The July 30, 2025 tsunami, triggered by the massive Kamchatka earthquake, reached the U.S. Pacific coast but resulted in largely modest physical effects. Of all the areas affected, Crescent City, California experienced the most significant damage, with about $1 million needed for harbor repairs after a surge damaged a floating dock and related infrastructure. Elsewhere along the coast, harbors and marinas in Monterey, Santa Cruz, and other cities prepared for impacts, but ultimately saw only minor water surges, utility precautions, and temporary disruptions before advisories were lifted. The National Tsunami Warning Center managed a swift response, while local agencies enacted utility shutdowns and dock restrictions to limit property loss and protect lives. Most U.S. damage was thus highly localized and contained, with no major incidents or casualties.
The evaluation of adequate risk distribution in captive insurance companies for US federal income tax purposes has created a significant divergence between Tax Court judicial standards and commercial insurance underwriting methodologies. While both frameworks ostensibly aim to ensure genuine insurance characteristics, their approaches to measuring and validating risk distribution differ substantially in both philosophy and practical application.
Caught in a workplace scandal at a Coldplay concert, Astronomer’s CEO and HR leader highlight major Employment Practices Liability Insurance (EPLI) risks for businesses. Discover how scandals like these can expose organizations to costly claims—and how captive insurance strategies can help companies manage, finance, and control EPLI risks more effectively.
The Fifth Circuit's affirmation of the Tax Court's decision in Swift v. Commissioner represents a watershed moment in captive insurance jurisprudence, establishing new precedents that extend far beyond the micro-captive arrangements at issue. This decision not only continues the IRS's perfect litigation record against questionable captive structures but also introduces significant analytical shifts that will reshape how courts evaluate all captive insurance arrangements for federal income tax purposes.
Choosing the right domicile—essentially where a captive insurance company is licensed and regulated—is one of the most strategic decisions a business can make when forming a captive. It influences everything from regulatory compliance and tax treatment to access to local expertise and long-term cost efficiency.
In today's risk environment, organizations increasingly seek sophisticated solutions to manage their exposures to large or catastrophic losses. Captive insurance companies—vehicles established and owned by businesses to insure their own risks—offer unique ways to deliver excess and umbrella liability coverage. These structures are essential for high-performing businesses aiming to regain control, optimize premium retention, and improve coverage flexibility in response to market volatility.
The UK government's confirmation of plans for a captive insurance regime by mid-2027 represents a significant development that will reshape the global captive insurance landscape, with substantial implications for the US market.
SUBMIT A RISK