Binder Guidelines Search: ask if a risk fits the binder in plain words, and get the clause that decides it
Fewer needless referrals, and every answer shows the clause that decides it.
See one case, screen by screen ↓A search for MGA and coverholder underwriters that answers whether a risk fits the binding authority: within authority, refer to the carrier, or outside. Every answer comes with the deciding clause highlighted in the binder, in the version in force on the effective date.
How to choose AI solutions for insurance →
Updated
A binding authority is a 64-page agreement, five schedules, a rating guide and a run of endorsements and carrier bulletins that change it through the year. Territory, permitted classes, TIV any one location, the named storm deductible in first-tier counties, the coastal aggregate, the referral criteria: the underwriter has to hold all of it, as amended, for every risk the broker sends.
So the answer to “can we write this?” lives in memory, a PDF search and an email to the carrier’s program underwriter. Unsure underwriters refer, and the broker waits up to two business days while the risk is shopped elsewhere. Or they bind a location the binder did not allow, and the delegated authority audit finds it later, on a sample, after the policy is on the books.
Estimated split for one multi-location property risk, by hand and with the solution. The carrier’s answer time on a referral is not counted.
Six agents read the risk, test every binder condition and find the closest permitted alternative; the underwriter binds or refers.
On Monday 12 October at 09:14, Dana Whitlock at Quillfield Underwriting Managers gets a three-site self storage submission from a Houston broker, effective 1 November. Here is what happens next, screen by screen, in the working solution.
Dana types what she would ask a colleague: “Can we bind Calloway Self Storage? Three storage sites in Pasadena, League City and Humble TX, masonry non-combustible, $20.9M TIV with League City at $11.6M, 2% named storm deductible, effective 1 Nov.” The broker’s schedule of values is attached. The risk reader turns both into 12 facts, and flags the three that matter: League City at $11,600,000, Galveston County, first tier, and 2% named storm asked.
The agents’ run is a line of five steps: risk reader, binder reader, authority checker, fits-if finder, answer.
The binder reader takes the version of QF-26-PR-01 in force on 1 November 2026, with Endorsements 1–4, and pulls the 31 clauses that apply. Bulletin UB-26-11, Brantmoor’s pause on frame habitational risks, has an endorsement still awaiting signature — so it is set aside, and the answer says so.
“Version in force 1 Nov 2026, End. 1–4; bulletin UB-26-11 unsigned, not used.”
The checklist tests every condition at every location: 9 met, 1 close, 2 missed. League City is $1.6M over the $10,000,000 TIV any one location in clause 3.1(a), and the 2% named storm asked is below the 5% that Endorsement 2 has required in first-tier counties since 1 June. The first-tier aggregate in Schedule C would reach $57.9M of $60M. The verdict as submitted: Refer to Brantmoor — and the binder opens at the deciding clause, highlighted.
“10 of 12 met. Both misses are at League City — and the binder allows a way in.”
Clause 3.1(b) lets a location between $10M and $15M TIV be bound within authority under a scheduled loss limit of not more than $10M. So the answer reads: fits if League City is written at a $10,000,000 loss limit with a 5% named storm deductible ($580,000), re-rated from the rating guide from $118,450 to $112,270. Two other options sit beside it: bind Pasadena and Humble now ($9,300,000, $44,760) and refer League City alone, or refer it at full value.
The fits-if finder never proposes a change the binder does not name, and never prices off the rating guide.
Dana presses Apply to quote. The two red rows turn green — League City now passes under 3.1(b), and 5% of its TIV is $580,000. Schedule C counts the loss limit, not the full value: $56.3M of $60M, still flagged close. The verdict moves to Within authority, 12 of 12 met, at $112,270.
“Applied to quote Q-26-04812 — within authority at $112,270.”
Send to Jared Kim opens a note to the broker at Ostrander & Pike, already written: within authority from 1 November with a $10,000,000 loss limit and a 5% named storm deductible at League City, Pasadena and Humble as submitted, $112,270 annual premium. If the insured needs full value, Dana will refer it today. Clause 3.1(b) and Endorsement 2 travel with it.
“Cited: binding authority QF-26-PR-01, clause 3.1(b) and Endorsement 2 (in force 1 Jun 2026). Clause text attached.”
Referral QF-REF-26-0412 to Imogen Hart, program underwriter at Brantmoor Specialty, covers League City only: 2900 Calder Drive, TIV $11,600,000 split into building, contents and business income. It quotes 3.1(a) and Schedule D, D.1 in the binder’s own words, states the $10M loss limit already offered at $67,510 for the location, attaches the SOV, loss runs and elevation certificate, and sets the answer clock: 2 business days, by Wed 14 Oct, 17:00 CT.
“Pre-filled from the check. Nothing is sent until you send it.”
Each check lands in the question log with who asked, the verdict as asked, the deciding clause and whether a fits-if was taken. This binder year: 1,284 checks, 842 within authority as asked, 147 bound within authority after a fits-if, 171 referrals sent to Brantmoor instead of 318, and 139 of them approved. The carrier’s auditor gets an export, each row kept with the version in force that day.
The renewal note-taker groups the log by clause for the 1 January 2027 binder negotiation. Clause 3.1, TIV any one location, caused 214 checks; 35 went to Brantmoor and 31 were approved, while 61 more took a loss limit the insured did not want. Its proposal: raise 3.1(a) to $12,500,000 for sprinklered masonry. Calvin Brooks, head of underwriting, decides what goes into the renewal pack.
“Evidence, not anecdotes. Each proposal links to the questions behind it.”
Bulletin UB-26-11 proposes to exclude frame habitational risks in all coastal counties and parishes from 15 October, as a change to clause 2.4. The binder reader shows the wording before and after, and finds the open quotes it would touch — Seawind Court Condominiums, Palm Row Townhomes and Driftwood Flats. Until Calvin accepts the signed endorsement, the fit check tells underwriters it is coming and does not use it.
The same storage risk, seen by the people on both sides of the binder — what their week looked like, and what it looks like now.
Six agents read the risk, test every binder condition and find the closest permitted alternative; the underwriter binds or refers.
Turns the underwriter’s question, or the broker’s schedule of values and loss runs, into the facts the binder tests: locations, TIV by building, contents and business income, construction, protection class, county and coastal tier, deductibles asked, occupancy, roof year and five-year losses.
Splits the binding authority agreement, schedules, rating guide and endorsements into clauses, with the page, the endorsement that changed each one and the date it came into force; matches carrier bulletins to the clauses they would change and finds the open quotes they touch.
Tests every fact against every condition that applies, at each location, in the binder version in force on the effective date, and writes the checklist — met, missed or close — with the clause that decides each line.
When a condition is missed, searches the binder for the smallest change it permits — a scheduled loss limit, a higher deductible, splitting the schedule — ranks the alternatives by how little they change the cover asked for, and re-rates each from the rating guide.
Pre-fills the carrier referral for only the locations that need the carrier: the facts, the clause in the binder’s words, the alternative already offered, the submission files and the answer clock from Schedule D.
Each Monday groups the question log by clause — checks, fits-if taken, referred and approved by the carrier — and drafts a proposal for the next binder where the carrier approves at least 80% of a clause’s referrals.
Binds or refers; the carrier decides referrals. The agents propose; a named person decides.
Underwriters can ask about the binder, a risk, or what to bring to the renewal. Every answer names the clause it rests on — and when no clause answers, it says so rather than guess.
Why is Calloway a referral as submitted?
Two conditions are missed, both at League City. Its TIV is $11.6M, above the $10M location limit in clause 3.1(a), and the 2% named storm deductible asked is below the 5% that Endorsement 2 has required since 1 June. Clause 3.1(b) lets it in with a $10M loss limit; the first-tier aggregate would then be $56.3M of $60M.
Which clause sends us to Brantmoor most?
Clause 3.1, TIV any one location: 214 checks this year, 35 sent to Brantmoor and 31 approved (89%), with 61 more bound under a loss limit. That is the strongest case for the renewal: ask for $12.5M on sprinklered masonry.
Does bulletin UB-26-11 change any open quotes?
Not yet — Endorsement 5 is unsigned, so answers do not use it. Once signed, frame habitational risks are excluded in every coastal county from 15 October. Three open quotes would be affected: Seawind Court, Palm Row Townhomes and Driftwood Flats.
Draft the note to Jared Kim with the alternative
Drafted. It offers League City at a $10M loss limit with a 5% named storm deductible, at $112,270, and cites clause 3.1(b) and Endorsement 2. Nothing is sent until you send it.
13 screens from the working solution, on its sample data. Pick one to see it large.
Which binders are in force, how answers are given, which alternatives may be offered and where referrals go are settings.
| Setting | Default | Choose from |
|---|---|---|
| Binders in force | QF-26-PR-01 commercial property · QF-26-GL-02 general liability | A renewal draft is held but never used in answers |
| “Within authority” only when every condition is known | On | On · Off |
| Quote the clause, never paraphrase a limit | On | On · Off |
| Use the version in force on the effective date | On | On · Off |
| Warn when an aggregate passes | 90% | 80 · 90 · 95% |
| Alternatives the answer may offer | Scheduled loss limit · higher deductible · split the schedule | Each on or off; exclude a peril is off |
| Referral routing | Property → Imogen Hart, within 2 business days, copy Calvin Brooks | General liability → Owen Reyes, 3 business days |
| Who may ask | 11 underwriters and assistants at Quillfield | Carrier program and audit team: read the log for this binder only |
Every figure is labelled: a target the solution is built to, an estimate, a typical published result, or a proven one.
“demo” = seen in the working solution, on its sample binder and submissions · “target” = the design goal, measured in the live solution · “estimated” = our estimate · “typical” = published figures (Lockton / Clyde & Co, claim trends for MGAs — binding outside underwriting authority is named the most obvious MGA exposure; in one case an MGA faced damages above USD 8m plus about USD 2m in costs). Tex. Ins. Code §2210.003 (first-tier coastal counties) is named as context. People, carriers, MGAs, brokers, insureds and addresses named on this page are fictional — characters and sample data in the working solution.
A search for MGA and coverholder underwriters that answers whether a risk fits the binding authority: within authority, refer to the carrier, or outside. Every answer comes with the deciding clause highlighted in the binder, in the version in force on the effective date.
Six agents read the risk into facts, find the clauses in force, and test every condition at every location — territory, class, construction, TIV, deductibles, aggregates, loss history, roof age. Within authority is shown only when every condition is met and known; a referral where the referral criteria name the miss; outside where the agreement excludes the risk.
When a risk misses a condition, the answer names the smallest change the binder itself permits — for example, writing a location at a $10M scheduled loss limit under clause 3.1(b) with a 5% named storm deductible. It is re-rated from the rating guide, and the underwriter can apply it to the quote and send it to the broker.
No. The agents never bind, never apply an alternative and never send. The underwriter binds or refers, and the carrier’s program underwriter decides referrals. The referral is pre-filled and left as a draft until the underwriter sends it.
Each endorsement is read clause by clause with the date it was signed and came into force. A bulletin is matched to the clause it would change and the open quotes it touches, but answers do not use it until the head of underwriting accepts the signed endorsement.
Yes, for their own binder only. Every question is logged with who asked, the verdict, the clauses returned, the version in force that day and any alternative taken, and the log exports for the carrier’s auditor.
Yes. Each week the question log is grouped by clause — how often a clause was asked about, referred and approved by the carrier — with a drafted proposal for the next binder. The head of underwriting decides which proposals go to the carrier.
The Agentic Solution Engine builds and deploys it from your requirements and documents — your binding authority agreements, schedules, rating guide, endorsements and a sample of past submissions — and it goes live once every quality gate has passed. We will walk you through it on your own binder first.
Every bordereau in your layout on arrival, each rejected row with its reason.
1-min demoBinding Authority ComplianceBreaches flagged the day the risk is bound, not months later at audit.
1-min demoPremium Bordereaux ReconciliationEvery difference between bordereau and cash given a cause before settlement.
1-min demoWe’ll run Binder Guidelines Search on your own binding authority, endorsements and a sample of last month’s submissions.