New Jersey GA Names Michael Gugig As New Executive Director

The New Jersey Life & Health Insurance Guaranty Association has named Michael Gugig as its new Executive Director.

Michael brings more than 25 years of insurance regulatory, legal, government affairs, and guaranty association leadership to the role. Most recently, he served as U.S. General Counsel for Assured Allies, an AI-powered insurtech, where he built the company’s U.S. legal and state government relations functions from the ground up and established its regulatory and compliance infrastructure for life, annuity, and long-term care lines.

Before that, Michael spent six years at Transamerica Life Insurance Company as Vice President, Senior Director of State Government Affairs, and Associate General Counsel. As part of his Transamerica role, he was a Board member of the Kentucky, Maryland, and Vermont guaranty associations. He previously served as General Counsel of Genworth’s Long-Term Care Insurance Division and as an insurance litigation and regulatory partner at Saul Ewing LLP and Dentons (formerly Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal).

Michael holds a J.D. from Rutgers University School of Law; an M.S. in Strategy, Leadership & Management from Michigan State University’s Eli Broad College of Business; and a B.A. summa cum laude from Kean University.

Please join all of us in welcoming Michael back to the guaranty system!

MPC Meets in Chicago

The Members’ Participation Council (MPC) held a meeting on July 29, 2026, in Chicago and online. The MPC General Session featured:

• The MPC Chair Report, during which MPC Chair Amanda Barbera (Indiana) reviewed activities from the July 28 State GA Board Chairs Conference, cited the importance of enhanced engagement between guaranty association administrators and their Boards, encouraged administrators to play an active role in informing their state insurance departments about the value of the guaranty system, and reminded attendees that they can send her messages and suggestions through the members-only NOLHGA website using the MPC Chair Suggestion Box (login required).
• The NOLHGA Management Report, in which NOLHGA President Katie Wade updated attendees on progress made in NOLHGA’s workstreams to implement the Vision 2027 strategic plan.
• An update on NOLHGA’s Data and Reporting Project from Project Lead Joanna Akiyama (NOLHGA staff).
• An update on AssessConnect’s company database and assessment services platforms (one of the strategic plan workstreams) by NOLHGA Chief of Staff Jenn Webb. The update included metrics on the use of the system by the member guaranty associations, plans for onboarding the associations through 2026 and 2027, and a timeline of major projects for the platform in 2026 and 2027.
• A review of the activities of the Assessment Data Survey Task Force by Co-Chair Lindsay Crawford (NOLHGA staff).
• A tour of the members-only section of the NOLHGA website by Sean McKenna (NOLHGA staff).
• Closed-session presentations by the task forces for Global Bankers Insurance Group (North Carolina), North Carolina Mutual Insurance Company (North Carolina), PHL Variable Insurance Company (Connecticut), and Senior Health Insurance Company of Pennsylvania (SHIP).

The MPC meeting also featured:

• A meeting of the MPC Executive Committee.
• A demonstration of AssessConnect’s universal contact database and company view functions by NOLHGA Chief of Staff Jenn Webb.

Federal Updates

Last week, Sens. Cruz (R-TX), Lee (R-UT), and Blackburn (R-TN) introduced S. 5158, the Federal Insurance Office Abolishment Act. The legislation seeks to eliminate FIO and is similar to other pieces of legislation that have been introduced in the previous three congresses without additional consideration. The proposed legislation faces challenges given that none of the bill’s sponsors serve on the Senate Banking Committee, where the bill has been referred. While action on this legislation is not expected during this Congress, the House may continue to advance a compromise effort. It is unlikely to become law this year. Relatedly, the Insurance Data Protection Act (H.R. 3437 / S. 1544), which has been introduced in both the House and Senate and also targets FIO for reform, seeks to remove the organization’s subpoena authority.

In other news, on August 5, 2026, the Federal Reserve Banks of Dallas and New York jointly announced the forthcoming launch of a pilot survey examining lending trends in the U.S. private credit direct lending market. The initiative seeks to enhance transparency in private credit, where lending activity cannot be tracked through publicly available market data. The survey will gather data on credit availability, credit provision, the evolution of lending standards, and implications for the broader economy and monetary policy. Conducted jointly by the Dallas Fed’s Research Department and the New York Fed’s Open Market Trading Desk, the survey is expected to launch after the close of the third quarter of 2026, with aggregate-level findings anticipated for publication in the first quarter of 2027. Participation will be voluntary, and the Federal Reserve Banks have emphasized that the survey constitutes a market intelligence effort whose findings will not be used for supervisory purposes.

NAIC Updates

The Receivership and Insolvency Task Force (RITF) met last week to discuss comments received on questions related to the treatment of Funding Agreement–Backed Notes (FABNs) and similar structures in an insolvency. Following discussion of regulator and stakeholder responses to specific questions, the task force suggested that they generally have enough information to move forward with a response to the Macroprudential Working Group. The response will address claim priority of funding agreements and FABNs under existing laws, guaranty association coverage, and potentially a description of how an FABN might be treated in an insolvency. Task force leadership noted that thanks to NOLHGA, they have a conclusive response on the issue of guaranty association coverage of these instruments. While there was not complete uniformity across the states that responded to the survey, the majority of states reported that they would treat funding agreements at the same level as a policyholder claim in an insolvency. The task force wants to do a little more digging on the origin of the inclusion of funding agreements in priority statutes. The task force plans to hold its next call following the Summer National Meeting.

The task force also received an update from the Receivership Law Working Group related to its work on Medicare Secondary Payer issues. Notably, the working group plans to complete potential revisions to the Receivers’ Handbook by year-end.

The Financial Examiners Handbook Technical Group (FEHTG) received two referrals this week (see attachments 4 and 5). The first, sent by the Financial Analysis Working Group (FAWG), directs the technical group to consider enhancements to the Financial Condition Examiners Handbook (FCEH) to assist examiners in identifying, assessing, and testing an insurer’s risks and controls related to its private asset exposure. The referral specifically references securities with NAIC designations supported by private letter ratings and securities that are valued based on Level 3 inputs, highlighting potential lack of transparency and impact on the assessment of their credit quality and liquidity. FAWG recommends the development of additional exam considerations related to an insurer’s governance and risk management processes related to investment strategies and oversight.

Additionally, FAWG, the Valuation Analysis Working Group, and the Investment Analysis Working Group sent a referral to the technical group related to business ceded to reinsurers in non-Reciprocal Jurisdictions. While the referral focuses on “material cessions to unauthorized reinsurers,” the recommendation is broader; FEHTG should consider enhanced guidance for post-agreement assessment of offshore reinsurance, covering performance monitoring, collateral assets, and reserving. Whether this guidance ultimately is limited to reinsurers in non-Reciprocal Jurisdictions remains to be seen. The technical group also exposed three changes to the FCEH related to (1) CUSIP terminology, (2) Assessment of Aggregated Controls, and (3) Evergreen Letters of Credit.

Finally, the technical group discussed its 2026 project listing. Notably, the group will work with the Life Actuarial Task Force to develop narrative guidance for AG 53 and AG 55 and consider whether the Reinsurance Contract Review procedures should be amended to incorporate references to the Reinsurance Worksheet adopted by the Macroprudential Working Group. Technical group co-chairs directed NAIC staff to draft revisions to address the items in the project listing that have not already been addressed this year.

On August 6, the Life Insurance and Annuities Illustrations Working Group (LIAIWG) continued its consensus-building discussion on potential Model #245 modifications, turning to accountability and illustrated rates of return.

On accountability, there appeared to be consensus that the Model should identify a responsible person, with various parties favoring a designated “company officer” over a responsible “actuary”—in part because, unlike the life insurance illustrations model, Model #245 does not require actuarial calculations. Some commenters supported requiring both an officer and an actuary, and others suggested that to the extent proposed changes are more actuarial in nature (particularly if non-guaranteed elements (NGEs) are permitted), an actuary should be the attesting party. New York, South Carolina, Texas, and Washington favored always requiring an actuary, but a majority voted for the company officer approach; the working group discussed specific attestation wording but did not decide on it. As a reminder, the working group is considering developing an Actuarial Guideline as a potential stopgap solution until states adopt the revised Model. The viability of this approach hinges on whether the Model includes clearly defined actuarial responsibilities. The working group didn’t have time to address stopgap solutions, but it may give the other proposals more consideration as a result of these discussions.

On illustrated rates of return, Ben Slutsker (Chair, MN) organized the ideas into three categories: (1) hypothetical returns for years in which the index did not exist; (2) NGEs applied to historical returns; and (3) additional scenarios not based on recent history. Taking up the first category, the working group considered whether to permit hypothetical index returns based on history subject to a limit (such as 150% of annual volatility) or to prohibit illustration of years in which the index did not exist. Only one regulator supported the limited-permission approach, while a majority supported not permitting illustration of those years. Commenters were divided—some argued that historical performance should not be relied upon at all in illustrating future returns; others supported illustration of short-history indices with proper guardrails; and others opposed back-casting of new indices altogether, on the view that the goal should be to give consumers an indication of how the product type performs rather than to sell any particular index.

International Developments

The NAIC published an issue brief asserting the primacy of state regulators in U.S. participation at the International Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS). The brief notes that all 56 NAIC members, together with the Federal Reserve and Treasury’s Federal Insurance Office, form “Team USA,” and that state regulators occupy roles across nearly the full IAIS committee structure. The brief argues that because IAIS standards do not take direct effect in member jurisdictions, active state engagement is essential to ensure those standards align with U.S. law and market structure before domestic implementation. To that end, the NAIC advances three positions: (1) state regulators should remain at the center of international standard-setting; (2) federal participants should coordinate with states so that U.S. positions reflect domestic regulatory priorities; and (3) international standards should be adopted in ways suited to the state-based system and not harmful to U.S. consumers or insurers.

Privacy Updates

The U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions approved amendments to S.3097, the Health Information Privacy Reform Act. If passed, the bill would direct the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (in consultation with the FTC) to establish HIPAA privacy, security, and breach rule–like protections to health data not covered by HIPAA and to issue guidance on applying HIPAA’s minimum necessary standard for health data used for AI and other machine-learning applications. The new guidance would address items including health applications, wearable devices, and other consumer health technologies.