Hancock Claims Consultants Expands Field Coverage with Acquisition of Knight's Solutions
ALPHARETTA, Ga. & BARDSTOWN, Ky.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Hancock Claims Consultants Holdings, LLC ('Hancock'), a leading property insurance claims services business, today announced that it has entered into an agreement to acquire Knight's Solutions to expand the scale of its field network.
With the addition of the Knight's Solutions team, Hancock Claims is able to provide an even greater level of support for our combined customer base. -Brad Hancock, Executive Chairman & Founder, Hancock Claims Consultants
Established in 2003, Hancock, a pioneer in field inspections for property insurers, has expanded its service offerings in recent years to include interior inspections, estimating, property contents, engineering services, and mitigation & repair services including tree removal. Hancock boasts partnerships with hundreds of U.S. insurers, including 50 of the top 50.
Kentucky-based Knight's Solutions provides property inspection services similar to those offered by Hancock. They serve a number of leading insurance clients with both daily and catastrophe support and have coverage primarily in the Midwestern and Southeastern United States.
Hancock Claims Consultants' Founder and Executive Chairman Brad Hancock commented, 'We are excited to have Knight's Solutions joining the Hancock team. Both companies have a common history and shared culture of delivering service excellence to the property claims industry. With the addition of their team, we are able to provide an even greater level of support for our combined customer base.'
Knight's Solutions' owner Ryan Knight added, 'This brings together two teams that believe in hard work, in-depth knowledge, complete and fulfilled reporting, and a true dedication to our craft — the kind that bridges the gap between top-tier inspectors and the highest level of documentation across the insurance industry. We've built something strong here at Knight's, and now we're stepping into a new chapter with even more opportunities to grow, improve, and serve more carriers — all while staying true to who we are.'
The companies expect to complete operational integration over the next 90 days in order to deliver a seamless experience for their combined customers. Ryan Knight will be an AVP directly reporting to Ray Tant, Hancock's Senior Vice President of Inspections & Estimating, effective immediately.
For additional information about the acquisition, please contact Jason Smith at press@hancockclaims.com.
About Hancock Claims Consultants
With more than two decades supporting property insurers, Hancock Claims Consultants provides full claims lifecycle support under one roof. From supporting claims adjudication to mitigation and restoration, we help insurers make policyholders whole again. Our services are technology-enabled from beginning to end. We integrate our systems and technology partners with your internal systems for faster claims processing. Hancock's nationwide network of inspectors, contractors, and engineers provides the scale and breadth of support services that adjusters need. For ladder assists, property inspections and estimating, full contents services, mitigation and repair services, tree removal, and more, we have your claims needs covered. For more information, please visit hancockclaims.com.
About Knight's Solutions
Knight's Solutions, LLC. is a team of professionals specializing in assisting property insurance carriers. Knight's Solutions provides services such as ladder assist, virtual assist, direct inspections, and post-construction services throughout Southeast and Midwest portions of the U.S. For more information about Knight's Solutions, visit https://knightssolutions.com.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
33 minutes ago
- Axios
What a Bojangles sale could mean for the restaurant's future
A rumored $1.5 billion Bojangles sale could signal a new direction for the fried chicken-and-biscuits restaurant long seen as an exclusive staple of the South. Why it matters: Bojangles is the place North Carolinians tell visitors they "have to try" while in the state. It's often the first stop for natives returning home, hungry and craving a taste of nostalgia. In recent years, the brand has increasingly been meeting fans where they are, by opening more than 200 restaurants in other regions across the country, from Las Vegas to Dallas to Columbus, Ohio. A sale as big as it's rumored to be would require Bojangles to rev up that growth, industry experts say. Driving the news: The Wall Street Journal, citing "people familiar with the matter," first reported that the Charlotte-based company was working with investment bankers on a potential $1.5 billion sale. That's triple the $590 million private-equity firms Durational Capital Management and TJC paid for Bojangles in 2019, when they took the company private. Reality check: Industry experts say the number may just be Bojangles shooting high. "Bojangles "resonates strongly with its core audience," Billy Roberts, senior analyst with CoBank, says. "For it to support that valuation, it would have to continue a similar performance as it expanded nationally — even more nationally than it already is." While Bojangles is popular in the South, it doesn't have the same national following as, say, a Whataburger. John Gordon, principal at Pacific Management Consulting Group, says the $1.5 billion figure is inflated. "These numbers are strictly marketing numbers that the book runner — which is the firm that's trying to get other investors interested in this — they come up with." Bojangles has declined to comment on the potential sale, saying it does not address rumors or speculation. The Wall Street Journal also noted that Bojangles may ultimately decide not to sell. By the numbers: Bojangles, founded in 1977, now has more than 830 restaurants in 20 states, up from over 600 stores in 12 states in 2019. The chain has expanded to Texas and metros like Phoenix. Opening a Bojangles costs between $2.6 million to $3.4 million, according to a 2023 franchise disclosure document. Gordon says that's a very high cost per store. What they're saying: "Many North and South Carolinians have moved to other states, and when we come, they celebrate that Bojangles has made it to the new town," Bojangles CEO Jose Armario told Axios during a recent interview at the company's new south Charlotte headquarters. Armario, who took the helm in 2019, says Bojangles has seen "tremendous success" in all its new markets. "Last year, we outpaced our competition by 400 basis points," he adds. Yes, but: Bojangles has expanded in the past with mixed results. For example, in 2016, a franchisee closed eight restaurants in Orlando after just a year. The big picture: With the state of the chicken industry and the restaurant M&A world, it tracks that Bojangles would want to at least consider a sale now. "The headline almost writes itself: Brands are striking while the iron — and the chicken — is hot," Roberts says. U.S. chicken sales have been growing for two decades, outpacing beef due to its cheaper costs and versatility. "Our founders were smart enough to know chicken was always going to be in demand," Armario says. Zoom out: Dave's Hot Chicken shook the restaurant world recently when Roark Capital agreed to buy the fast-casual chain for around $1 billion. The restaurant, which started as a California parking lot pop-up and has expanded to Charlotte, is considered a leader in the nationwide hot chicken craze. The average Dave's location does $3.1 million in sales annually, according to Nation's Restaurant News, citing Technomic. Bojangles tend to do over $2 million. Other restaurants are hopping on the chicken trend. Taco Bell, for one, recently added nuggets to its menu. What's next: As the market becomes saturated, analysts suggest Bojangles may need to follow the lead of Wingstop and Raising Cane's by innovating its menu. Bojangles regularly introduces new products, like chicken and waffles, as well as its limited-time Bo-Rito breakfast wrap. "If they don't come up with sauces and rubs and all that kind of thing in order to make it distinctive, then they're going to have a very slow way to go," Gordon says.
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Nebraska U.S. Rep. Don Bacon again in middle of fight for big Trump bill
Once again, Nebraska's 2nd Congressional District Republican, U.S. Rep. Don Bacon, finds himself in position to cast a potentially pivotal vote. (Zach Wendling/Nebraska Examiner) OMAHA — President Donald Trump and Republican leadership in Congress are pushing a presidential-pressured deadline of July 4 to send a 'big' tax and spending bill that Trump calls 'beautiful' to the president's desk. And once again, Nebraska's Omaha-based 2nd Congressional District Republican, U.S. Rep. Don Bacon, finds himself in position to cast a potentially pivotal vote, after expressing concerns over Senate Republicans' efforts to find more cuts to Medicaid in their version of the bill to offset the rising costs of the mega-bill. The bill would make the tax cuts from the first Trump administration permanent, cementing most of its benefits for high earners. It also introduces some new temporary tax breaks for workers earning less, boost funding for immigration enforcement, start funding Trump's 'Golden Dome' missile defense program and accomplish other goals from Trump's domestic agenda. The bill also cuts the social safety net, adding new requirements for Medicaid and food stamps. The Trump tax bill has multiple provisions that several different groups of Republicans have issues with, which have caused Republican leadership on the Hill to try to wrangle Congress and House Republicans to be lockstep. Bacon told the Examiner in recent days that he had received assurances that the bill would not degrade the quality of healthcare for people covered by Medicaid. He also was part of a group of 16 House Republicans who said they won't support the Senate's reconciliation bill if it cuts the Medicaid provider tax rate 'I love Senator Ricketts and Senator Fisher, but hearing, 'We got to put our own fingerprints on the bill,'' Bacon said, 'Well, please don't do it on Medicaid, put your fingerprints on some other places.' After some hiccups with some parliamentary rulings, Senate Republicans appear to be on track to pass their version and send it back to the House later this week, in time for Trump's deadline. Congressional experts have estimated that the package would add $3.253 trillion to the debt during the next decade, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Some Senate Republicans have proposed cutting more from Medicaid via an amendment that would reduce federal government spending on Medicaid in states that expanded the program as a result of the Democrats' 2010 health care law. Voters in Nebraska and a combination of voters and legislators in 40 states, in addition to the District of Columbia, have supported Medicaid expansion, according to the health care research organization KFF. The House version introduces Medicaid's new work requirement, shortening the enrollment period and eliminating what Republicans describe as 'waste, fraud and abuse' in the system by adding more paperwork. The proposed change in the House version, also in the Senate bill, would require able-bodied people and working-aged individuals to show the government proof of employment to remain on the program every six months. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that 5.2 million adults would lose Medicaid coverage due to the stricter requirements, which are expected to save the federal government $280 billion over six years. Bacon said he can 'defend that all day long.' 'We're doing smart savings and protecting those who need it under the house plan,' Bacon said in an interview late last week. Bacon said the Medicaid cuts that the Senate is proposing are undermining the strength of the GOP's argument of going after 'fraud and abuse' and also emphasized that he didn't like specific provisions in the bill, such as those related to SNAP. For months, state lawmakers, left-leaning political advocacy organizations, medical professionals, activists and some everyday Nebraskans have expressed concerns about the 'disastrous' consequences of the 'one, big beautiful bill's' Medicaid cuts for healthcare access and rural hospitals. Angie Lauritsen, state director of the political advocacy group Nebraska For Us, said Bacon has sided 'with the ultra-wealthy over the Nebraskans he was elected to serve' but said he could 'redeem' himself. 'Does he want to stand with the ultra-wealthy or will he finally put working families first?' Lauritsen said. Scrutiny of Bacon's position on the bill could prove less effective after news broke that the retired Air Force brigadier general is not seeking reelection in 2026, causing political shockwaves as he represents one of the nation's most competitive congressional districts. Bacon has been pushing back on the Senate version of the bill, as both Nebraska senators — U.S. Sens. Deb Fischer and Pete Ricketts do interviews on the importance of preserving Trump's tax cuts. 'We want to make sure [we] deliver on our promises to the American people,' Fischer said on Fox News. 'We can't see these tax cuts expire.' Few places have faced more political pushback to the bill than in swing districts like Nebraska's 2nd District, with its slight GOP tilt. A bipartisan group of state lawmakers in Nebraska expressed concerns in a letter to Nebraska' U.S. senators over how the Trump Tax would impact SNAP. Republicans and Trump have pushed back on the framing of the reductions as cuts. They say they are targeting abuses. At least one of the most recent Senate versions would require states to cover some of the costs of SNAP benefits, which are currently mostly funded by the federal government. Senate Republicans are also considering additional reductions to the program than the House version, which independent analysis shows would likely cut at least 3 million people from the program. U.S. Rep. Don Bacon will not seek reelection in Nebraska's 2nd District 'Nebraska would be on the hook for approximately $16 million in benefit costs and an additional $12.1 million in administrative expenses to maintain program operations,' the letter from Nebraska lawmakers read. 'These policy choice dynamics would put significant pressure on our state budget and may result in reduced benefits or more restrictive eligibility.' Bacon said he wouldn't know how he would vote until the Senate had passed its amended version. Bacon has emphasized that he has received concessions or reassurances from House leadership for his vote. As Bacon told the New York Times earlier this month — he 'doesn't like voting 'no' but likes 'fixing things.' He also told the national outlet that he was a 'no' on advancing a White House request to claw back $9.4 billion that the federal government had already approved for international aid and public media funding — but flipped his vote after 'reassurances' of some funding for AIDS help and public media. He also told the national outlet that he wouldn't follow his party 'off the cliff.' Multiple polls indicate that Trump's signature piece of legislation is unpopular among Americans who are aware of it. Former White House employee Elon Musk has criticized the legislation, saying it would 'destroy millions of jobs in America and cause immense strategic harm' to the nation. He has been especially critical of how much it adds to the national deficit and debt. For Bacon, he said he liked the direction the Senate version was taking. 'I've had a lot of media saying, Are you going to support the Senate's version?' Bacon said. 'I don't … know.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Miami Herald
41 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Insurer Blue Shield of California's new parent company alarms consumer advocates
Last year, regulators approved a request by Blue Shield of California, the state's third-largest health insurer, to restructure and establish a new parent corporation in Delaware. The Oakland-based nonprofit got the go-ahead from the Department of Managed Health Care, or DMHC, to create an entity called Ascendiun Inc., which is now the out-of-state corporate parent of Blue Shield. The insurer said that the restructuring would allow it to better serve its members "with less bureaucracy and faster results, while making health care more affordable." But the transaction has raised alarm among a former high-level Blue Shield executive and consumer advocates, who complain that it was carried out with no public oversight and could allow the insurer to transfer money to a Delaware parent company with few strings attached. The activists claim that some of that money could be used to boost its spending on charitable endeavors. The company has accrued a surplus of more than $4 billion over the decades as it benefited from its former tax-exempt status, according to a regulatory filing. "The move guts the ability of the DHMC to enforce Blue Shield's nonprofit obligations to the California public and gives Blue Shield's directors ... a virtually free hand to make use of Blue Shield's billions of dollars in charitable assets as they please," wrote Michael Johnson, the insurer's former director of public policy, in a recent letter to Mary Watanabe, director of the department, which was reviewed by The Times. Johnson is calling for the department to rescind its approval and unwind the restructuring. The department maintains that the insurer is not subject to charitable trust rules as a nonprofit mutual benefit corporation. In a statement, the department said it "maintains full regulatory authority and enforcement of all Blue Shield of California health plan operations," and reviewed the transaction to ensure that it will not harm the plan's financial viability. Blue Shield's restructuring is reviving a longstanding debate about whether one of the state's largest insurers is reinvesting enough of its profit to lower its rates, better serve low-income residents and provide coverage for underserved areas of the state. Controversy over the company's role as a nonprofit previously aired in 2015 as it sought approval from the department for its $1.2-billion purchase of Care1st, a Medicaid health plan. Blue Shield has disputed Johnson's claims, noting that the state has determined it is not subject to the rules governing charitable nonprofits. In the Jan. 8 announcement of its restructuring, Blue Shield also disclosed that it was forming a for-profit subsidiary called Stellarus that would provide services to other health plans, such as delivering drugs to patients more inexpensively than pharmacy benefit managers. Ascendiun is structured as a nonprofit and Blue Shield and the company's Medi-Cal insurer, Blue Shield of California Promise Health Plan - the former Care1st - also would continue as nonprofits, the insurer said at the time. "This structure is not uncommon among health plans, as many across the country - including other nonprofit Blue Cross and Blue Shield companies - have made similar corporate reorganizations to better serve their membership," the insurer said in its statement to The Times. A scathing audit Blue Shield was established in 1939 by the California Medical Assn. as the nation's first prepaid health plan to cover physician bills. It followed the creation of the first Blue Cross plan, in Texas, to pay for hospital bills. The California insurer did not pay federal taxes until a change in the law in 1986. And it was exempt from state taxes until the Franchise Tax Board revoked that status in August 2014 after a scathing audit that The Times first reported. The audit found that Blue Shield was operating similarly to a for-profit company, with executives instructed to "maximize profitability." The tax board also found that the insurer had stockpiled "extraordinarily high surpluses" even as it failed to offer enough public benefits, such as more affordable coverage. Blue Shield denied the accusations but ultimately relinquished its tax-exempt status, even as it has continued to pursue an appeal of an order requiring it to pay more than $100 million in back taxes. Johnson contends that the new corporate structure will allow Blue Shield to move its assets around in pursuit of its business goals with little oversight beyond maintaining required reserves - especially given its parent company's incorporation in Delaware, a business-friendly state where most Fortune 500 companies are registered. The DMHC strengthened reserve requirements in approving the deal and it now totals about $2.1 billion, according to a regulatory filing, which Johnson says would allow Blue Shield to transfer about $2.4 billion to Ascendiun. Charles Bell, a healthcare advocate who was involved in last decade's debate over Blue Shield's charitable obligations, is troubled by the decision to establish an out-of-state parent. "I think that the changes in corporate structure that were made are highly concerning, and it should have received a much higher level of public scrutiny and a lot more skepticism by the Department of Managed Health Care," said Bell, advocacy programs director for Consumers Union, the publisher of Consumer Reports. The department said in its response to The Times that it "may hold public meetings if a transaction meets certain requirements to qualify as a major transaction. Upon due consideration, the Department determined that the specific facts of this restructuring did not meet the criteria set out in law to hold a public meeting." A long history of restructuring Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans have a long history of restructuring, including Blue Cross of California. That insurer broke ground when in 1993 it spun off a recently established for-profit subsidiary, Wellpoint Health Networks. Blue Cross was later required to distribute $3.2 billion to a pair of new nonprofits, the California Endowment and the California Health Care Foundation, which are still operating. Less than a decade later, Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans in more than dozen other states had converted to for-profits, typically highly controversial proposals, given questions about what was to become of their billions of dollars of assets. More recently, the nonprofits have converted into mutual insurance holding companies. That allows them to maintain their nonprofit status while funding for-profit ventures, such as in technology, said Brendan Bridgeland, an attorney with the Center for Insurance Research in Cambridge, Mass. What is unusual about Blue Shield of California's restructuring, he said, is that the DMHC allowed it to establish an out-of-state parent company. "Once you reach the point where the subsidiary starts transferring money up to the parent and it gets reallocated, then it's going to be out of their control," Bridgeland said. Johnson's concerns are rooted in efforts last decade by healthcare advocates to have Blue Shield declared a charitable organization and to dig into its assets to improve patient care as a condition of its approval to acquire Care1st. Johnson worked at Blue Shield from 2003 until 2015, when he resigned to mount a public campaign to pressure the insurer over its nonprofit mission. Johnson has been involved in litigation with his former employer, which sued him in 2015 alleging he disclosed confidential information, including Blue Shield's communications with the Franchise Tax Board. In a settlement, he agreed to no longer retain or disseminate such documents. In seeking to retain its state tax-exemption during its audit by the board, which began in 2013, Blue Shield argued that should it dissolve, its assets could be distributed only to another nonprofit. Yet, the insurer told the DMHC, when the agency reviewed the proposed acquisition in 2015, that as a nonprofit mutual-benefit corporation it served only its enrollees and had no such obligations. Ultimately, the department decided that Blue Shield did not have the charitable obligations though it required the insurer, in approving the acquisition that year, to refrain from making "misleading or inconsistent" statements regarding the distribution of its assets if it ever were dissolved. "Through this process there have been inconsistencies in what Blue Shield has said. It was frustrating because we had to spend a lot of time and energy to make sure what was true," the department's then director, Shelley Rouillard, said at the time. A pledge to spend more on patient care The insurer pledged as part of the Care1st acquisition to spend $200 million over the next decade on several initiatives aimed at providing better patient care. Nevertheless, patient advocates criticized the DMHC's finding that Blue Shield did not have charitable obligations, saying the state lost the opportunity to regulate how the insurer spent its billions in assets - and then failed to impose tougher conditions on the insurer, such as limiting its ability to impose rate increases deemed unreasonable. In his March letter, Johnson called on the DMHC to require Blue Shield to spend annually at least 5% of its total assets on community benefits, which might go, for example, to grants to community clinics in underserved areas of the state. Blue Shield defended its charitable spending, noting that it caps its annual profit at 2% and allocates additional revenue to such services as delivering COVID vaccines at no cost to the state, and funding nonprofits that advance mental health. "Blue Shield … has consistently supported its members and California communities throughout the state," the company said. Johnson also contends newly public documents show Blue Shield has continued to argue before state tax authorities that it is a charitable trust. In the opening brief of its back taxes case in 2020, the insurer cites a state Supreme Court case that it said confirms "Blue Shield operates exclusively for the promotion of social welfare," his letter notes. Blue Shield told The Times that it has provided "consistent information to DMHC about its corporate restructuring" and that Johnson's letter provided "no new evidence" regarding Blue Shield's status as a "tax-paying not-for-profit mutual benefit corporation." Johnson and the DMHC traded additional letters last week, with Johnson questioning why the department had not reviewed the new tax appeal documents or why they had not reviewed Ascendiun's articles of incorporation or bylaws prior to approving the restructuring. Janet Rickershauser, a nonprofits lawyer at Hurwit & Associates, said that the bylaws are important to understanding the parent company's operations, including the relationship of the subsidiaries to each other and the holding parent company. In a letter sent June 23 to Johnson, Jonathon Williams, an assistant chief counsel at the DMHC, said the department concluded it was "not necessary or appropriate" to review the tax-appeal documents in its review of Blue Shield's application to restructure nor conduct a "full evaluation of Delaware's corporation statutory scheme." The department told The Times that it conducted a "comprehensive review" of the articles of incorporation of Blue Shield and its Medicaid Promise Health Plan as required by state law. Although it did not review Ascendiun's bylaws or articles of incorporation, the department said it retained its regulatory authority over Blue Shield. Blue Shield said it would not release it bylaws because they are "confidential company documents." However, Rickershauser said that "hiding the ball on the bylaws is preventing transparency into important aspects of how they're operating." Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.
