Defending the AI Claim Desk: Market Conduct Exams, AG Investigations, and Bad-Faith Exposure

Matthew P. Keris
Matthew P. Keris
Marshall Dennehey

Matthew P. Keris has defended health care providers, businesses, and device manufacturers in civil litigation for thirty years. He is a shareholder in Marshall Dennehey’s Health Care Department and Chair of the firm’s Electronic Medical Record and Audit Trail Practice Group, working from the firm’s Scranton, Pennsylvania office.

Frank Ramos
Frank Ramos
Goldberg Segalla

Frank Ramos is a nationally recognized litigator with more than 26 years of experience defending clients in civil matters, including retail, product liability, premises liability, trucking, insurance, and commercial disputes. He has taken numerous cases to verdict and advises businesses across the hospitality, retail, development, and fitness industries.

Live Video-Broadcast: September 30, 2026

2 hour CLE

Tuition: $195.00
Subscribe to Federal Bar Association CLE Pass...
Co-Sponsored by myLawCLE
Get this course, plus over 1,000+ of live webinars.
Learn More
Training 5 or more people?

Sign-up for a law firm subscription plan and each attorney in the firm receives free access to all CLE Programs

Program Summary

 

The Algorithm Denied the Claim — The File Has to Answer

A model flagged the claim, a coordinator signed the denial, and the letter says a clinician reviewed it. That gap is now the case. Twenty-three states and D.C. have adopted the NAIC Model Bulletin, and the NAIC is piloting an AI Systems Evaluation Tool. Texas SB 815 bars automated systems from making adverse determinations.

Compliance is no longer a filing exercise. Skip the governance file, and the examiner finds the hole. Overstate physician review in marketing, and plaintiffs plead misrepresentation. The March 2026 Lokken order compelled nH Predict design documents back to January 2017, AI review board minutes, and medical director compensation metrics. Bifurcation failed, and trade secret objections did not stop production.

You leave with an AIS Program blueprint, an exam-readiness checklist, and vendor oversight standards. You leave with the human-in-the-loop record that proves independent review after the AI recommendation, not alongside it. And you leave with the privilege posture and protective order strategy that hold when the algorithm becomes the defendant.

Key topics to be discussed:

  • Governance File
    What an AIS Program file must contain to survive a market conduct exam.
  • Regulatory Baseline
    How the NAIC Model Bulletin and the AI Systems Evaluation Tool pilot set expectations.
  • State Mandates
    How New York, Colorado, California, and Texas rules change your claim documentation.
  • Vendor Oversight
    How vendor audits, board-level governance, and audit trails withstand enforcement scrutiny.
  • Bad-Faith Theories
    How process failure and misrepresentation claims turn AI denials into class exposure.
  • Discovery Defense
    How the Lokken template shapes production, privilege, protective orders, and human-review proof.

This course is co-sponsored with myLawCLE.

Date / Time: September 30, 2026

  • 2:30 pm – 4:40 pm Eastern
  • 1:30 pm – 3:40 pm Central
  • 12:30 pm – 2:40 pm Mountain
  • 11:03 am – 1:40 pm Pacific

Closed-captioning available

Speakers

Matthew P. Keris, Shareholder | Marshall Dennehey

Matthew P. Keris has defended health care providers, businesses, and device manufacturers in civil litigation for thirty years. He is a shareholder in Marshall Dennehey’s Health Care Department and Chair of the firm’s Electronic Medical Record and Audit Trail Practice Group, working from the firm’s Scranton, Pennsylvania office. His practice centers on the electronic medical record, the audit trail, and the litigation and discovery consequences of artificial intelligence in health care.

  • Education & Credentials

Mr. Keris earned his J.D. from Roger Williams University School of Law in 1996 and his B.A., cum laude, from Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania in 1993. He is admitted to practice in Pennsylvania (1996), New York (2011), and Connecticut (2021), and before the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (2000), the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York (2020), and the Supreme Court of the United States (2023).

  • Recognition & Leadership

Mr. Keris chairs Marshall Dennehey’s Electronic Medical Record and Audit Trail Practice Group and is a shareholder in the firm’s Health Care Department. He is President of the Pennsylvania Association for Health Care Risk Management for 2026, his third term in that office after 2012 and 2016, and previously served as President of the DRI Foundation and President of the Pennsylvania Defense Institute. He is a former Board Member of DRI, received the DRI Leadership Award and the DRI Foundation Community Service Award in 2023, is rated AV Preeminent by Martindale-Hubbell, and is listed in The Best Lawyers in America for Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants (2023–2026) and Litigation – Health Care (2024–2026).

  • Professional Involvement

He sits on the advisory board of American Legal Connections and is a co-editor of its newsletter, and he belongs to the American Society for Health Care Risk Management and the Claim and Litigation Management Alliance. He speaks and writes regularly on the electronic medical record, the audit trail, and the litigation and discovery issues raised by the implementation and use of AI in health care, including service as a keynote panelist at the ASHRM 2024 annual conference.

  • Experience

For thirty years, Mr. Keris has represented health care providers, businesses, and medical device manufacturers in civil litigation, with a practice spanning medical malpractice defense, nursing home liability, dental malpractice, and electronic medical record and audit trail disputes — including the discovery fights that follow the deployment of AI-assisted decision systems.

 

Frank Ramos, Partner | Goldberg Segalla

Frank Ramos is a nationally recognized litigator with more than 26 years of experience defending clients in civil matters, including retail, product liability, premises liability, trucking, insurance, and commercial disputes. He has taken numerous cases to verdict and advises businesses across the hospitality, retail, development, and fitness industries.

  • Education & Credentials

Mr. Ramos earned his J.D., magna cum laude, from the University of Miami School of Law in 1997 and his B.A., summa cum laude, from Florida International University in 1993. He has been a member of The Florida Bar since 1997 and is admitted before the U.S. District Courts for the Southern and Middle Districts of Florida.

  • Recognition & Leadership

Mr. Ramos is a nationally recognized litigator who was twice named Miami’s Product Liability Lawyer of the Year by Best Lawyers in America (2020 and 2023) and Miami’s Lawyer of the Year for Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants in 2025. He is rated AV Preeminent by Martindale-Hubbell, has been listed in Florida Super Lawyers since 2013, was named to Forbes America’s Best-in-State Lawyers in 2025, and received The Florida Bar’s Mentor of the Year award in 2025 and the FDCC Andrew C. Hecker Award in 2024. Known as the “Miami Mentor,” he is also a leading voice on AI adoption, helping clients meet the legal and regulatory challenges that come with it.

  • Professional Involvement

Mr. Ramos serves on the Board of Directors of the Federation of Defense and Corporate Counsel as its Secretary-Treasurer for 2026, and he served as Vice Chair of the FDCC AI Committee and Chair of its Diversity Committee. He is a past President of the Florida Defense Lawyers Association and a member of DRI and the Miami-Dade Defense Bar Association. A prolific author and mentor, he has written 20 books and more than 500 articles guiding the next generation of lawyers, and he counsels clients on the legal and regulatory questions raised by AI adoption.

  • Experience

With more than 26 years of experience, Mr. Ramos defends clients in retail, product liability, premises liability, trucking, insurance, and commercial disputes, and has taken numerous cases to verdict. He advises businesses across the hospitality, retail, development, and fitness industries, and his practice spans retail and hospitality, product liability, toxic tort, transportation, commercial litigation and arbitration, and alternative dispute resolution. His product liability work covers toxic exposure and personal injury claims in the pharmaceutical, construction, medical device, and automotive sectors.

Agenda

SESSION 1 – Building an AI Claims Governance File That Survives the Exam | 2:30pm – 3:30pm

This session equips insurance defense and compliance counsel with the documentation frameworks, regulatory benchmarks, and governance structures regulators now expect when examining AI-assisted claims operations. Attorneys will learn what a defensible AI Systems Program file must contain under the NAIC Model Bulletin, state-specific mandates from New York, Colorado, and California, and the emerging NAIC AI Systems Evaluation Tool pilot. Attendees will leave with practical guidance on audit trail maintenance, vendor oversight documentation, board-level governance requirements, and the common deficiencies that invite enforcement action.

BREAK | 3:30pm – 3:40pm

SESSION 2 – Defending AI Claim-Handling Suits: Discovery Battles and Bad-Faith Containment | 3:40pm – 4:40pm

This session examines the litigation and discovery dynamics confronting insurers and their counsel when AI-driven claims decisions are challenged as bad faith. Attorneys will work through the Lokken discovery template, the emerging bad-faith theories built on process failure and misrepresentation, and the regulatory landscape that plaintiffs use to establish the standard of care. Attendees will leave able to anticipate plaintiff discovery demands, structure privilege preservation around AI governance materials, and deploy the key defenses — human-in-the-loop documentation, protective orders, and regulatory compliance narratives — before litigation is filed.

Credits

Alaska

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Our programs are CLE-eligible through Alaska’s recognition of multi-jurisdictional reciprocity.
Alabama

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Arkansas

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Arizona

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

California

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Colorado

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Connecticut

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

District of Columbia

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Delaware

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Florida

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Georgia

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Hawaii

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Iowa

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Idaho

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Illinois

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Indiana

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Kansas

Pending CLE Approval
2 Substantive

Kentucky

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Louisiana

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Massachusetts

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Maryland

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Maine

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Michigan

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Minnesota

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Missouri

Approved for CLE Credits
2.4 General

Mississippi

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Montana

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

North Carolina

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

North Dakota

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Our programs are CLE-eligible through North Dakota’s recognition of multi-jurisdictional reciprocity. Section 1, Policy 1.14
Nebraska

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

myLawCLE reports attendance to Nebraska on each attorney’s behalf for all programs. Please do not self-report.
New Hampshire

Approved for CLE Credits
120 General minutes

As of July 1, 2014, the NHMCLE Board no longer provides pre- or post-approval of courses. Attendees must self-determine whether a program is eligible for credit, and self-report their attendance online at www.nhbar.org, based on qualification provisions of Rule 53.
New Jersey

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Our programs are CLE-eligible through New Jersey’s recognition of multi-jurisdictional reciprocity, except for the courses required under BCLE Reg. 201:2
New Mexico

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Nevada

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

New York

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Our programs are CLE-eligible through New York’s Approved Jurisdiction Group “B”.
Ohio

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Oklahoma

Pending CLE Approval
2.5 General

Oregon

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Pennsylvania

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Rhode Island

Pending CLE Approval
2.5 General

South Carolina

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

South Dakota

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Tennessee

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Texas

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Utah

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Virginia

Not Eligible
2 General Hours

Vermont

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Washington

Approved via Attorney Submission
2 Law & Legal Hours

Receive CLE credit in Washington via attorney submission.
Wisconsin

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

West Virginia

Pending CLE Approval
2.4 General

Wyoming

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

More CLE Webinars
Upcoming CLE Webinars
iPad for Lawyers: The Complete Mobile Practice Toolkit
iPad for Lawyers: The Complete Mobile Practice Toolkit Wed, August 26, 2026
On-Demand
Live Replay
When AI Notetakers Break Privilege in Internal Investigations
When AI Notetakers Break Privilege in Internal Investigations Fri, August 28, 2026
On-Demand
Live Replay
Derivatives, Digital Assets, and AI in Financial Markets
Derivatives, Digital Assets, and AI in Financial Markets Fri, September 11, 2026
Live Webcast