Florida insurance regulation occasionally produces a story that sounds like it was written for a “Florida Man” contest. The state hires an experienced insurance financial examiner to study money moving between property insurers and affiliated companies. She delivers a 159-page report. Years later, the current Insurance Commissioner says the work contains substantial errors. The consultant testifies that she considered her work finished and OIR never sent it back for corrections. Then the public gets the company-specific material only because the Florida Senate accidentally releases it to investigative journalists. The Senate demands that the newspapers destroy it and threatens criminal prosecution.
How could anyone make up such a script? When it comes to Florida insurance, truth is often stranger than fiction. You almost have to laugh. Unfortunately, Florida policyholders suffer and now distrust insurance more than ever because of how insurance is regulated in Florida.
Jan Moenck
Jan Moenck of Risk & Regulatory Consulting authored the report. She is a veteran insurance financial examiner whose work centers on regulatory examinations, solvency, and troubled companies.
When the Florida House called her to testify in April 2025, Moenck said her firm submitted what it considered its final draft to OIR in April 2022. According to her testimony, OIR did not return the work with corrections, objections, or instructions to continue. RRC therefore considered the assignment finished.
Moenck was also careful about what she had not concluded. She did not claim she uncovered fraud. She did not say affiliate payments caused insolvencies. She did not accuse OIR of violating the law. Her restraint makes the concerns she did identify more difficult to dismiss. She was sounding warning bells about these affiliates to the OIR.
Who Received the Report?
The report itself says: “TO: Virginia Christy, Director, Property and Casualty Financial Oversight.” “FROM: Jan Moenck.”
Christy was not a peripheral employee. She headed OIR’s Property and Casualty Financial Oversight unit and was later promoted by Commissioner Michael Yaworsky to Deputy Commissioner of Property and Casualty. She was also involved in regulatory actions concerning financially troubled insurers.
Yet I have not found a public legislative hearing in which someone asked the most obvious question:
Jan Moenck sent this report to you. What happened next?
Perhaps OIR followed up extensively through confidential examinations and company-specific regulatory actions. If so, that history should be explained. There needs to be an inquiry about what the OIR did or did not do after Moenck’s warning bells clearly indicated significant issues warranted immediate follow-up.
Too Flawed to Trust and Too Secret to Verify
The newest twist may be the most Florida part of this story. The Orlando Sentinel and South Florida Sun-Sentinel report that Yaworsky and OIR now describe the analysis as containing “a great deal of errors, inconsistencies, data validation issues and antiquated information.” OIR has cited possible problems with affiliate income figures, inconsistencies with insurer financial filings and the report’s treatment of reinsurance, litigation conditions and storm losses.
Those could be legitimate criticisms. But OIR reportedly declined to identify the specific inaccuracies because revealing them would disclose protected information.
This leaves us in a curious position. We are told not to trust the report because it contains serious mistakes, but we cannot see the evidence establishing those mistakes because that evidence is secret. To me, this sounds less like insurance regulation and more like a regulatory escape room.
So the questions become straightforward. When did OIR first determine the report contained these errors? Who made that determination? Where are the memoranda, emails, or work papers documenting them? Why were the alleged errors apparently never sent back to Moenck? If OIR has a better analysis, where is it?
If Yaworsky is to remain an insurance commissioner who can be trusted to watch out for the public, these answers need to be provided, and soon.
Florida’s Trade-Secret Laws Deserve Another Look
Florida unquestionably has legitimate reasons to protect proprietary insurance information. Regulators should not casually hand genuine trade secrets to competitors.
But when protected information concerns whether policyholder premiums are being transferred to affiliated companies on fair terms, whether an insurer’s financial statements accurately portray its condition, or whether a company may be approaching insolvency, the public interest becomes much stronger.
Florida lawmakers therefore face a legitimate policy choice. They could continue protecting genuine proprietary information while requiring greater disclosure of regulatory conclusions involving material affiliate transactions, solvency concerns, and the disposition of significant examination findings. They could also give OIR clearer authority to obtain complete financial information across an entire insurance holding-company structure and require documented findings explaining what the regulator did with it.
They could exempt these materials from trade secret protections because most of these items in the documents turned over do not seem to be “top secret sauce.” Instead, the information shared by the newspapers seems to be simply embarrassing, indicating that Florida’s insurers use affiliates to pay larger than needed expenses to reduce reported income.
This debate is especially timely because HB 1399, which would have increased scrutiny of affiliate transactions and expanded OIR oversight, passed the Florida House 106–3 in 2026 and then died in the Senate. A related Senate proposal died in committee.
The newly disclosed report gives lawmakers plenty of reason to revisit where Florida has drawn the line between corporate confidentiality and public accountability.
The Commissioner Promised to See It Through
When Commissioner Yaworsky testified before the House in March 2025, he said that if the Legislature wanted the affiliate analysis performed again, OIR would do it. He said the agency would “go through the process” and “see it through all the way from beginning to end.” His commitment should be described fairly. It was conditional on legislative direction and available resources.
Still, as of now, I cannot find a publicly released replacement analysis correcting the supposed flaws in the original work. Perhaps the Legislature never formally ordered one. Perhaps OIR has done substantial work that remains confidential. But Florida policyholders should not have to guess.
Jan Moenck says her firm completed the assignment and was never asked to correct it. The report went directly to OIR’s financial-oversight leadership. OIR now says it contains serious errors but will not publicly identify them because the supporting information is protected. The Florida House overwhelmingly approved stronger affiliate oversight, while the Senate let it die. The public ultimately obtained the underlying report because the Senate accidentally released it.
None of that proves fraud, corruption, or regulatory capture. It does prove that Floridians deserve a much clearer explanation.
Show us what OIR did after receiving the report. Tell us when the supposed errors were discovered. Explain why they were never returned to the consultant. Then Florida can have an informed discussion about what truly deserves trade-secret protection and what information affecting insurers’ solvency and policyholders’ premiums belongs in the sunlight.
Florida insurance regulation is complicated enough without making the answers secret.
This post follows this morning’s article, Florida’s Secret Insurance Report Is Troubling Enough Without Exaggerating What It Proves.
Thought For Transparency
“We will go through the process and we will see it through all the way from beginning to end.”
—Florida Insurance Commissioner Michael Yaworsky, testimony before the Florida House Insurance & Banking Subcommittee, March 14, 2025.
