicts are on the rise: How can you minimize your risks?
(Sept 27, 2024).

Swiss Re Institute (Sigma 4/2024). Social inflation: litigation costs drive claims inflation. (Sept 7, 2024).

National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC). Regulator Insight: Social Inflation. (Jan 2023).

Travelers. 5 Factors Causing a Rise in Professional Liability Insurance Rates for Public
Organizations. (2023).

ADP Research Institute. Revelations From Workforce Turnover: A Closer Look Through
Predictive Analytics. (2019).

Meet the Author

Dr. Justin Velten is co-founder and CEO of Go Culture Labs, the research and technology firm that pioneered the discipline of Workforce Risk Prevention™. His company’s TeamShield system operationalizes that discipline to help brokers and carriers measure and prevent workforce-driven EPLI loss at scale.

Reportedly, the Big Ten Conference is moving towards a vote on the creation of a new entity, Big Ten Enterprises (BTE), which would allow  UC Investments, manager of the University of California’s $190B in retirement and endowment assets (UC Pension Fund), to invest $2.4B into BTE, which would be paid out to universities. In exchange, BTE would own and manage the Big Ten schools’ media and sponsorship rights. The Big Ten includes the Ohio State University, a school with an Athletic Department Revenue purportedly totaling over $215M.

Before discussing the proposed framework of the BTE and potential liability exposures stemming therefrom, the following briefly reviews the litigation against the antitrust litigation brought by athletes against the NCAA and conferences, as well as the resulting House Settlement, and commoditization of student-athletes’ NIL (name, image, and likeness).

The In Re College Athlete NIL litigation was filed initially as House v. NCAA; a lawsuit brought in the 9^th circuit by Arizona State swimmer Grant House and consolidated with two other NIL-related cases brought by former student athletes.  House sued the NCAA and its largest conferences (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12, and SEC) over the refusal to share TV revenue with college athletes, among other issues. In June 2025 In Re College Athlete NIL litigation settlement (“House Settlement”) was approved, which provided terms of engagement for universities to directly pay college athletes for their NIL.

Specifically, the House Settlement established a framework for universities to pay athletes, including creating a member benefit Pool (with graded revenue sharing).  The settlement also addressed third-party NIL payments, mandated student-athlete reporting for third-party NIL contracts in excess of $600, and set specific Sport roster limits for universities that provide payments or benefits (including scholarships) to student-athletes.

What the House Settlement does not do, however, is contemplate the currently proposed BTE investment fund framework.  The following discusses part of the projected deal and potential risks to BTE university participants.

Shares of ownership in the BTE would be purchased by the 18 conference schools, the Big Ten, and the investor group tied to the UC Pension Fund.  The $2.4B valuation was purportedly higher than competing bids, and the investor group is not a private equity firm.  Not every Big Ten-member school supports the initiative, and the equity amount per school is still being negotiated.  It is anticipated that a tiered structure for equity will be created with larger-brand schools receiving a slightly higher share of the initial $2B plus payout from BTE, with each school purportedly receiving $100M or more. For some participating universities, this capital may be seen as necessary to recruit top athletic recruits with larger NIL offers and payments.

One federal lawmaker, Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington, has already raised a potential professional liability risk to universities in a letter to Big Ten presidents cautioning them about allowing the BTE deal to go forward.  The senator noted that participation in the BTE “[m]ay be counter to your university’s academic goals, may require the sale of university assets to a private investor, and may affect the tax-exempt purpose of those assets.”

Most public and private universities are tax-exempt entities under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code because they operate for an educational purpose or are state governmental entities. To remain tax-exempt, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes outlined in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual.   Thus, as Senator Cantwell signals, earnings by BTE participating universities may benefit the UC Pension Fund investor group, potentially running afoul of 501(c)(3).

If BTE members fail to maintain their 501(c)(3) status university donors and grant funders that rely on 501(c)(3) tax-deductible donations may bring director and officer (D&O) claims against university leadership.  Such allegations of misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty may result in exposure to the university’s D&O insurance policy.  Another potential risk to BTE university members and their D&O insurers may result from heightened regulatory scrutiny over, particularly public universities, investment in what may be considered a “buy now, pay later” investment structure.

In particular, the BTE deal, once executed, may invite public-sector oversight as the $2B plus in cash is paid out to participating universities in anticipation of returns for the UC Pension Fund group. For example, state legislatures may require that participating BTE universities create financial oversight committees that report results to state government financial agencies and that BTE deal records be made public.  This could include providing greater transparency regarding return on equity and investment committed by university leadership and may lead to increased scrutiny, which may come in the form of legislative subpoenas and hearings.

University D&O insurance may provide coverage for legal expenses incurred in preparing, responding, and representing officials that may be called to testify regarding participation in the BTE.  There may also be questions surrounding failure by participating BTE universities to meet investment return expectations, particularly sponsorship or media resets from certain schools that may be lackluster due to team performance.  Such queries may lead to fiduciary liability claims by university employees and beneficiaries, depending on how the capital from BTE is initially deployed and the value of participating universities sponsorships and media rights.

Charlie Baker, the president of the NCAA, in addressing the potential creation of the BTE stated recently, “My message to everybody on this would be really simple: ‘Be really careful.'”  He may be right.

If athletic conferences evolve into investment vehicles for participating universities, the line between education and enterprise may become blurred, impacting the fiduciary and governance expectations of university leadership.  By accepting short-term capital infusion in exchange for long-term media and sponsorship rights, universities may become participants in a complex commercial fund structure.  Particularly if payment for expensive NIL contracts does not result in a winning program.

In addition, participating institutions may invite scrutiny not only from lawmakers and tax authorities, but also from donors, alumni, and regulators who expect universities to act in the public interest. Thus, for professional liability insurance carriers, the risks associated with the proposed BTE model highlight how university D&O and fiduciary exposures may expand beyond Title IX and employment claims into investment, disclosure, and governance risk should universities and conferences choose to participate.

See Sarah Abrams at the 2025 PLUS Conference as she interviews the 2025 PLUS Conference headliner, Nick Saban during the opening general session.

Learn more and register below:

2025 PLUS Conference

Meet the Author

Sarah Abrams, Head of Claims

Baleen Specialty, a division of Bowhead Specialty

Sarah Abrams is the Head of Claims at Baleen Specialty, a division of Bowhead Specialty.  She built the Baleen Claims department and in her previously role as Head of Professional Liability Claims at Bowhead Specialty she oversaw the professional liability claims department handling of Director and Officer, Management Liability and Errors and Omissions claims. Sarah practiced law in Chicago, representing carriers, before moving in house.  She has authored numerous articles and is a regular speaker at insurance and legal industry events.

For this year’s Halloween season we have an incredibly terrifying situation for risk managers at every level! Can a carrier successfully argue that a previous lawsuit, which did NOT name your insured as a defendant, be used to deny coverage for a current claim that is seemingly related to the previous lawsuit? In this case the court said no, but it’s easy to see how this could have gone against the insured’s favor.

Twin City Fire Insurance Co. v. RK Family, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-2275-ALM (S.D. Ohio Sept. 29, 2025)

Before Policy Period:

• December 2020 – May 2021: Supervisor sexually harasses/assaults minor employee
• March 5, 2021: Minor employee reports harassment to store manager
• March 16, 2021: Store manager fires supervisor and reports to police
• June 10, 2021: Ex-supervisor indicted by grand jury (rape, sexual battery, compelling prostitution)

Policy Period:

• March 31, 2022: EPL policy period begins
• May 17, 2022: Ex-supervisor pleads guilty, sentenced to 23-26 years
• June 7, 2022: Minor employee files EEOC charges against insured
• October 16, 2022: Minor employee files civil lawsuit against insured

The Carrier’s Argument

The carrier made a motion for summary judgment to confirm that they had no duty to defend. Their argument was that since the wrongful acts alleged by the plaintiff were all related to the ex-supervisor’s behavior that occurred prior to the inception of the policy, and since the ex-supervisor was indicted by a grand jury in June 2021 (nine months before the policy inception), this was a prior claim outside the policy period.

Here’s where it gets terrifying: The EPL policy defined “Employment Practices Claim” to include “a criminal proceeding commenced by the return of an indictment or similar document” if made “by or on behalf of an Employee.”

The carrier argued that the criminal indictment qualified as an “Employment Practices Claim” and that the subsequent EEOC charges and civil lawsuit were “interrelated” to it. Under the policy’s interrelationship provision, all interrelated claims are deemed first made on the earliest date, which would be June 2021, before the policy period began. Result: no coverage.

The Court’s Response

The court rejected that argument, stating that “at this stage, this Court cannot conclude as a matter of law that the Indictment qualifies as a Claim ‘by or on behalf of’ [the plaintiff] under the Policy to qualify as an ‘Employment Practices Claim’ such that it may be ‘interrelated’ with the [civil lawsuit] or the [EEOC] Charges.”

Here’s the key legal point: The phrase “by or on behalf of” was undefined in the contract and therefore the court determined it was ambiguous. Under Ohio law, ambiguities in insurance contracts are construed against the insurer.

The court reasoned that the indictment was brought by the state in its sovereign capacity, and thus it did not depend on the employee’s decision to initiate or pursue relief “by or on behalf of” the minor employee. Without clear policy language defining what “on behalf of” means, the carrier couldn’t prove the criminal proceeding qualified as an “Employment Practices Claim.”

We Can All Breathe a Sigh of Relief… Right?

We can all appreciate this particular happy ending; a reasonable conclusion by the court. But here’s the scary part: a different court could have easily ruled in favor of the carrier and stated that the indictment was related to the current claim, therefore there’s no coverage.

The Impossible Standard

But let’s focus on what the carrier’s position actually required of the insured. Even if we accept the carrier’s interpretation, how exactly was the insured supposed to know about the criminal indictment?

The insured was not named in the indictment. The state prosecuted the ex-supervisor for his crimes. The employer had no involvement in that criminal case. They weren’t a party, they weren’t notified, and they had no reason to be monitoring it.

The only way the insured could have been aware of the indictment was if they were keeping tabs on their ex-supervisor, essentially Googling him monthly to see if his name popped up in any criminal proceedings. How else could the insured have known about and reported this “claim” a claim which, again, did not name them as a defendant?

Think about what this means for risk management: 

Fire the abuser? Check. 

Report to police? Check. 

Monitor that ex-employee’s criminal proceedings into perpetuity in case it somehow becomes “your” claim under an EPL policy? That can’t be the standard.

A Potential Solution

One solution might be to amend the definition of “claim” to stipulate that the insured must have been made aware of the claim in question. If the insured was not named in the indictment, then how could they have been expected to report the matter? If the definition of claim required the insured’s knowledge, than this particular argument by the carrier could not have been made as the insured had no knowledge of the indictment.

While this didn’t come up in the court documents, one would have to assume that when the insured completed their application for EPLI coverage, they answered “not aware” to questions about circumstances that may give rise to a claim. The carrier apparently didn’t expect the insured to have knowledge of the criminal case either, otherwise they would have raised misrepresentation.

Let’s have policy language that affirms the definition of “claim” cannot be met without the insured’s actual knowledge. That way risk managers can sleep a little better knowing this particular coverage gap will not be lurking, waiting to ensnare their businesses in terrifying coverage gaps.

When carriers include criminal proceedings in the definition of “Employment Practices Claim” but pair it with vague language like “by or on behalf of,” they create ambiguity that should, and in this case did, get resolved against the insurer. But insureds shouldn’t have to fight these battles in court.

Don’t let your coverage be buried in the graveyard of undefined policy terms and impossible reporting standards. This Halloween, the scariest story isn’t about what goes bump in the night, it’s about discovering your “claims-made” policy thinks a claim was made before you ever knew it existed. Demand clear language, or risk becoming another casualty of coverage denial season.

This analysis is provided for educational purposes only. For specific insurance coverage questions, consult with competent coverage counsel.

Meet the Author

Lucas Roberts

Wholesale Broker, Anzen

Lucas Roberts is a professional lines specialist with experience in both underwriting and wholesale brokerage. He maintains an active LinkedIn presence, regularly sharing insights on professional liability developments. This blog takes a deeper dive into developments that have far-reaching consequences for the professional liability market.

You can see more of Lucas’s Claims Made Bites on his LinkedIn.

Understanding the Rapid Evolution and Types of AI

The episode opens with an overview of the different types of AI technologies now present in the workplace. From generative AI to deep learning, natural language processing, and agentic AI, the hosts explain how these tools simulate—but do not replace—human intelligence. The discussion emphasizes that while AI can automate tasks like resume screening, performance evaluations, and even drafting legal documents, it is essential to remember that these systems operate based on data and algorithms, not human judgment.

Legal and Regulatory Risks in Employment Decisions

A major focus of the episode is the legal minefield employers face when using AI for HR functions. The hosts highlight recent cases and new regulations at the state and local levels, such as New York City’s bias audit requirements and California’s record-keeping mandates. They discuss how AI tools can inadvertently perpetuate discrimination, leading to class action lawsuits and regulatory scrutiny. The conversation underscores the importance of understanding both the intended and unintended consequences of AI-driven employment decisions, and the need for ongoing legal counsel to navigate this evolving landscape.

Confidentiality, Cybersecurity, and Intellectual Property Concerns

Beyond discrimination risks, the episode explores the broader implications of AI use, including confidentiality breaches, cybersecurity threats, and intellectual property (IP) issues. Real-world examples are used to illustrate how sensitive data can be exposed through AI-powered note-taking tools or how AI-generated outputs might infringe on copyrights or trademarks. The hosts stress the importance of robust data privacy protocols, employee training, and careful vetting of AI vendors to mitigate these risks.

Best Practices: Policies, Training, and Insurance

To help employers minimize their exposure, this episode offers practical guidance on developing and implementing AI use policies. This includes collaborating with HR and IT teams, restricting the use of public AI tools, and ensuring human oversight of AI outputs. The hosts also recommend regular employee training, transparency in AI use, and maintaining up-to-date insurance coverage that specifically addresses algorithmic risks. They caution against relying on AI to draft critical policies or legal documents, advocating instead for professional legal advice.

Why This Episode Matters for Professional Liability Practitioners

This episode is essential  for professional liability practitioners because it highlights the intersection of emerging technology and legal risk. As AI becomes more integrated into employment practices, the potential for liability—whether from discrimination claims, data breaches, or IP disputes—grows exponentially. Practitioners must stay informed about the latest regulatory developments, advise clients on best practices, and ensure that insurance policies and risk management strategies are adapted to address the unique challenges posed by AI. The insights from this episode equip professionals to better counsel their clients and proactively mitigate the risks associated with AI in the workplace.

Interested in learning more about this topic? Listen to the full episode here.

Meet the Speakers

Laura Corvo serves as Counsel at White and Williams. She represents employers in employment litigation and counsels clients on a variety of employment-related issues. She has extensive knowledge of federal, state and local employment laws and regularly counsels employers on a host of personnel and human resource issues including, employee hiring, discipline and termination matters, reductions in force, wage and hour compliance, family and medical leave compliance, and managing accommodations for disabled employees. Laura frequently conducts harassment and discrimination investigations and provides training to executives, managers and employees on a range of topics including anti-harassment, anti-discrimination and diversity. She also drafts and reviews employment contracts, employee handbooks and other personnel policies. Laura represents employers in litigation involving claims of discrimination, harassment and retaliation in federal and state courts and before various administrative agencies. She is also experienced in the litigation of business tort matters involving non-compete and other restrictive covenant agreements.

Victoria Fuller is a Partner and Co-Chair of the Labor and Employment Practice Group. She practices out of White and Williams’ Boston office. Victoria has over 17 years of experience as a civil litigator, focusing on employment litigation and counseling, higher education litigation, insurance coverage and bad faith litigation. Victoria is well-known for her creativity, commitment, efficiency and strategic focus with clients. Victoria regularly represents businesses, educational institutions, and non-profits in employment litigation pending in the EEOC, MCAD, as well as in Massachusetts state and Federal Court. In addition, she counsels employers with respect to a variety of employment matters including hiring, termination (including RIFs), requests for accommodation, policies and procedures, and restrictive covenants. In addition to employment matters, Victoria also defends educational institutions in legal disputes with students. Victoria also represents insurers in complex coverage and bad faith disputes and handles first party property coverage matters.

Victoria Ranieri is an Associate in the Commercial Litigation Department at White and Williams, based in the Boston office. She is a member of the Labor and Employment, Higher Education, and Insurance Coverage and Bad Faith practice groups. Victoria brings a strategic, solutions-oriented approach to helping employers navigate complex workplace issues. She regularly defends businesses and educational institutions in proceedings before the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination and EEOC, as well as in state and federal courts. Victoria has extensive trial experience, serving as lead counsel in dozens of jury trials. Beyond litigation, Victoria counsels employers on a variety of issues including development of policies and procedures, employee discipline and termination, and requests for accommodation. Victoria also represents educational institutions in disputes with students, including breach of contract and discrimination claims, and advises insurers in coverage and bad faith litigation.

In Gidor v. Mangus d/b/a Mangus Inspections, 2024 WL 80950 (Pa. Super. Jan. 8, 2024), the Superior Court found that Section 7512 of the Pennsylvania Home Inspection Law (68 Pa.C.S.A. § 7512) operated as a statute of repose, not a statute of limitations, and thus was not tolled by the discovery rule.

Ms. Gidor’s petition for allowance of appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court focused on the designation of Section 7512 as a statute of repose, arguing that the statute is ambiguous and places the burden of commencing an action on a plaintiff as opposed to a defendant, raises constitutional issues, and violates legislative intent.  In response, Mangus analogized Section 7512 to the Construction Statute of Repose and raised public policy considerations as to the intent of the General Assembly to limit claims against home inspectors.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected the argument that the language was ambiguous and that a statute of repose requires a precipitating event by a defendant.  The court unequivocally concluded that Section 7512 is a statute of repose “because it plainly, unambiguously, and without equitable exceptions, requires a plaintiff to commence an action within a specified time period after the occurrence of a definitely established event, regardless of when the claim accrues.”  Id. at *13.

As set forth by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, “unlike a statute of limitations, a statute of repose ‘is not related to the accrual of any cause of action’ because the injury need not have occurred, much less been discovered.”  Id. at *8 (citing Abrams v. Pneumo Abex Corp., 981 A.2d 198, 211 (Pa. 2009)).  To be sure, the date of accrual and preclusion of the discovery rule is a key distinction between a statute of limitations and statute of repose, and has clear implications for the viability of a litigant’s claim.

This decision provides an important tool for defending claims brought against home inspectors more than one year after delivery of the inspection report. Best practices for home inspectors include:

• Treat the date of report delivery as the critical cutoff for potential litigation.
• Deliver reports promptly to start the one-year clock running.
• Use time-stamped delivery methods—such as email or certified mail—to establish proof of delivery.
• Maintain clear records of both the delivery date and the report itself for an extended period, ensuring documentation is available if a claim is later filed.

Meet the Authors

Dana A. Gittleman, Shareholder

Marshall Dennehey

Danielle M. Vugrinovich, Shareholder

Marshall Dennehey

Dana A. Gittleman and Danielle M. Vugrinovich are shareholders in the Professional Liability Department at Marshall Dennehey, where they defend a variety of claims and lawsuits brought against home inspectors and real estate professionals, insurance agents and brokers, attorneys, financial and investment professionals, and many other professionals across multiple industries. Dana may be reached in our Philadelphia office at DAGittleman@mdwcg.com and Danielle may be reached in our Pittsburgh office at DMVugrinovich@mdwcg.com.

Heightened Regulatory Scrutiny

A central theme of the webinar was the increased attention from federal and state regulators, including the SEC, FTC, and DOJ. Panelists discussed recent enforcement actions focused on fee disclosures, fraud, and fiduciary duties. The message was clear: private equity firms must prioritize transparency and compliance, as even negligent practices can attract regulatory action.

The Impact of State-Level Legislation

The panel explored the growing influence of state-level regulation, particularly in sectors like healthcare. New laws, such as California’s SB 351, are redefining the boundaries of private equity’s involvement in clinical decision-making. Practitioners must stay informed about these developments, as they introduce new compliance challenges and potential for employment-related claims.

Navigating Market Volatility and Portfolio Company Bankruptcies

Rising interest rates, inflation, and labor pressures have led to an uptick in portfolio company bankruptcies. The discussion emphasized that while these challenges are not new, their intensity has increased. Private equity firms are responding with longer hold periods, creative deal structures, and a focus on maintaining liquidity and returns amid uncertainty.

Evolving Exit Strategies and the Rise of Private Credit

This webinar highlighted a resurgence in IPO activity and the growing use of continuation funds as alternative exit strategies. Additionally, the explosive growth of private credit—where PE firms sponsor lending arms—was examined. While these trends offer flexibility, they also introduce new risks related to valuation, transparency, and potential conflicts of interest.

Why This Matters for Professional Liability Practitioners

For professional liability practitioners, this webinar underscored the importance of staying informed about the shifting risk landscape in private equity. The combination of increased regulatory scrutiny, evolving state legislation, and market volatility requires practitioners to take a proactive approach in advising clients on compliance, insurance coverage, and risk management strategies. Understanding these emerging risks is essential for providing effective counsel and ensuring that clients are prepared for the challenges ahead.

To view this webinar recording, log in to the PLUS Learning Center and visit our content library.

Login Here

If you haven’t done so yet, get exclusive access to PLUS webinars and on-demand recordings with a free membership now.

Become a Member

Meet the Speakers

Elan Kandel represents insurance companies with respect to all aspects of claims involving directors and officers liability, employment practices liability, fiduciary liability, professional liability and commercial general liability policies. Before joining Bailey Cavalieri, Elan was a member in the insurance department of a large international law firm. Elan received his law degree from the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. Elan graduated from Tufts University with a Bachelor of Arts degree in History.

Dennis Van Dina currently serves as a Director in the Management Liability/FI claims group at Starr Companies. Joining the insurance industry in 2008, Dennis’s focus has been on D&O and Financial Institutions claims.  He received a BA from St. John’s University and a JD from Hofstra University School of Law.

Teresa Milano specializes in advising public companies and fast-growing private companies (especially when undertaking an IPO, direct listing, or de-SPAC) in various industries to understand their insurance needs in the director and officer liability and other management liability arenas. Teresa leverages the knowledge she learned from spending over a decade on the carrier-side to provide insight to clients into how carriers respond to claims and interpret coverage. Being a lawyer by training and a former management consultant enables her to combine her legal knowledge and business acumen to create solutions for clients to help mitigate their risks and exposures. Teresa is Senior Vice President at Lockton Companies.

Anne Catapano has been working in the insurance industry for the past ten years. Anne graduated from Quinnipiac University School of Law in 2003 and thereafter practiced law in several criminal defense and insurance defense firms throughout New York and Connecticut for twelve years. Anne thereafter worked for LIU for four years handling complex general liability claims and Management Liability Claims. She then worked for QBE, handling Management and Professional Liability Claims for four years. In 2021, Anne joined the Financial Lines claims team at Ascot.

Joe Macchiarola is Senior Counsel of Financial Institutions Claims at Bowhead Specialty. He is an experienced claims attorney skilled in Directors & Officers and Errors & Omissions insurance. Joe has nearly 20 years’ experience in various insurance products within the Professional Liability field including: Lawyers E&O, Miscellaneous E&O, Architects and Engineers, Commercial D&O and Financial Institutions Insurance. He also has a background in commercial litigation.

Kate Gookin is Vice President, Financial Lines at Starr Indemnity & Liability Company. She brings extensive industry experience and a strong focus on supporting clients with tailored risk solutions.

High-profile cases have helped pull defamation from the margins into the headlines. The massive judgments against prominent misinformation spreaders and repeated, widely publicized suits involving politicians, influencers and media outlets have underscored that false public claims can carry real financial and legal consequences. Recent litigation — from the extensive judgments against conspiracy-spreading broadcasters to corporations hiring boutique firms to police social-media falsehoods — has shown plaintiffs are willing to use the courts to push back on online harms. These headline examples do more than punish: they signal that reputational injury in the digital age will not always be dismissed as mere opinion or protected speech.

But the surge in suits is not uniform or simple. Data and sector studies suggest a nuanced picture: while high-profile jury awards and large settlements get attention, the overall number of defamation filings has fluctuated and, in some jurisdictions, even declined from post-2019 peaks. What has changed more unmistakably is the profile of litigants and the contexts in which claims are brought. Corporations, public figures, and private individuals alike now bring suits that intertwine reputational damage with political conflict, harassment, and commercial harm. Plaintiffs increasingly use defamation claims alongside other causes of action — privacy, business torts, or even strategic litigation maneuvers — turning what used to be single-issue disputes into broader legal fights.

A central legal tension is the balance between protecting reputation and preserving free speech. U.S. defamation law still reflects the constitutional guardrails established in decisions like New York Times Co. v. Sullivan: public-figure plaintiffs must show “actual malice” — that a defendant acted with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. But courts and commentators are debating whether those standards translate cleanly to the internet era. Some scholars defend the actual malice rule as essential to robust public debate; others warn that platform-enabled harms require doctrinal recalibration or new regulatory tools. At the same time, many states have enacted or strengthened anti-SLAPP statutes (aimed at quickly dismissing meritless suits brought to chill speech), and judges are being asked to apply old doctrines to new kinds of speech and publication mechanisms.

Practical consequences follow. For potential defendants — from reporters and podcasters to ordinary social-media users — the prospect of litigation changes behavior. Some media organizations have tightened editorial controls, legal review and retraction practices; corporations have created “reputation response” teams to identify and counter false viral claims. For plaintiffs, litigation can be an instrument of accountability and deterrence, but it can also be costly, risky and messy — particularly when claims cross state lines or collide with powerful First Amendment protections. There remains risk of forum-shopping, strategic pleadings, and expensive discovery fights as parties jockey for legal advantage in a landscape where jurisdiction and platform policies matter as much as the underlying facts.

What should readers, platforms and policymakers take from this moment? First, digital literacy and better news habits still matter: false statements travel far faster than corrections, so skepticism and verification are the first lines of defense for reputations. Second, platforms must grapple with the structural features that amplify falsehoods while respecting lawful expression; private companies are already experimenting with moderation, notice-and-takedown processes and more transparent appeals. Third, the legal system will continue to adapt — through litigation, legislation, and doctrinal refinement — as courts wrestle with how to apply longstanding defamation principles to instant, networked speech.

Ultimately, the rise of defamation claims reflects a deeper cultural reality: social and political disputes that once happened within local institutions now play out publicly and permanently online. That publicness gives more people power to make and contest claims — but it also raises the stakes of error. As law, technology and civic norms evolve to address that new reality, one thing is clear: in a polarized age, words often matter as much as actions, and the legal system will remain an important arena for sorting truth from harm.

Meet the Author

Marc Casarino, Partner

Kennedys Law

Marc is the firm’s head of US Corporate and Commercial and a partner in the Wilmington office. With over 25 years of experience, Marc is a seasoned business lawyer known for his collaborative approach, striving to add exceptional value to clients. He has a skilled transactions team who simplify complex matters, develop creative solutions and provide actionable advice.

Marc’s practice includes contract negotiations, business sales and acquisitions, corporate governance, stockholder rights, partnership conflicts, fiduciary obligations, internal investigations, transactional insurance, employment and D&O defense matters. He has first-chair trial experience at both the state and federal levels in all of the Delaware courts, as well as litigation experience throughout the United States. He believes in being a strategic partner committed to his client’s success.