Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 30 DECEMBER 2025

Alaska Eliminates TPA Licensing Exemptions, Expanding Licensing Requirements

Polsinelli PC
Explore more from Polsinelli PC

The Alaska Division of Insurance has issued new guidance for Third Party Administrators (TPAs) operating in the state. Bulletin B 25-09, published on Dec. 2, 2025, highlights changes made by Alaska Senate Bill 132...

United StatesInsurance
Justin T. Liby
Justin T. Liby
Steven L. Imber
Steven L. Imber
Jennifer L. Osborn
Jennifer L. Osborn
Zachary R. Dyer
Zachary R. Dyer

Key Takeaways:

  • Alaska's new TPA licensing requirements take effect Jan. 1, 2026. Senate Bill 132 eliminates a key exemptions and expands who must be licensed as a Third Party Administrator in the state.
  • TPAs affected by the change should reassess their status and prepare to apply. Previously exempt entities may now need to become licensed to maintain compliance.

The Alaska Division of Insurance has issued new guidance for Third Party Administrators (TPAs) operating in the state. Bulletin B 25-09, published on Dec. 2, 2025, highlights changes made by Alaska Senate Bill 132 to various insurance laws effective Jan. 1, 2026. Key takeaways applicable to a TPA operating in Alaska are as follows:

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

Privacy, Cyber & Data Strategy Advisory | NAIC Summer Meeting Sharpens Focus On AI, Data, And Technology Governance

The National Association of Insurance Commissioners intensified its regulatory focus on artificial intelligence governance, third-party data models, and cybersecurity oversight at its Summer 2026 meeting. Regulators are shifting from principles-based guidance to examination-ready supervisory tools, emphasizing that insurers remain accountable for the technologies and vendors they deploy. The meeting revealed how AI risk evaluation, vendor oversight frameworks, and privacy modernization efforts are convergin
United StatesInsurance
Alston & Bird LLP
Alston & Bird LLP
Article

AI Regulation In Insurance: A Crossroads

As artificial intelligence development accelerates and safety concerns mount, state insurance regulators are advancing comprehensive examination frameworks to govern AI use in the insurance industry. The National Association of Insurance Commissioners nears completion of its AI Risk Evaluation Supplement, which will establish standardized oversight procedures for insurers' AI governance practices across market conduct and financial examinations.
United StatesInsurance
McDermott Will & Schulte
McDermott Will & Schulte
Article

US NAIC Summer 2026 National Meeting Highlights: Natural Catastrophe Risk And Resilience (EX) Task Force

The Natural Catastrophe Risk and Resilience Task Force of the US National Association of Insurance Commissioners convened to address the escalating challenges of catastrophe risks facing insurance markets. Key discussions centered on developing standardized mitigation programs, expanding flood insurance awareness, and scaling resilience initiatives like FORTIFIED home designations. The meeting also examined the evolving property/casualty reinsurance market and explored new hemispheric partnerships to streng
United StatesInsurance
Mayer Brown
Mayer Brown
Article

Is Your PFAS Coverage At Risk? An Ohio Federal Court Ruling Opens The Door To Broader Insurer Denials

A federal court in Ohio has ruled that an occupational disease exclusion in a commercial general liability policy bars coverage for PFAS-related personal injury claims brought by firefighters against a manufacturer of firefighting equipment. This landmark decision could significantly impact how insurers respond to PFAS product liability claims and may extend beyond occupational disease exclusions to other policy provisions using similarly broad language.
United StatesInsurance
Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff LLP
Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff LLP
Article

Contractual Liability Exclusion Must Be Assessed Against Each Cause Of Action Separately, Not Applied Wholesale Where Multiple Claims Are Pleaded In One Action

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals examined whether a directors' and officers' liability policy's contractual liability exclusion could bar coverage for an entire multi-count lawsuit, or whether each legally distinct cause of action—breach of contract, fraud, and quantum meruit—must be assessed separately against the exclusion's terms. The decision addresses the critical question of how insurers must apply policy exclusions when a single complaint pleads multiple claims arising from the same und
United StatesInsurance
Adams & Adams
Adams & Adams