Category: Latest Thinking

Since 3D printing emerged, the technology has been used to create everything from construction materials and automobile parts to cheeseburgers and sneakers.

3D printing has enormous potential across industries, and one of the most transformative applications has been in the medical field. The technology has been used to create prosthetic limbs, body tissue, dental restorations and more. The FDA has approved hundreds of 3D-printed medical devices, and the sector is projected to grow to nearly $4.5 billion with a compound annual growth rate of 13% through 2026.

But one of the latest medical applications — 3D printed pharmaceuticals — has called into question whether the risks of leveraging this new technology outweigh the benefits for drug makers.

Manufacturing pharmaceuticals has been part of the 3D printing discussion for years, but it wasn’t until Aprecia Pharmaceuticals won the first 3D printed drug approval in 2015 that it became evident the FDA was willing to play in this space. Aprecia’s product, a tablet used to treat epilepsy, used a new process to make the medicine easier to consume — a significant advancement for patients suffering from seizures.

With this first drug now on the market, the future of pharmaceutical manufacturing could be poised to change dramatically. In the case of Aprecia, the 3D printing process is still controlled at the manufacturer level for now. But at some point pharmaceutical companies could transfer the creation process to pharmacies, hospitals and physicians with 3D printers, even leading to individualized treatment plans for patients.

While this technology holds great promise, it brings several risks. The use and abuse of 3D-printed drugs has been the subject of discussion and debate among pharma execs, insurers and the legal community — but the fact of the matter is, we’ve only scratched the surface of the complex risk landscape.

While there are many unknowns, three major risk areas should be part of the conversation.

1. Product Liability Risks
Common sense tells us that if a pharmaceutical company licenses its blueprint to pharmacies or healthcare providers to print drugs locally, it cannot possibly oversee the efficacy of every 3D printing operation. But it still needs to consider the potential product liability implications. Based on its role in providing the product blueprint alone, the firm may be partially responsible if an adverse incident or product defect claim arises.

In fact, parties across the manufacturing spectrum could be liable for the fallout. This might also include the printer manufacturer, the software designer, the material suppliers and the product manufacturer. Litigation in this area has so far failed to make headlines or help establish precedent for future cases. It’s unclear which parties will be most susceptible to product liability claims. Pharmaceutical companies venturing into 3D printing should develop a strategy for licensing their blueprints to ensure they’re financially and legally protected. The first conversations should include their lawyers and insurance brokers.

2. Cyber Risk
The proliferation of counterfeit medicines is perhaps the industry’s greatest concern with 3D printing. Printers are much more vulnerable to hackers than traditional manufacturing processes, and the incredibly short production time magnifies the risk of counterfeits.

For example, a hacker gaining access to a drug maker’s proprietary blueprint could bring the instructions to a manufacturing plant overseas to mass produce the drug. This exploitation of intellectual property could have a significant impact on a company’s bottom line. Plus, improperly made drugs may go to market and cause harm to patients — hitting the company’s financials and reputation.

Another concern is hackers making alterations to a drug’s recipe or doses within a hospital or pharmacy where it’s printed, leading to severe health consequences for patients.

While pharmaceutical companies can begin to protect themselves by adding tracer elements and watermarks to their formulations, they should also revisit their insurance policy to understand if — and to what extent — they’re covered for a cyber breach.

3. The Safety and Efficacy of 3D Printing
Traditional mass-manufacturing facilities are subject to intense oversight from regulatory bodies, which keeps products safer and provides solace to the insurers who cover them. However, the FDA cannot regulate every instance of 3D printing, so determining the safety of products developed and responsibility for adverse events is a murky area.

The idea of individualized medicine — whereby a patient’s age, weight, race or organ function could inform doses and production — has captivated the medical community since 3D printing became a reality. But the possibility of a printer defect or manufacturing malfunction remains a concern, as does placing responsibility for such an incident.

Importantly, 3D printing manufacturers must be diligent about vetting their suppliers, as contaminated or defective materials may yield a faulty product and pose an even larger threat than the printers themselves.

Recommendations
3D printing technology has the potential to open doors in product development, manufacturing and distribution for pharmaceutical companies. It could help fulfill the promise of personalized medicine, a concept that is growing in popularity within the industry.

For a firm considering a future in 3D printing, understanding risk exposures should be one of the first steps in determining whether it’s a worthwhile investment. Pharmaceutical companies should work closely with their IT and manufacturing colleagues to understand the risks, and tap into insurance experts, their broker and underwriters to ensure that insurance coverage is properly crafted to address these three — and likely many other — risk exposures.

Wire transfer fraud presents a significant financial risk to organizations worldwide. As cybercriminals continue to advance their tactics, it is vital for organizations to implement internal controls to detect and immobilize cybercriminals in their networks.

Once cybercriminals infiltrate a network, they gain access to banking credentials, allowing them to initiate unauthorized wire transfers and redirect incoming payments. Often these criminals impersonate company employees, remaining undetected while testing small transfers to both foreign and domestic shell accounts. If they’re successful, they will authorize larger fraudulent transfers.

Failure to recognize fraudulent transactions early on can result in substantial financial losses and operational disruptions. It can be difficult to claw back the funds once the wire transfers are complete, leaving organizations to the mercy of their cyber policy sub-limits.

To effectively mitigate these risks, organizations should implement the following cybersecurity measures:

1. Employ defensive tools and strategies, such as endpoint detection and response software

2. Mandate “cyber hygiene” training for all network users

3. Require the use of multifactor authentication (MFA) and virtual private networks (VPN) for network access

4. Monitor bank accounts daily for suspicious activity, such as unusual payments and changes to permissions and credentials

5. Update banking controls by banning international wire transfers, adding Payee Positive Pay, establishing account alerts, and establishing weekly/monthly limits on wire transfer amounts

6. Strengthen payment verification practices, such as requiring two or more authorized users to approve payments

Should your organization fall victim to wire transfer fraud, contact your Conner Strong & Buckelew Claim Advocacy & Consulting team immediately. Visit our Cyber Portal to access additional tools, trainings and resources to help keep your organization safe.

The Pennsylvania Compensation Rating Bureau (PCRB) has announced that it is filing for approval of changes to the Pennsylvania experience modification rating calculation.

Who Will It Effect?
Potentially any employers with employees in Pennsylvania.

When Will It Occur?
The filing is expected this month (June 2023) with an effective date of April 1, 2024.

How Will It Impact Employers?
At this time, it is clear that Pennsylvania employers will see a change in their experience modification based on the new rating calculation. The PCRB is expected to host webinars and trainings, as well as, post a new experience modification calculator on its website in the coming months. Conner Strong & Buckelew will be keeping abreast of the PCRB roll out and providing timely information and individualized impact analysis to our clients.

What Should Employers Do Now?
Prepare to embrace the change, be on the lookout for updates from Conner Strong & Buckelew and communicate with your account team early in the renewal cycle.

By Juanita Gadsden, Claim Consultant at Conner Strong & Buckelew

As published by CLM’s Construction Claims magazine, Summer 2023

Several recent appellate court rulings in New York could indicate a shift in how courts are viewing cases involving Section 240 of New York State Labor Law, also known as Scaffold Law.

As all New York property owners and general contractors know, Scaffold Law has presented a wide range of legal, insurance and risk management challenges over the past several years. While originally passed to protect construction workers from serious falls, falling objects and other elevation-related accidents, the Scaffold Law evolved into a major area of risk and has led to several multi-million-dollar lawsuits.

The Scaffold Law imposes strict liability on property owners and general contractors in the event of an elevation-related accident on a job site. Even if the worker was partially at fault for the accident, property owners and contractors can find themselves being held liable for damages.

Until recently, property owners and general contractors had little legal recourse when targeted by a lawsuit. This led to increases in defense costs and multi-million-dollar claims as well as increased insurance costs that drive up overall construction costs in New York. These additional expenses elevate the total construction costs of a given project by as much as 10% on average, according to a report from the General Contractors Association of New York. However, recent rulings are suggesting this could be changing.

Favorable Recent Case Rulings
Last year, the New York Court of Appeals issued three significant decisions in cases involving plaintiffs falling off ladders. The courts’ language in these decisions indicate that New York courts should use a broader analysis when assessing whether an actual Labor Law violation has occurred during these types of accidents and consider whether the plaintiff could be at partial fault for the accident by not performing certain safety checks. Further, these rulings indicate courts must remember that a plaintiff’s fall at a workplace does not automatically mean a violation of Labor Law 240(1) has occurred.

This represents a significant shift from prior rulings where courts almost automatically ruled in favor of plaintiffs whenever an elevation-related accident occurred. Based on the language of these recent rulings, it appears courts are now interested in pursuing more vigorous investigations into what safety precautions were taken, the events leading up to the accident, and ultimately which party is responsible for the accident.

Defense Is the Best Offense
These rulings could open the door for property owners and general contractors to better protect themselves from these lawsuits. Given this environment, it’s now more important than ever for property owners and general contractors to implement additional risk management measures to protect workers on the job. When it comes to NY Labor Law, defense is the best offense. Taking these steps today could save property owners and general contractors millions of dollars in claims, legal fees and settlements down the line should an unfortunate accident take place on their job site.

Here are a few steps property owners and general contractors can take today:

1. Create a robust safety program and regularly update it with the latest safety guidance. These programs should include clear language around elevation risks and how workers can best protect themselves from a potential accident.

2. Implement and exhaustively train staff about the safety program. Creating a plan is just step one. Safety teams must regularly train staff on safety best practices and constantly remind workers on how to protect themselves.

3. Create an incident response plan before an accident takes place. When an accident happens, general contractors and property owners do not want to be caught flat footed. They must have a clear plan in place so that they can hit the ground running to collect evidence, secure witness statements, and help workers get the healthcare they need. Evidence and witness statements will be essential should an accident ever result in a lawsuit.

4. Build a strong return to work program that helps workers recover quickly. It’s important for anyone impacted to feel appreciated and that their health is being prioritized. This means communicating regularly, ensuring they have access to care, and perhaps putting them back to work in office or administrative roles while their injuries heal.

5. Sign risk-transfer agreements to contractually transfer potential Scaffold Law liability to subcontractors. By writing appropriate language into their contracts, including hold-harmless provisions and broad indemnity agreements, property owners and contractors can shield themselves from liability in the event of an accident.

While the legal environment around New York Scaffold Law continues to unfold, elevation-related accidents can still present general contractors and property owners with serious legal headaches. It remains crucial these parties seek guidance from an insurance broker well-versed with the exposures, claims and legal precedent surrounding the complex Scaffold Law. A knowledgeable broker can ensure property owners and general contractors have the proper support they need before and after a potential accident occurs.

With a comprehensive plan in place and expert team resources, property owners and general contractors can be better prepared for accidents that result in lawsuits, thus protecting themselves from a potentially devastating financial situation.

By Daniel Brettler

In the early 1950s, a woman named Gussie Perlmutter sued a New York City hospital, alleging it infected her with jaundice and hepatitis viruses during a blood transfusion. She considered the transfusion, which cost $60 at the time, the sale of a product, for which the hospital would be liable.

Perlmutter argued that while restaurants can be said to provide a service, you really go there and pay to consume the food, so it’s truly the sale of a product. The New York State Court of Appeals agreed with that point, but said it was not analogous to hospitals. When a patient enters a hospital, “He goes there, not to buy medicines or pills, not to purchase bandages or iodine or serum or blood,” the court said, “but to obtain a course of treatment in the hope of being cured of what ails him.”

The court held that providing blood is considered a service, and in the following decades almost every state legislature in the U.S. created laws to make that clear. These statutes are referred to as blood shields, because they protect manufacturers, producers and providers of blood from unlimited liability, with the intent of ensuring a reliable supply of blood and related resources. The threat of potentially devastating lawsuits from a transfusion or transplant gone wrong could put a chilling effect on this lifesaving industry, so legislators have made sure to protect this public service.

These laws and subsequent cases also hold that blood shields extend far beyond blood. Blood products and derivatives, bodily tissue, organs, parts of organs and even semen have all fallen under these laws, depending on the situation and jurisdiction. Today, stem cells and cell therapy continue to evolve and shape the way we apply blood shield statues to new technologies.

How Life Science Companies Aren’t Completely Shielded

While blood shields protect against unlimited liability, they don’t provide unlimited protection. Instead, legislators have balanced the need to protect supplies with the public need for accountability in the medical professions by permitting suits based on negligence and other definitions of “fault.” Manufacturers, producers and providers still need to follow all established protocols and best practices to ensure safe services as much as possible.

Furthermore, states do not all provide the same level of protection. New Jersey, for instance is an outlier state that does not have a blood shield statute. Neighboring Pennsylvania’s law covers a broad range of blood and related products, whereas New York has less expansive language. That means a company doing business in all three may be facing varying levels of liability.

Combined with the hodgepodge of state laws and ongoing innovation in the field, it’s clear that many risks still remain for life sciences companies affected by these statutes. Businesses selling or researching products in multiple states are left in a position of uncertainty. Shields provide significant potential protections to those in a position to take advantage. Variances on a state by state basis present a challenge to insurance companies in pricing the coverage that they offer their insureds, and also in adequacy of policy language that needs to be considered.

Importantly, insurance policies have to be created with full knowledge of blood shield statutes in each state a company does business in, also grasping how they are interpreted and how the policy language must be crafted to be in sync with the laws.

Understanding Your Policy in Light of Blood Shields

While blood shields were designed to provide protection for life science companies, they also add a layer of complexity while crafting insurance policies.

Life sciences companies generally have a set of core liability insurance policies, and most often rely on general liability, products liability, medical malpractice, and errors and omissions coverage to provide defense and pay damages from any claims. How these policies are compiled varies by sector; for example, manufacturers and distributors that do not have regular exposure to medical professionals may have simpler, condensed policies.

Exactly what these policies cover may not always be obvious when it comes to blood and blood products. For example, it’s customary that product liability policies contain a healthcare professional liability exclusion, meaning that insurance carriers may not cover loss when professional services are provided. These professional services are typically defined in policies as various, broadly stated medical service offerings — but may include blood transfusions depending on the blood shield laws in that particular state.

Similarly, general liability insurance policies can leave companies exposed to risk if they are not properly crafted. These policies are designed to handle claims for bodily injury and property damage, but may contain exclusions for products liability and the use of healthcare professional services.

The result is that life sciences companies working with blood products and their derivatives may be exposed to risk even if they are insured. That’s certainly not intuitive for the business person who may be in the business of producing what they consider their “product” or “work,” whereas the statutory definitions consider the same thing a “service” or “medical service.”

But even having extensive knowledge of policy exclusions may not be enough — life sciences companies also must be diligent in understanding how blood products are classified in their states. For example, Indiana’s blood shield statute considers the transfusion of human tissue by a hospital or blood bank to be a service, but it does not include pharmaceutical companies that commercially produce blood products for mass distribution, as this process is characterized as “sale of a product” rather than “provision of a service.”

Yet another wrinkle is that because providing blood is classified as a service in most states, it is not subject to products hazard exclusion of general liability policies. This means that life sciences companies are protected should an insurance carrier claim that a blood product is intrinsically dangerous and should be omitted from standard coverage. However, blood shield statutes are not uniform across all 50 states, and in fact New Jersey and the District of Columbia do not have statutes at all, so constructing an insurance program needs to be carefully considered with regard to where business is taking place.

This field is constantly evolving. As the industry continues to innovate and generate interest around stem cell research, the FDA and individual states may be well-served to reconsider its classification and establish updated guidelines and protections similar to blood shields. Currently, stem cells are widely considered “products” and are regulated as such. This was reinforced in a case involving Regenerative Sciences, which argued that cell therapies are considered medical practices (“services”) rather than drugs (“products”), and therefore the company’s therapy procedure for the treatment of arthritis was not subject to FDA regulations. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals confirmed in February 2014 that Regenerative’s stem cell mixture fell within the FDA’s definition of a drug, upholding the FDA’s continued regulation of “more than minimally manipulated” stem cell therapies.

In the same vein, the industry may be approaching its tipping point in regard to state versus federal standards for blood products. With so much uncertainty surrounding blood shields, it may be time to advocate for a uniform standard at the federal level. Until then, life sciences companies should work closely with their carrier and broker to understand and integrate protections from local blood shield laws into their policies.

When an employee undergoes surgery, it can be extremely costly to their employer. Mismanagement of surgical procedures can lead to prolonged recovery times, complications, such as infections, opioid use, or reoperations, all of which can further increase employer’s healthcare costs.

Surgical care management is a creative solution for self-funded clients to manage these challenges. Combining the personalization of nurse case management and best practices of enhanced recovery after surgery, surgical care management delivers a proactive and more successful experience to patients pre- and post- operation. When implemented correctly, it can help lower costs, mitigate risks, and get employees back to work faster.

The Scenario
A social services organization, with a 2,200-member employer-sponsored plan, was experiencing increased healthcare costs, with a significant percentage attributed to costly surgical procedures and long recovery periods.

Conner Strong & Buckelew recommended partnering with Goldfinch Health, the industry leader in surgical care management, to provide their members with the needed resources to speed patient recovery and lower healthcare costs.

The Result
By implementing the Goldfinch Health surgery program, their members returned to work an average of 25 days faster than expected. The organization had an above average utilization rate, with 77% of eligible members choosing to utilize these services. Over the course of two years, the organization saved a total of 1,311 days* and experienced an $11:$1 return on investment.

Conner Strong & Buckelew’s Commitment to Innovation
As a founding member of BrokerTech Ventures (BTV), Conner Strong & Buckelew is a leader in identifying innovators and insurtech startups to bring cutting edge solutions to our clients and the insurance industry. Our partnership with Goldfinch Health, a BTV Accelerator participant, reflects our commitment to providing our clients with a holistic suite of tools that lead to powerful health benefits and keep overall healthcare expenses down.

By Michael Tiagwad

We’re witnessing an exciting time in the insurance brokerage industry today.

Despite being over 100 years old, the brokerage space isn’t known for innovation. But after 35 years in this business, I am starting to notice a change. More than ever before, new technologies and innovative ideas are raising efficiency, driving superior solutions, and ultimately delivering a better experience to customers. At Conner Strong & Buckelew, we’re focused on leading this change. We understand that future generations will drive this positive shift, which is why we’re committed to developing young talent in ways that foster new ideas and innovation – not just for our business, but for our clients and the industry at large.

We’re doing this in numerous ways. Every year, we welcome dozens of college students from neighboring universities into our internship program to work and learn alongside our teams. We trust these interns with real responsibilities and projects that make them feel connected to our business and empowered to share new perspectives. Throughout its 20-plus-year history, I’ve actively pushed to grow this program into an important talent pipeline for our business that has helped attract some of the brightest minds to our industry. I’m proud to say we now have at least 30 full-time employees that started as interns, including five individuals that have been so successful they have risen to partner-level positions.

Our Innovation Challenge is another example of how we encourage our employees to go above and beyond. Every year, our staff is challenged to devise new ideas that will advance our business goals and push the brokerage industry forward. Breakout teams are formed to bring these ideas to life before they’re presented to a council of senior leaders, including myself, who vote to select three winners. The best ideas are then implemented into our operations, many of which come from our younger employees. I’ve seen some of our company’s best and most innovative ideas emerge from this contest, including the exploration of blockchain technology, the adoption of cloud-connected wearable devices that can detect an array of hazards for our clients in the workplace, and the use of data analytics, which has become a priority for us, our insureds, and our carrier partners.

We’ve also recently created the role of InsurTech Solutions Manager and named one of our younger, high potential professionals to the position. This individual leads Labs By Conner Strong, our firm’s innovation hub focused on making our culture more innovative and inclusive, driving innovation in our industry, and enhancing the customer experience. The InsurTech Solutions Manager also engages our employees to explore and implement insurtech solutions that advance our business and industry. I’ve also tasked this leader with supporting our relationships with external partners in the insurtech community, as well as the company’s initiatives with BrokerTech Ventures.

Our InsurTech Solutions Manager is also working on an outreach program with a nearby university. In this program, students will work on a group project where they select a BrokerTech Ventures start-up to research and devise ways to improve. In doing so, they’ll gain insight into running a disruptive business that connects them to our exciting industry.

To maintain its longevity, our industry will need to evolve in ways that improve our business and ultimately the services we provide our clients. We’re excited about what we’re seeing with the young talent at our firm and across the industry and look forward to watching how they shape the future.

On March 23, 2023, new legislation, House Bill 837, was signed into law in Florida for sweeping tort reform intended to bring balance and transparency to litigation. The law includes provisions related to all tort cases, including reducing the statute of limitations from 4 years to 2 years, moving from “pure” comparative negligence to “modified” comparative negligence and modifying how bad faith claims can be pursued.

This new law will also have an impact specifically on negligent security litigation.  Pursuant to the new law, there will be a presumption against liability for the owners of multi-family housing complexes, if certain conditions are met.  These conditions include security cameras at points of entry/exit, a lighted parking lot, walkways, laundry rooms, common areas and porches, a one-inch deadbolt in each dwelling unit door, a locking device on each window, a peephole in each unit door and locked gates with key or fob access into the pool area.

Furthermore, the new law alters the verdict form and now allows apportionment of fault to the individual who committed a crime against the plaintiff. Lastly, a property owner will be granted immunity if the negligent act results in the death or injury to a person attempting to commit a crime on the property, regardless of whether the crime is a felony or misdemeanor.

While the purpose of this law is tort reform, it also looks to incentivize property owners to implement more stringent security measures. We will work with our clients on implementing these security measures, when possible, to place them in the best position if a negligent security case should arise.  We will ensure that the selected defense counsel is fully aware and familiar with the new law to provide the best defense to our clients.  Lastly, we will confirm the carriers are aware of this new law so we can all work together to provide the best claim handling and advocacy for our clients.

By Laura Kerns

Multi-factor authentication (MFA) increases an organization’s security and helps mitigate risk by requiring a user to provide multiple forms of identity verification to gain access to an application, network or website. Although MFA requires an extra step (or two) at the time of login, it can block most account-compromising attacks.

Four years ago, Microsoft advised that MFA would block over 99.9% of cyber-attacks. This information contributed to insurance carriers often requiring their insureds to utilize MFA or be faced with non-renewal or huge increases in premiums. At this point, many cyber carriers refuse to provide a quote for cyber insurance unless the business has MFA for all its employees. As such, many businesses have this protective armor against cyber attackers.

Then, in walks MFA fatigue.

What is MFA Fatigue?

It was only a matter of time before hackers developed a strategy to circumvent this security measure. MFA fatigue (also known as MFA bombing) is a strategy utilized by hackers to overcome the protection of MFA. First, the hacker obtains the user’s login name and password. A hacker may obtain this information on the dark web or merely by guessing a user’s password. Then, the hacker will bombard the user with prompts requesting verification of their identity. Users may grant access to stop the barrage of push notifications. This has been especially effective on mobile devices since constant notification requests could render a smart phone unusable due to the constant message popups. Or, if a user continues to ignore the push notifications, the hacker may impersonate your IT department and falsely direct them to accept the requests.

Combating MFA Fatigue

Education is the best defense. If an employee receives an unusual push notification, they should immediately change their password, contact their manager and IT department. They should not send an email.

Despite these novel attacks, MFA remains a crucial tool for businesses. Companies that educate employees on the latest cyberattacks will remain ahead of the curve. Remember,  human error is the cause of most network intrusions. There are other tools available in your arsenal (e.g., resilient authorization); however, the best tool is making sure your end users are able to recognize the threat and respond appropriately.

Conner Strong & Buckelew’s Cyber Portal has additional resources on MFA. Contact your account representative to learn more about our cyber services or to help setup your cyber portal account.

Accidents in the workplace cause physical harm to impacted employees and financial harm to employers. One of the most effective protections against workplace accidents is the proper usage of personal protective equipment (PPE) including wearable technologies (wearables). Wearables are essentially cloud-connected devices that can detect an array of hazards in the workplace, giving employers valuable and actionable information on how to manage the impact of such hazards.

The Scenario

A leading third-party logistics provider knew that lifting, pushing, and pulling product were among their top hazards, but wanted more and better information on the other hazards their employees faced, and where they were most prevalent.

The company collaborated with the Conner Strong & Buckelew Risk Control team to address this challenge through a twofold strategy, including implementing a strong and practical, lifting mechanics program, and piloting wearable technology to monitor other hazards, such as slips/trips/falls, repetitive motion, heat/humidity, and noise. The company then used the data from the wearable technology to inform where they needed to further observe employee safety behaviors and correct them where necessary. The program was very well received, as it was implemented with maximum transparency and no disruption to employees’ regular activities.

The Result

Through the utilization of wearable technology and adoption of the lifting mechanics system, the company was able to improve employee training, reinforce best practices and supplement risk management efforts by gathering actionable intelligence on safety hazards. As a result, they reduced lost time injuries from lifting by 56% and realized $450K in Workers’ Compensation loss savings in one year. In addition, the company was able to enhance their behavior-based safety program with real data from real situations.

Conner Strong & Buckelew’s Commitment to Innovation

As a founding member of BrokerTech Ventures (BTV), Conner Strong is a leader in identifying innovators and insurtech startups to bring cutting edge solutions to the insurance industry. Conner Strong recommended MākuSafe®, a BTV Accelerator participant, as a prime technology partner for this pilot. Conner Strong continues to explore wearable technologies with established and emerging companies and will recommend the best fit for our clients.