Every week your hidden loops run. The cost compounds. I stop that.

I work with leaders responsible for execution.

The ones carrying deadlines, scope, and accountability that never ease up. It often looks like Founders, VPs, Directors, or Product and Project Leads.

But the role is not what matters, the weight is.

The problem is not effort. The problem is loops you cannot see.

They look responsible in the moment but they drain time, slow decisions, and eat into the trust you’ve earned.

You know the signs:

• A decision pushed off until the opportunity is gone
• A hire delayed until the best candidate walks
• Work you delegated pulled back onto your plate

These aren’t small habits.

I do not coach in the way you think of coaching. I cut the loop at the source so it stops running you.

My clients walk out with:

• Decisions made in hours instead of weeks
• Teams that move without being pushed
• Projects delivered instead of delayed
• Opportunities secured before they slip away

We do not polish symptoms. We cut the loop.

No journaling.
No endless talk.
No drawn-out processes.

You can read what my clients say in the "Recommendations" section below.

Roshan Chander

There is a point many capable people never name. 

Work they once cared about starts to feel heavy, not because it became harder or because they lost skill. It changes when the work stops closing. 

Decisions stay open longer than they should. Simple calls accumulate instead of resolving. Ownership blurs. What used to move forward starts cycling back for review, reassurance, or reconsideration. Over time, the work itself becomes associated with friction rather than progress.

This shift is often misread. People assume they fell out of love with the work, that interest faded, or that they need a new direction. In most cases, none of that is true. What changed was not the work itself but how decisions get handled.

When actions no longer lead to closure, effort begins to feel heavier than it should. Tasks remain unfinished. Forward movement slows even though capability remains intact. 

Avoidance creeps in, not because the work lacks meaning, but because unresolved decisions stack faster than they clear.

This is why capable people start dreading work they were once drawn to. The issue is not purpose or motivation. It is unresolved interference inside how decisions move.

When that interference is corrected, the relationship to the work changes. Not through motivation, reframing, or renewed passion but through closure.

Decisions settle, work moves again, and the weight lifts because the loop is no longer running.

I Fix Decision Loops That Slow Execution | Structural Fixes, Not Motivation Work

A client described something that had been happening for a while.

His mornings kept starting with the same items, even though nothing new had occurred. Decisions he believed were done kept requiring attention again.

One of them was a commercial lease add-on he had decided months earlier to stop using. The agreement was no longer useful, but it was never formally exited. Every month it showed up as a charge. Every time it did, it pulled him back into the same loop.

There were others like it. A responsibility he had stepped back from but never clearly reassigned. A commitment he had agreed to review and then kept postponing instead of ending. 

Each one made sense on its own but together they caused the day to restart.

The work was not about pushing harder or planning better. It was about identifying which decisions were still active without reason and finishing them instead of letting them linger.

Once that happened, the mornings changed. Fewer things came back after being handled. Less time was spent revisiting choices that had already been made.

What changed was not what he added, but what finally stopped following him into the next day.

Scaling problems show up when old decisions never fully closed, not when the market shifts.

Before locking in your Q1 plan, look back at last quarter and ask one question. What work returned to your desk that should not have?

Not crisis work. Not strategic calls. Regular operational work you believed was delegated, approved, or complete, but kept coming back for review, confirmation, or reassurance.

That's what's actually slowing you down.

By the time Q1 arrives, the issue is rarely demand or competition. It is the accumulation of work that never actually closed. Responsibility taken on instead of routed. Decisions revisited instead of finalized. Ownership stays with you instead of moving to the structure.

None of this feels irresponsible in the moment. It often feels careful. Sometimes necessary. That is why it persists.

Over time, the pattern shifts how the business moves. Work collects at the same points. Fewer things move without touching the same desk. Execution narrows because nothing closes without you.

This is not a motivation issue. It is not a workload issue. It is not a people issue.

It is unresolved decisions accumulating inside the system. Until those points are addressed, adding tools, hires, or pressure only feeds the same collection points.

Look at what kept reopening last quarter. That usually tells you what needs to close before anything can scale.

There was a stretch where I kept getting stuck on decisions that did not deserve the time they were taking.

I would turn them over again and again, trying to be sure I was not missing something. The strange part was that nothing new was showing up. The inputs were the same. The context had not changed. 

Still, the decision stayed open.

What finally clicked for me was realizing that I was treating every decision as if it were permanent.

I was acting as though once I moved, there was no way back. No adjustment. No correction. That assumption made every move feel final and kept the loop running.

In reality, many of those decisions were reversible. If they did not work, I could change course. If something went wrong, I could correct it. But I never stopped to separate those from the decisions that actually could not be undone.

That is what kept me stuck.

Once I started separating decisions that could be adjusted from the ones that could not, decisions that had been sitting for days started moving. The work behind them moved too.

This is about knowing when the cost of waiting is higher than the cost of adjusting later.

I see this same pattern with the leaders I work with. They are not unsure what to do. They are unsure whether they will be able to recover if they are wrong. So the decision stays open longer than it should.

That is the loop.

It comes from a misread about the nature of the decision itself. Once that gets corrected, decisions that have been sitting for days start closing. 

Everything behind them starts moving too.

At some point, leaders stop fixing problems and start compensating for them.

They step in to keep things moving. They work around friction. They take responsibility for gaps that feel too small to redesign and too important to ignore. None of this looks wrong in the moment. It looks like leadership.

Over time, those compensations harden into patterns.

Work that should move through the system starts routing upward. Decisions that should settle begin circulating. The leader becomes the point where unresolved work accumulates.

Effort, commitment, and capability are all present. The slowdown comes from interference being managed instead of removed.

When leaders rely on reassurance instead of clear boundaries, or absorb responsibility instead of correcting the structure that created it, execution slows. Fewer things move without involvement. Decisions wait longer than they should. The system keeps working, but only because someone is manually holding it together.

That loop accumulates decision debt.

Until those patterns are corrected at the structural level, every external fix adds pressure to the same internal weak points. 

More tools. More hires. More urgency. Same outcome.

If you are stepping in more than you used to, look at what you are compensating for. That usually shows you what the structure has been avoiding.

There’s a moment when a timeline looks set but doesn’t actually hold. 

The date gets agreed on, the plan is shared, and work starts moving. On the surface, it appears settled.

A few days later, the timeline comes back into view. Someone asks if it’s still realistic. A related task gets pulled back into discussion. A small adjustment is talked through. 

Nothing officially changes but the date becomes conditional.

A week later, it’s reviewed again. Just to make sure it still makes sense. At that point, the timeline exists on paper, not in practice. Work continues but decisions downstream slow because no one fully trusts where things stand.

This is how timelines stretch without ever being formally changed. Not through delay but through re-entry. The same date keeps getting touched instead of held. 

Uncertainty seeps into the work, and execution starts routing upward for confirmation instead of moving forward.

If timelines have been reopening more often lately, it’s worth noticing. Once a date stops holding, everything tied to it starts hesitating too.

There are moments when a decision looks final, but it does not actually hold.

The approval happens, direction is set, and work begins. On the surface, everything appears to be moving forward. Then a few days later, the same question appears again. The topic returns to a meeting. Someone asks for another look. The work pauses or gets adjusted, even though nothing new has surfaced.

This usually traces back to the moment the decision was made.

Often, the call was reached without defining what would count as success or failure. Sometimes ownership was implied rather than named. In other cases, the decision depended on alignment rather than commitment. The group agreed to move forward but no boundary was set around what would not be revisited.

Because those conditions were never set, the work advances while the decision remains unresolved. Reviews repeat. Leaders re-enter. Direction shifts, then shifts again.

Progress feels heavier than it should. Time gets spent returning to things that were already decided. People hesitate because they sense the decision is still open. 

If work keeps coming back after it should be moving on, the place to look is not the execution. It is the moment where the decision was made without defining the conditions that would keep it closed. 

That missing piece usually explains why the issue keeps returning.

I watched a YouTube video from a senior software engineer who had spent over two decades in big tech and was recently laid off.

What stood out was not the layoff itself. It was what happened once the structure he had been operating inside for years was gone.

For most of his career, the system did a lot of invisible work. 

Roles were clear. Expectations were set. Decisions closed quickly because the environment closed them for you. Long hours and heavy tradeoffs felt tolerable because the path forward rarely needed to be renegotiated from scratch.

When that structure disappeared, he described entering what felt like a wilderness. Not because he lacked skill or experience, but because the external container that had been holding decisions in place no longer existed.

That shift exposes something many people in similar positions run into. 

When the system that once absorbed uncertainty is removed, decisions that used to resolve automatically now sit open. What to pursue, how hard to push, and what is worth the cost all move back onto the individual at the same time.

This is not confusion and it is not a lack of capability. It is the absence of decision closure mechanisms that were previously embedded in the environment.

Until new ones are established, even highly experienced people find that effort spreads thin and progress feels uneven longer than expected.

Nothing is broken. The structure that once carried those decisions simply is not there anymore.

Some weeks feel busy without much actually moving.

Calendars fill up fast. More check-ins get added to stay aligned. Meetings show up to unblock work, review work, or prepare for other meetings. 

By the end of the day, very little has been finished.

By midweek, the same topics are back. Decisions that were already discussed resurface in the next meeting. Context has to be rebuilt because half the room was doing something else when it was last covered. Five minutes get spent recovering the previous five minutes.

Work gets pushed later in the day to after meetings, but there is less energy left by then. Actual execution shrinks to a few narrow windows between calls. The day feels full, yet unfinished.

Decisions do not settle. They get revisited and stay active longer than expected. Work continues but forward movement depends on repeated confirmation.

This is why teams can add hours without adding output. The time goes to coordination and recovery, not execution. More meetings create the need for more meetings.

If your week feels crowded but unfinished, look at which decisions are appearing in multiple meetings. That's usually where the cycle is draining capacity.

There are two ways for Insurance Companies, Banks, Private Equity firms, MGAs, and insurtechs to approach complex risk in 2025:

1. Rely on generic solutions, potentially overlooking critical gaps.
2. Partner with specialized expertise that delivers clarity and tailored protection.

Many sit in the first category, often underserved by mega-brokers.

Your institution has unique strengths and ambitions. 

But is your risk management truly aligned? 

Or are you unknowingly exposed due to:

–  Coverage gaps hidden in the fine print?

–  Lack of access to sophisticated global markets?

–  Decisions made without credible peer data or advanced analytics?

–  Impersonal service that doesn’t grasp your specific operational realities?

The bigger problem?

You're leaving strategic advantage on the table and potentially facing significant financial or reputational risk down the line.

The solution?

Transform your risk management from a necessary cost center into a strategic asset through a bespoke, expert-driven partnership.

That’s my focus at LION Specialty.

My approach combines:

– Penetrating technical analysis honed by deep experience (including handling complex Fortune 100 accounts) to uncover what others miss.

– Global market access (London, Bermuda) and perspective, crafting solutions beyond standard domestic offerings.

– Process mastery & advanced analytics delivering clarity and confidence, not complexity.

– Authentic human connection, building partnerships that thrive.

(informed partly by my wellness background as a Pilates instructor… sustainable success requires balance)

–  Are you serious about closing critical coverage gaps?

–  Are you ready for risk management bespoke to your institution's needs?

–  Is it time for a partner who brings both sophisticated expertise and a refreshingly collaborative approach?

Let's connect and explore how we can elevate your strategy together.

Natasha Kiemnec

I was 24 years old, the youngest person in the room by at least 15 years.

And I was terrified of asking the wrong question.

The client was one of Aon's marquee accounts. The meeting was high-stakes. Everyone around the table had decades more experience than me.

So I stayed quiet.

I nodded along. I took notes. I tried to look like I belonged there.

But halfway through the conversation, something wasn't adding up.

The numbers the client was describing didn't match the risk exposure we'd outlined in the proposal. It seemed like a pretty basic disconnect, but no one was addressing it.

I figured I must be missing something obvious. These senior leaders would've caught it if it mattered, right?

But the gap kept nagging at me.

So I took a breath and asked what felt like the most obvious question in the world:

"Can we walk through how you're calculating exposure? Because I'm seeing a difference between what you're describing and what we've modeled."

The room went quiet.

Then the client looked at his CFO and said, "That's a good question. Can we?"

Turns out, they'd been using an outdated methodology. And no one on their team had flagged it because they all assumed someone else understood it.

My "obvious" question uncovered a $2M gap in their coverage.

That moment taught me something I still carry today:

Technical excellence doesn't come from pretending to know everything.

It comes from being curious enough to ask the questions everyone else is afraid to raise.

Now, when I'm mentoring the next generation of actuaries at LION, I tell them this:

The questions you're embarrassed to ask? Those are usually the ones the room needs to hear.

Because the most dangerous assumption in any technical field is that someone else has already figured it out.

Your lack of experience isn't a weakness. It's permission to question the status quo without ego getting in the way.

So ask the obvious questions. Challenge the assumptions. Speak up when the numbers don't add up.

That's how you build real expertise—not by faking confidence, but by staying relentlessly curious.

What's one question you've been afraid to ask in your work that might actually be worth raising?

Natasha I.  Kiemnec, ARM

Managing Partner & Co-founder of LION Specialty | Global Financial Institutions & Private Equity Broker | Classical Certified Pilates Instructor

No alternative text description for this image

In my first broker role, I caught what 3 senior brokers missed in a major insurance program.
And there's such a simple reason why:

I actually read the policy.

All 200 pages.
Every endorsement. Every exclusion. Every definition. 

The senior brokers had reviewed the summary of coverage.

Confirmed the limits. 
Negotiated the premium. 
They'd been doing this longer than I'd been alive.

But on page 157, buried in a definition nobody checks, was language that invalidated coverage for the majority of the client's operations.

"Financial Interest" was defined to exclude any subsidiary with less than 50% ownership.

The insured had 47 subsidiaries. 31 were minority stakes.

Their biggest exposure - a 49% stake in an overseas operation - had zero coverage.

Massive uncovered liability. 
Exposed for years.

When I raised it in the meeting, the room went silent.

The senior brokers pulled up the policy. Read the definition. Re-read it. Called the carrier.

That's the unfortunate truth about coverage summaries.

Carriers write them. Carriers set what counts as "standard." And carriers count on brokers not reading page 157.

At LION, every team member - from associate broker to partner - reads every policy.

Not summaries. Not excerpts. Every single page.

Because experience without diligence is just confident ignorance.

And ignorance at page 157 can destroy everything.

~

Every Friday we share insights that cut through insurance complexity.
Comment 'brief' and I'll get you on the distribution!
LION Specialty 🦁

Legally, a drone is an aircraft.
That one definition nearly created a multi-million dollar uninsured loss.


I was reviewing a policy for an insurance carrier client.

We reached the "Aircraft and Operational Machinery" exclusion.

The CFO stopped me.
"Wait. We use drones to inspect property claims. If this exclusion stands, are we covered?"

Technically? No.

If the policy excludes "aircraft," and the FAA defines a drone as an "aircraft," the carrier can deny the claim.

Most brokers would wave this off.

"It’s a standard exclusion. They know what you do. It’ll be fine."

I don't rely on "fine." I rely on the contract.

We added a carve-back:
"This exclusion does not apply to the use of unmanned aircraft for claims handling and loss assessment."

One sentence.

Total protection.

Standard forms are written for hypothetical companies.

Manuscript policies are written for your operations.

How many "standard" exclusions in your policy are silently blocking your actual business operations?

Book a review. We usually find the first gap in 15 minutes.

A single word just split a federal court ruling.


Most financial institutions treat their Crime Bond and their Cyber Policy as two separate safety nets.
But a recent ruling (Hartford vs. HSB) just proved why that is a dangerous assumption.

The Bond was dismissed. The Cyber policy survived.
The difference wasn't the loss itself. It was the definition of "Causation."

Here is the nuance that most programs miss:

1. The Bond: Often excludes losses where an employee is "tricked" into sending money (Social Engineering). It requires the computer itself to be the cause.

2. The Cyber Policy: Applies a more permissive "direct result" standard that holds up even when human error is involved.

If you are relying on a $250k Social Engineering sublimit to cover a seven-figure wire fraud loss, you are exposed.

I’ve spent years architecting programs for financial institutions, and I always look for this specific friction point.

You cannot map these coverages in silos. They have to work together.

We broke down the full legal framework in this week’s Boardroom Briefing.

Comment "BRIEF" and I'll send it over.

Eighteen years in insurance taught me what no training manual covers.


Here are the unspoken rules that matter most:

1. Relationships outlast resumes.
The best placements don't come from knowing the product. They come from knowing the underwriter who can make an exception. Build the relationship before you need the favor.

2. Saying "No" is a skill.
Early in my career, I said yes to everything. I learned the hard way that overcommitment leads to mediocrity. Boundaries create the space for excellence.

3. Ask the "Junior" questions.
I was 24, manuscripting policies with General Counsels. I asked questions that probably annoyed them.
But asking when you don't understand builds expertise faster than pretending you do.

4. Own mistakes immediately.
Coverage errors happen. The brokers who survive own them fast. The ones who spiral try to hide them. (This one I learned early days from my parents.)

5. Physical discipline supports mental performance.
You cannot sustain high performance on declining physical capacity. Insurance rewards endurance. Train for it.

Nobody told me these rules at 22.
I learned them through trial, failure, and watching others burn out.

What has been the key to your most career success?

Ps. Also! Make the most of the travel, and make it fun.

Eight auto insurers paid New York $19 million for the same mistake.

Hackers stole driver's license numbers through their online quote tools. These were the same tools insurers use to capture new business.

Hartford paid $3 million. Liberty Mutual paid $2.7 million. Farmers paid $2.775 million plus extra penalties for not reporting on time.

These weren't sophisticated attacks. DFS warned about these exact vulnerabilities in 2021. Four years later, companies were still exposed.

The department has now collected $144 million in cybersecurity penalties across 27 entities.

The message is clear. If they found violations in your most basic public-facing application, what else are you missing?

And if you miss the 72-hour breach notification window, you pay twice. Farmers and Infinity learned that the hard way.

We break down regulatory signals like this every week. Comment NEWSLETTER for the link.

Your broker is either your greatest strategic asset...
...or the most expensive false sense of security you'll ever buy.
The difference comes down to three things: 

how deeply they know your world, whether their systems were built for it, and what happens when a claim hits.

A generalist broker works hard. 

They juggle manufacturing on Monday, healthcare on Tuesday, and your credit union on Wednesday. 

That effort is real. 
But effort and immersion are different animals.

After 15+ years serving only financial institutions, we've reviewed hundreds of FI programs. 

We've seen what breaks. 

We know that a mutual bank's volunteer board creates different D&O exposure than a community bank's paid directors. 

We recognize the regulatory triggers that turn routine exams into coverage events.

Pattern recognition compounds over decades. 

A generalist sees your program once a year. 

A specialist has seen your exact problem a hundred times—and remembers how it played out.

Financial institution risks don't behave like other industries. 

Your exposures intersect in ways that require fluency, not familiarity. 

Cyber meets professional liability. 
Regulatory action triggers D&O. 
Crime losses cascade into reputational damage.

A broker who doesn't live in this world can't see these connections coming.
Immersion determines whether your coverage works when everything depends on it.

🦁

Florida homeowners just got 8.7% rate cuts.
That's the headline. Here's what actually happened…

CFOs, CUOs, and board members at regional insurers, mutuals, and MGAs…

I've watched litigation costs shape premium volatility more than any catastrophe season. 

Florida used to account for 8% of national homeowners claims while generating nearly 80% of litigation costs.

After 2023 tort reforms, the state dropped from 2nd to 10th in national nuclear verdict rankings. 
Seventeen new carriers entered.
 Private capacity returned. 

Now rate relief is flowing across homeowners, auto, and commercial lines.

That's not just a Florida story. 

Seven states built the blueprint.

Meanwhile, financial services topped the 2025 breach list with 387 incidents in H1 alone. 

Experian predicts AI agents will overtake human error as the leading cause of breaches next year.

Two patterns converging. 

One board conversation.

We unpack all three developments in this week's Friday Five Boardroom Brief.

Read the full breakdown in this week's Boardroom Brief. Comment "BRIEF" below and I’ll get you on the distribution.

P.S. one of my favorite places to travel for work! does your job take you anywhere cool?

At the American Bankers Association Risk Management Conference in Orlando?

I’m on the Brightline Trains on my way up. 

Would love to meet up! Send me a note. 

(And yes, I changed my hair)

If your insurance coverage doesn't work in a simulation, it won't work in a crisis.


We don't just place the coverage and file the binder.

We stress-test it.

Before the program binds, we run "Mock Claim" scenarios against the proposed language.

We simulate the specific nightmares that keep the C-Suite awake:

1. The Friday Night Hack

A ransomware event hits at 6 PM. Who do we call? Does the "Breach Response" definition actually trigger immediate counsel, or are we stuck waiting for carrier approval?

2. The Regulatory Subpoena

A short-seller report triggers a stock drop. The SEC calls. Does the policy cover the "Informal Investigation" costs, or does it only trigger after a formal Wells Notice?

3. The Nuclear Verdict

A jury awards $50M. Does the excess tower sit flush on top of the primary, or is there a gap in the attachment point that leaves you exposed?

We usually find the cracks during the simulation.
It is infinitely better to find them in a conference room than in a courtroom.

You stress-test your software.
You stress-test your financials.
Start stress-testing your risk transfer.

Ready to see if your program holds up?

DM me "STRESS TEST" and let's run a scenario.

Ps. This is how we react when we hear of another prospect’s program not working and they need a LION!

Twenty-seven reciprocals formed between 2017 and 2024.

Eighteen of them launched in just the past year. Premium volume grew 83% in two years.

Traditional carriers pulled out of Florida and other cat zones after massive losses. Reciprocals stepped in to fill the gap. They now bring $51 billion in premium capacity to the P&C market.

The sector runs in two tiers now. Established players like USAA, Farmers, and Erie have fortress balance sheets and decades of history. The newcomers bring innovation, but eight of them scored below 30 on ALIRT's financial strength scale.

AM Best called reciprocals a "compelling answer to market gaps." Policyholders control rates, strategy, and overhead. Insurer and insured interests align because they're the same party.

If you're a financial institution evaluating a reciprocal partnership, understand the model first. Surplus notes provide initial capital. Management fees fund operations. Subscriber control creates alignment.

DM me if you want to talk through how these structures actually work.

The difference between Lloyd's manuscript forms and domestic policies, explained 
(because insurance contracts are complicated and most people never see how they’re actually built):

Lloyd's is a marketplace of syndicates.

Each syndicate underwrites risk independently. And brokers with the right authority can draft custom manuscript forms specifically for their client's exposure.

But Lloyd's syndicates don't hand manuscript authority to just anyone.

You earn it.

How? Through decades of trading relationships. Clean claims reporting. A track record of accurate underwriting.

We earned ours over 20 years.

When does Lloyd's make sense?

3 situations where I recommend it:

• Complex FI risks that don't fit standard domestic forms  
• Need for affirmative coverage language (not just silence on coverage gaps)  
• Operations that span multiple coverage lines in ways domestic carriers won't touch

The structural difference is massive:

Domestic policy: 200+ pages of assembled forms, endorsements, and exclusions bolted together. 

You're hunting through layers to figure out what's actually covered.

Lloyd's manuscript: 40 pages. Custom-drafted for the specific risk. 

Everything in one place.

Clarity vs. ambiguity.

Lloyd's isn't always the answer.

For straightforward risks, domestic markets are faster and often more cost-effective.

But for certain FI risks - especially those with unique exposures or operations that don't fit the standard boxes - Lloyd's is the only option that makes sense.

Because you need coverage that actually responds when there's a claim. 

Not coverage that leaves you in a 3-year coverage dispute.

By the way…

Every week we share curated insights that cut through insurance chaos and help you make the best policy decisions.

Join here: https://lnkd.in/garzxSxG

undefined undefined

Classical Pilates Certification 

Associate in Risk Management - Enterprise Wide Risk Management (ARM-P)

Advanced Open Water Scuba Diver

Co-Founder & Managing Partner

NFP is a leading insurance broker and consultant that provides employee benefits, property & casualty, retirement, and individual insurance and wealth management solutions through our licensed subsidiaries and affiliates.Our expertise is matched only by our personal commitment to each client’s goals.

Senior Vice President

Vice President

JLT Specialty USA is the U.S. platform of the leading specialty business advisory firm Jardine Lloyd Thompson Group. Our experts are specialty focused and have extensive experience in industries and products serving leading U.S. and global firms. We focus on complex areas of industry or product need, where innovation and optimization are critical. 

Our specialty team has clear alignment around our clients’ best interests and are judged and rewarded based on our clients performance. With decisive insights, our team is fact-based and analytics-driven to create the best insights and value for our clients. 

Our culture enables a rewarding and challenging environment to attract and develop the best talent in the industry. We encourage creativity and are free to challenge conventions. With teamwork and collaboration, we are working together to share knowledge, solve problems and deliver the best solutions for our clients. 

Jardine Lloyd Thompson is one of the world’s leading providers of insurance, reinsurance and employee benefits-related advice, brokerage and associated services. JLT’s client proposition is built upon its deep specialist knowledge, client advocacy, tailored advice and service excellence. JLT is quoted on the London Stock Exchange and owns offices in 40 territories with more than 10,600 employees. Our global foundation is unparalleled and provides experts worldwide in 135 countries. 

For further information about JLT, please visit our website www.jltus.com

Broker Director and Officer's liability insurance for clients around the globe.

Assistant Vice President

Development Intern

Developed Business Plan

Intern

Managing Partner & Co-founder of LION Specialty | Global Financial Institutions & Private Equity Broker  | Classical Certified Pilates Instructor

French

Most executives discover their D&O coverage gap the day they get sued—not the day they sign the policy.


Here's the brutal part:

CFOs and general counsels spend weeks negotiating premium rates and policy limits. But the language that actually determines whether you're covered? Most never read it.

I've reviewed hundreds of D&O policies. And the same technical gaps show up over and over.

These aren't edge cases. They're the exact provisions insurers use to deny claims when executives need coverage most.

Here are 3 policy traps that sink real claims:

1/ Fraud exclusion language with a "dishonesty”trigger

Vague fraud exclusions let the insurer deny coverage based on allegations alone—no final judgment required. Executives are left funding their own defense. 

✅ Protective: "Fraud as determined by final non-appealable adjudication"
❌ Risky: "Fraud resulting from dishonest acts" (no adjudication requirement)

2/ Hammer clauses forcing lowball settlements

This provision penalizes you for rejecting settlement offers the insurer wants to take.

Refuse a settlement? The policy limits your recovery to what you would've paid if you'd accepted.

✅ Protective: No hammer clause, or "modified hammer" (insurer shares excess costs)
❌ Risky: "Insurer's liability limited to settlement amount offered"

3/ Representations language that outright excludes coverage and relies on all being material

If your policy application becomes part of the contract, any misstatement—even unintentional—can be used to deny 

This includes statements made by people you don't even know about facts you can't verify.

✅ Protective: "Severability of applications" + "only material items to acceptance can be used to deny"
❌ Risky: "Application is part of this policy and all statements are warranties"

I've seen GCs negotiate policies for months and yet miss some key details like these

Which of these gaps exists in your current D&O policy?

“The stiff and unbending is the disciple of death. The gentle and yielding is the disciple of life". 


A quote from the Tao Te Ching. 

In building a business, being around friends at different phases of life, from different cultures, marrying someone of a different ethnicity, and trying at all times to immerse myself in culturally rich cities, I’ve found this to be true to almost an unnerving point. 

If you’re not willing to bend
Change your habits
Continually grow
Apologize for your wrongdoings
Shift your path based on another 

You’ll find yourself in the same place for most if not all of your life. 

I was reminded of this quote in finishing the book Atomic Habits by James Clear . 

While on the face it’s about habits, I took away more the ability to

- take what is automatic and make it a deliberate practice 
- Learn to master the process of narrowing your focus to truly the most important element of success
- Constantly review and reflect

And more importantly than anything learning to fall in love with the mundane. 

Why does any of this matter?

Because it’s what makes people great. 

To be applied anywhere of deep success:

Successful entrepreneur
White glove service
Professional athlete 
Fighter pilot
The charismatic wealthy friend who seems to have it all 

Which all comes with the desire to master as task but always being willing to grow. 

Most do not have this level of discipline especially these days with AI, social media, and attention spans being less than 10 seconds. 

So for those who fall in this camp.  I applaud you, and hope to meet you someday!

Happy Saturday. 

Ps. A brand that definitely has this dedication to constant improvement and refinement! Their location in France was quite the experience!
Ruinart

The single biggest leverage point in any insurance negotiation is time.


Most brokers start the renewal process 30 days before expiration.
They flood the market with submissions. They cross their fingers. They hope for appetite.
You get daily emails asking for "just one more thing" while trying to close your quarter.

We operate on a 150-day cycle.

Day 150: The Strategy
We map out exactly where we are headed. We identify the story we need to tell before we ever open a submission file.

Day 120: The Build
We construct the submission. We test every angle of the risk narrative.

Day 90: The Approach
The carriers see our first approach now. We are reading the market, not reacting to it.

Day 60: The Options
We have your options locked down.

Day 30: The Bind
Bindable terms in hand. No drama. No surprises.

One client saw their limits jump 25% at flat premium simply because we had the runway to position them properly.

You negotiate effectively when you control the clock.

If your renewal is July 1st, we should be starting right now.

DM me "TIMELINE" and I'll share our 150-day execution roadmap.

The client didn't trust me. I was young, the account was complicated, and standard solutions wouldn't work.

This was a $250K commercial account with exposure across 3 different liability classes. The existing broker had left gaps in coverage that put the client at serious risk.

And I had one shot to prove I could handle it.

Here's what I did to turn a skeptical prospect into a 7-year partnership:


Step 1: I stopped pitching standard packages

Most brokers would've pulled out their usual markets and called it a day.

Instead, I spent 6 hours reviewing their operations, claims history, and contract language. I found 4 specific exposure gaps the previous broker had missed—including one that could've cost them $100K+ in an uncovered claim.

I presented those findings before I ever mentioned a single carrier.

Step 2: I built custom manuscript forms for their unique risks

This client had operations that didn't fit into standard ISO forms. So I drafted manuscript policy language that actually addressed their exposures.

I used my background working with London syndicates to structure coverage that matched their real-world risk profile—not just what was easy to place.

Step 3: I showed them the math on every coverage decision

For each coverage gap, I laid out:

• The specific scenario that could trigger a loss
• The dollar amount they'd be exposed to
• The premium cost to close the gap
• My recommendation (and why)

No insurance jargon. No pressure. Just clear trade-offs so they could make informed decisions.

The outcome?

They signed. And years later, they're still a client.

Not because I sold them the cheapest policy or had the flashiest pitch.

Because I did the work to understand their business and gave them coverage that actually protected them.

That's what client-centric risk management looks like.

If you're a broker or risk manager, here's my question: What's one thing you could do today to understand your client's operations better before you present a single policy option?

I'd love to hear how you approach complex accounts.

There is a quiet dysfunction that plagues even the best mega-brokerages.


It’s the account manager who doesn't remember the coverage conversation from six months ago. It’s the service team that treats every interaction like a fresh start. It’s the senior partner who shows up for the sale, then vanishes until the renewal.

How do we know this?

Because we lived it for decades.
We thrived inside the machine. We did exactly what the industry required: we wore "exhaustion" like a badge of honor.

Long hours. Weekly travel. Drinking too much.
We kept telling ourselves, "It's just the business. It's just the way it is."
Reality: it was grueling and massively unhealthy.

It became crystal clear when my co-founder Flip and I walked away from it all at the end of 2022.
It took us six months just to decompress.

I spent that year getting certified as a Pilates instructor.
Four hundred fifty hours of training.
I watched high performers show up depleted, push through, and then return to environments that broke them down.

My insight was sharp:
"The workout wasn't the problem. The recovery system didn't exist."

Meanwhile, Flip was coming to the same conclusion from a different angle.

A friend recommended The Blue Zones Kitchen.
He started studying Okinawa and Sardinia—places where longevity is a system, not an accident. 

A concept which I’ve long been interested in since my nana lived to 103!

We realized the industry’s problem wasn't training, technology, or talent.

The problem was that the people serving you are running on empty.

So we asked: "What if we built a brokerage using Blue Zone rules?"

A place where high performance doesn't require normalizing anxiety.

This is what we built—and why a "Corporate Blue Zone" is the safest place for your risk program to live.

If you didn’t catch it, we wrote about this in our Wednesday intelligence which dropped yesterday. Want a copy - comment WEDNESDAY.

This is what we want every client to experience. 

White glove service:

getting back to you quickly, not wondering where we are, and knowing we will always come through for you. 

Creativity and “bespoke” solutions:

So many brokers move through the motions but actually understanding a client’s risk profile means the difference between average and exceptional results. 

To feel like they are our only client:

We strive for high touch, responsive, creative, early, easily reached, results oriented, and positive so that every client feels like they are our only client. Their size, location, and risk profile does not matter in terms of our attentiveness - each one is equally importantly. 

Thanks Brooke!! This made our week!

General Counsel at American Coastal Insurance Corporation

We made the switch to Lion Specialty and immediately saw exceptional results. Everything highlighted in their recent newsletter mirrors our own experience — responsive service, technical expertise, and a true solutions‑focused approach. The Lion team delivers exactly what they promise, and the impact on our placements has been clear. A great read from a partner who really follows through.

https://lnkd.in/eskSdDcQ​

Open article: What Fortune 500 CFOs get that you don't by lionspecialty.ck.page

Innocent until proven guilty" is a legal right.
It is not an insurance right.


Most D&O policies contain a "Conduct Exclusion."
It states the insurer will not pay for claims arising from fraud or criminal acts.

That sounds reasonable. You shouldn't be insured for committing crimes.

The problem is the trigger.

In standard policies, the carrier can often stop paying defense costs as soon as there is a "fact in dispute" or a credible allegation of fraud.

If a plaintiff accuses you of fraud, the carrier can say:

"This looks like it falls under the exclusion. We are pausing defense payments."

You go bankrupt proving you didn't do it.

We change the trigger.

We demand "Final Adjudication" language.

This means the carrier must pay your defense costs all the way through trial and appeal.

They can only apply the exclusion if a judge or jury issues a final, non-appealable ruling that you actually committed the act.

We shift the burden of proof from you to the contract.

Check your policy for "Final Adjudication" wording.

If it's not there, you are exposed to the allegation alone.

This is just one of 10 tweaks we make to the conduct exclusion alone to ensure that you have defense cost coverage. 

DM me "CONDUCT" and I'll help you find them.

Your D&O policy protects the company. But when you get named personally, does it protect you?

Securities lawsuit risk has climbed to $13.7 trillion. AI disclosure pressure keeps growing. Personal exposure for executives is no longer a concept.

Side A coverage gaps. Exhausted limits. Severability failures. These determine how personal assets get exposed when claims get serious.

Coverage that exists on paper differs from coverage that performs when you're the one being named.

Most brokers serve institutions. Fewer serve the executives who lead them. That distinction matters when a regulatory investigation or shareholder action makes your D&O policy suddenly personal.

What financial institution executives actually need from their broker: time back in your day, personal protection that holds up under pressure, and board-ready answers when your directors start asking questions.

If you haven't examined how your D&O program would actually perform under stress, now is the time.

P.S. We built a 5-day email course on the D&O mistakes we see most often. Comment BLUEPRINT and I'll send it.

taplio

The Battle

Roshan Chander

Natasha Kiemnec

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance ScoreRoshan Chander's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreNatasha Kiemnec's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

taplio

The Battle

Roshan Chander

Natasha Kiemnec

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance Score.css-goub6s{font-size:var(--chakra-fontSizes-md);font-weight:500;color:var(--chakra-colors-gray-600);display:block;margin-top:var(--chakra-space-1);}Roshan Chander's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreNatasha Kiemnec's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

Performance ScoreRoshan Chander's LinkedIn Performance