Inszone Insurance Services acquired Tucson, Arizona-based Benchmark Insurance Group LLC, doing business as Randall Realty & Insurance.
Founded in 1973 by Larry Randall, the agency was later acquired by Frank Fletcher. The firm specializes in mobile and manufactured home insurance, homeowners, auto and Medicare services
Sacramento, California-based Inszone Insurance Services is a brokerage firm offering a range of property/casualty and employee benefits services.
The idea that AI tools can help plaintiffs’ lawyers to improve finely tuned litigation strategies that ultimately drive insurance company claims payouts is not new to Carrier Management readers.
Nor is the suggestion that defense firms need to try to catch up with similar ammo.
But a study commissioned by the Claims and Litigation Management Alliance (CLM) and conducted by Suite 200 Solutions probes a related topic that Carrier Management reporters hadn’t thought to ask our insurance industry sources in any of our previously published articles: Who should pay to even the score?
The claim and litigation executives who responded to more than 100 questions captured in the recently published “2026 CLM Litigation Management Study” were split right down the middle on two choices available to answer that particular question.
- Exactly 50% of executives said they believe law firms should pay for AI tools they use in defending liability insurance policyholders.
- The other 50% selected the choice, “Honestly, we are still figuring this out and have yet to arrive at a policy.”
Not a single respondent selected the option that claim organizations should “contribute to or pay for law firm AI tools,” the report indicates. A big “0%” is typed next to that possible answer to Question No. 84, specifically phrased, “Which statement resonates most strongly with you regarding who should pay for the AI-related software and tools used by law firms on your files?”
Related: Defendants, Insurers Risk Falling Behind on AI for Litigation
Responses to additional questions provide further insights into the evolving dynamics of the situation.
Carriers asked whether defense firm partners are reaching out for help in defraying costs of AI-enabled technologies overwhelmingly said they have fielded no such requests. Only 3.4% said they were frequently asked for help, 13.6% said the requests came “sometimes,” while 83.1% have never been asked.
Another question about AI use left out the cost component: “How often would you say you’ve been approached by law firms requesting permission to use AI-related software and tools?” Just about half of the carrier representatives responding to the question (50.8%) said they’ve “rarely” (45.9%) or “never” (4.9%) been approached by defense attorneys to discuss their firm’s use of AI.
“Asking the constituency most dis-incented in an hourly billing model to adopt powerful and efficient tools seems like the absolute slowest path to adoption,” says the report, which also reveals that just 6.2% of carrier respondents, on average, acknowledged the use of any alternative form of billing in answer to a separate question in the survey.
