Lessons from the Mangione Case: A UK Perspective on Getting Insurance Right

The recent shooting of Brian Thompson in New York, allegedly by Luigi Mangione, has prompted widespread condemnation and disbelief. But beyond the immediate moral and legal implications of this appalling act, an unsettling layer of complexity is emerging—one that involves questionable insurance arrangements and regulatory gaps. As UK-based compliance professionals, we believe this incident highlights why robust regulation and strong compliance cultures matter greatly, especially in the insurance industry.

In the United States, insurance regulation is notoriously fragmented. With oversight varying by state, it can be alarmingly easy for insurers, brokers, and other intermediaries to slip through patchy controls. The Mangione case, according to investigative reports from outlets like The New York Times, may be only one example of how dubious insurance practices can enable morally problematic outcomes. 

The UK, by contrast, offers a useful counterpoint. Although not perfect, our regulatory environment—underpinned by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) is more cohesive and more consistently enforced. UK insurers now operate within a framework that demands transparency, proper conduct, and ethical underwriting since the introduction of Consumer Duty. 

This is about more than just avoiding scandal. Insurance, when done right, reinforces trust and stability in society. It should protect individuals and businesses against unforeseen losses, not undermine eligible claimants to the point where they feel violent action is their only recourse. When done properly, the insurance market serves the general interest.

The Mangione case underscores a broader truth: We must remain vigilant. Even in the UK, where the regulatory environment is generally stronger, complacency is not an option. UK firms must stay current with evolving risks, maintain rigorous internal controls, and foster corporate cultures that recognise the moral dimensions of insurance offerings. Compliance professionals and underwriting teams must understand that our role goes beyond meeting corporate objectives, and that broader social and moral responsibility applies.

The difference between the UK and US approaches is not about moral superiority. Rather, it’s a practical demonstration of how consistent oversight and a culture of compliance can help prevent insurance from becoming entangled in morally dubious scenarios. If UK firms and regulators in the UK continue to work collaboratively, thus challenging assumptions, and refining best practices—then we’ll keep pushing towards an environment where insurance remains a force for good, not a vehicle for unintended harm.

Ultimately, what we learn from the Mangione case is that insurance and moral obligation cannot (and should not) be separated. Properly regulated, insurance markets should continue to deter the kinds of problematic outcomes we’re now seeing abroad. The UK’s more unified standards show that we can do better, and must continue to do so, to ensure insurance remains what it was always meant to be: a reliable safeguard that protects the many, rather than a tool that can be misapplied to benefit the few.