Building on a captive success story

Travis Wegkamp (pictured), from the Utah Insurance Department, discusses Utah's growth strategy, regulatory approach and commitment to innovation as the domicile continues to attract new captive formations.

Utah has continued to strengthen its position as one of the leading captive insurance domiciles in the US, combining steady legislative support, competitive regulation and a collaborative relationship with industry stakeholders to attract new formations and encourage long-term growth.

Speaking to Captive Review, Travis Wegkamp, director of captive insurance at the Utah Insurance Department, outlined why the sector has become an important part of the state's economy, highlighted another year of strong growth in 2025 and explained how the regulator aims to balance flexibility with robust oversight.

He traces the origins of Utah’s captive insurance industry back to legislation introduced in 2003, when lawmakers sought to diversify the state’s economy while creating skilled professional employment.

“It was a goal of the legislature to increase the economic diversity of the state,” he said, adding that policymakers wanted to create opportunities for professionals with backgrounds in risk management, accounting, actuarial science and business.

Rather than viewing captive insurance simply as a source of tax revenue, Utah’s legislators focused on building a sustainable industry that would generate high-value employment while encouraging companies to establish operations in the state.

Wegkamp said Utah has long promoted itself as a business-friendly jurisdiction, with successive governors and political leaders favouring policies that minimise unnecessary burdens on companies operating within the state.

He explained this philosophy shaped the captive insurance framework from the outset. Instead of adopting a premium tax model used by many domiciles, Utah introduced a flat licensing fee structure designed to keep costs predictable while encouraging economic development.

“The goal was to promote economic growth and not just fill the state’s coffers with tax dollars,” Wegkamp said. More than two decades later, he believes that commitment remains firmly in place. Legislators have continued updating captive legislation to reflect changes in the marketplace while maintaining a practical regulatory approach. At the same time, the Insurance Department has received support to recruit and retain experienced professionals capable of responding efficiently to increasingly sophisticated captive structures.

Wegkamp argued that maintaining an experienced regulatory team benefits both the state and captive owners by creating consistency in decision-making and allowing the department to respond quickly to applications and business proposals.

Figures released by the department suggest Utah’s captive sector remains on a strong growth trajectory. As of 31 December 2025, the domicile was home to 605 risk-bearing entities, comprising 383 standalone captives and 222 protected cells. Those entities also include approximately 20 sponsored captives, three association captives, eight pooling or agency captives, alongside numerous group captive structures.

Growth during 2025 was particularly strong. Utah approved 172 new formations during the year, including 46 standalone captives and 126 new cells. Although 31 entities closed during the same period, the domicile still achieved net growth of 141 risk-bearing entities.

“Utah’s goal was to promote economic growth and not just fill the state’s coffers with tax dollars.”

Financially, the sector continues to represent a significant part of Utah’s economy. Total assets under management exceeded $14.5 billion at year-end, while gross written premiums surpassed $3.5 billion during 2025. Around $4.1 billion of captive assets were held within Utah financial institutions or invested in assets located in the state, further reinforcing the industry’s local economic contribution.

Captive owners also reported spending almost $21 million directly within Utah on services including captive management, actuarial consulting, auditing and legal advice.

According to Wegkamp, that direct expenditure has remained relatively consistent over recent years, generally ranging between $20 million and $23 million annually.

One of Utah's strongest selling points continues to be its regulatory accessibility. Wegkamp explained that every stage of the application process can now be completed electronically through the department’s website, simplifying submissions for prospective captive owners and their advisers.

Although applicants are generally advised to allow around one month for the full licensing process, he stressed that approvals can often be completed much more quickly. “It really depends on the motivation of those that have submitted the application,” he said. Provided all required documentation is submitted correctly, including ownership information, financial statements, business plans and actuarial feasibility studies, the department can often complete its review within a matter of days.

Once the application has been approved, the Insurance Department issues what is known as a Certificate of Public Good. This allows applicants to establish the captive as a legal entity, open bank accounts, complete corporate documentation, fund the captive and pay the required licensing fees.

At that stage, Wegkamp noted, responsibility largely shifts to the applicant to complete the remaining organisational work before final licensing. The department's emphasis on responsiveness extends well beyond initial formation.

Captive owners wishing to amend business plans, introduce new coverages or expand existing programmes must obtain prior approval from regulators, but Wegkamp said the department works hard to ensure decisions are reached quickly. He estimated that many approvals can be completed within about a week.

Importantly, he said Utah seeks to encourage, rather than discourage, innovation. Rather than rejecting proposals simply because they differ from previous structures, regulators work with captive owners and managers to determine whether a practical regulatory solution can be found.

“We appreciate innovative approaches and creativity,” Wegkamp said. “We'll take a close look at them and work with the captive and the captive manager to see if we can find a path forward.”

That flexibility also applies when captives seek to expand gradually over time.

Where additional lines of business represent incremental changes supported by accumulated surplus, the department will often accept amendments without requiring an entirely new actuarial feasibility study.

However, proposals involving fundamental changes to the captive’s business model are likely to require fresh actuarial analysis before approval is granted.

Beyond business plan amendments, the department also reviews matters including related-party loans, dividend payments and investment proposals, with Wegkamp emphasising the importance of responding promptly to such requests.

Utah has also sought to reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens during ongoing operations. Although captive insurers are generally required to hold one annual meeting within the state, recent legislative changes introduced an alternative.

Captives joining the Utah Captive Insurance Association at Summit membership level may qualify for a waiver of the in-state meeting requirement, provided they remain compliant with regulatory obligations and demonstrate sound financial performance.

Similarly, Utah does not automatically conduct regulatory examinations on a fixed five-year cycle, as happens in some other domiciles. Instead, examinations are undertaken when regulators consider them necessary. Wegkamp suggested this approach avoids unnecessary costs and operational disruption for well-managed captives.

For companies experiencing difficulties or reassessing their captive strategy, Utah also permits dormant status. This enables captives to reduce capital requirements and certain filing obligations while deciding whether to resume operations or eventually wind down the structure.

Another distinguishing feature of Utah’s captive market is the close working relationship between the Insurance Department and the Utah Captive Insurance Association (UCIA). Wegkamp described the partnership as one that has existed since the industry’s early years and continues to strengthen. The association promotes Utah as a captive domicile, provides professional education and communication for members and represents the industry’s interests nationally.

Wegkamp himself serves as an honorary member of the UCIA board, allowing regular dialogue between regulators and industry representatives. He said the organisation also plays an important role in supporting Utah’s national profile by contributing towards conference sponsorships, exhibition costs, advertising campaigns and promotional activity. The collaborative approach ensures both regulators and industry present a consistent message about Utah’s strengths.

Alongside administrative efficiency, Utah has continued reviewing its regulatory framework to remain competitive. Wegkamp highlighted several recent initiatives, including reductions in minimum capital requirements for certain captive structures.

Pure captives continue to require minimum capital of $250,000, while sponsored captive requirements have also been reduced, allowing the overall minimum capital to remain at $250,000 provided the sponsor maintains at least $50,000 within the core. Association captive minimum capital requirements have likewise been reduced to $500,000. Utah has also retained its flat licensing fee structure. Standalone captives and sponsored cores pay a licence fee of $7,500, while authorised cells incur an additional $1,000 fee. Wegkamp believes this remains an attractive alternative to premium-based taxation models adopted elsewhere. 

The department has also demonstrated a willingness to consider emerging risks. Association captives may now provide personal homeowners' insurance for members, while regulators are exploring whether certain homeowner deductible coverages could eventually be written by other captive structures.

Utah additionally permits limited coverage relating to medical cannabis operations where consistent with state law, although broader cannabis-related risks remain restricted while federal legal uncertainty continues.

Overall, Wegkamp's comments portray a domicile focused on long-term stability rather than short-term expansion alone.

By combining predictable costs, experienced regulation, legislative support and an openness to innovation, Utah continues positioning itself as an attractive destination for organisations considering captive insurance.

With another year of strong growth behind it and regulators signalling a continued willingness to evolve alongside the industry, the state appears well placed to maintain its standing among the leading US captive domiciles.

Did you get value from this story?  Sign up to our free newsletters and get stories like this sent straight to your inbox.