Policy checking software that reads every issued policy the day it arrives, with each difference cited to its page
Every policy checked on arrival, each difference cited before it is a claim.
See one case, screen by screen ↓Software that compares an issued insurance policy with what was quoted, bound and requested, and reports every difference. Insurance Policy Checking adds five agents that read the whole policy, compare it with the quote, binder, client request and expiring policy, search for every promised endorsement, and draft the correction request to the carrier.
How to choose AI solutions for insurance →
Updated
An issued commercial policy often runs past 100 pages; the renewal package in the working solution has 142 pages and 61 forms. Someone has to prove it is what was quoted, bound and asked for: the named insureds, every limit and deductible, the equipment schedule, the premium, each form and edition, and every endorsement the client’s contracts require. Done by hand, that is a page-by-page read against the quote and the binder, and it is the first job dropped when renewals peak.
The misses are not random. They are the endorsements nobody reads for: a waiver of subrogation dropped at renewal, primary and noncontributory wording that was bound and never issued, a restrictive form such as CG 21 39 that was never quoted. A “Y” in the SUBR WVD box on a certificate does not prove any of them; only the endorsement does. Each one surfaces later, when there is a claim, as coverage the agency promised and never procured.
Estimated hours for one complex commercial package, checked by hand and with the solution.
Five specialist agents compare every page with the quote, binder and client request; the policy checker decides and signs.
Granite Ridge Mechanical’s renewal from Ashgrove Mutual arrives on Wed 7 Oct: 142 pages, 61 forms. Their crew mobilises at the Alder Point Medical Pavilion on Mon 19 Oct, and the general contractor needs the endorsements, not only a certificate, before work starts. Here is what happens, screen by screen, in the working solution.
Tamsin opens the solution on the policy that needs a checker first: Granite Ridge Mechanical, Inc., Ashgrove Mutual ACP 4418207, premium $49,870 against $48,612 quoted. It arrived Wed 7 Oct and was checked in 6 minutes. The quote sits on the left, the issued policy in the middle with a tick rail down its edge, the binder on the right.
“Work starts at Alder Point Mon 19 Oct · 7 days”
The run log replays what the agents did. The policy reader read 142 pages and 61 forms and took out 186 terms with their pages. The three-way comparer matched them against quote Q-26-88140, binder BND-30412 and expiring policy ACP 4418206. The promise finder read Marla Svoboda’s renewal request of 11 Aug and the Sterling Vance subcontract’s Exhibit C: 23 promises, 4 printed nowhere.
“The promise finder fills this pile as it reads.”
Finding 2 is red: the products-completed operations aggregate is $1,000,000 on page 4 of the policy, against $2,000,000 on page 6 of the quote and page 2 of the binder. Clicking the tick scrolls the quote, the policy and the binder to the same passage and highlights it in each, with a note on what differs and the proposed correction.
“The expiring policy also carried $2,000,000. Exhibit C requires $2,000,000 for three years after completion.”
The pile on the right holds what was promised and printed nowhere. The first slip is the CG 24 04 waiver of subrogation for Sterling Vance Construction and Alder Point Health Partners: quoted on page 11, bound on page 2, required by Exhibit C §4.3. A dashed slot marks where it should be, around page 131.
“Searched by form number (CG 24 04, CG 24 53), by title and by wording (‘transfer of rights of recovery’): no match on any page.”
CG 20 37, additional insured for completed operations, is in Marla’s request and Exhibit C §4.1, but it was never in the agency’s submission, so Ashgrove never quoted it. The slip is marked “Never quoted · our gap”, and the decision on it reads “Request + tell client” instead of “Correct”.
“This one is our gap: Owen needs to tell the client.”
The request to Helena Strand, Senior Underwriter at Ashgrove Mutual, lists 10 of the 11 findings, each with the page in the policy, the quote and the binder, effective 1 Oct 2026, reply needed by Fri 16 Oct. Tamsin accepted the CG 20 10 edition as issued, with the reason on the file: 04 13 is Ashgrove’s filed edition in Colorado and has the same effect for ongoing operations.
“Removing terrorism coverage returns the premium to the $48,612 quoted.”
Tamsin sends the 10 items to Ashgrove and the client note to Owen. The note tells Marla Svoboda what was found, that Ashgrove has been asked to fix it by Friday, and that one item, CG 20 37, was the agency’s own miss. Owen approves it, and it goes to Marla.
“We will send the endorsements to Sterling Vance before you mobilise on the 19th.”
The policy file shows the 12 areas checked, from named insureds to changes from the expiring policy, each with its page and outcome: 2 clean, 10 with findings. Tamsin signs as checker. The file is signed with 10 corrections open, and each stays on the E&O log until Ashgrove’s endorsement arrives.
“Checked and signed with 10 corrections open · each stays on the E&O log until Ashgrove’s endorsement arrives”
The E&O log holds 47 open items on 33 policies, each with its age, its owner and the date the client relies on the coverage; 19 are relied on within 7 days. Items open over 14 days go to Lorraine every Monday. An item closes only when the endorsement arrives.
Policies checked within 3 days of arrival went from 9% in April, by hand, to 99% in October, and 96% since July. The carrier view shows, for each carrier, the share of policies with a finding, the most common difference and the median days to correct.
The same renewal, seen by the four people at the agency who carry it — what their week looked like, and what it looks like now.
Five specialist agents compare every page with the quote, binder and client request; the policy checker decides and signs.
Reads the issued policy, declarations, forms schedule, every form and edition, and builds a page map of every term: named insureds, limits, deductibles, schedules and premium.
Matches each term to the quote, the binder and the expiring policy and ranks every difference by the severity rules in Settings.
Lists everything the client was promised in the request, application, contract requirements, quote and binder, and searches the policy for each by form number, alternative forms, title and wording.
Compares each form and edition with the carrier’s filed forms in the state, and flags CG 21 39, CG 21 44, CG 22 79 and CG 21 47 when they were not quoted.
Drafts one correction request to the carrier’s underwriter and the note to the client, and opens an E&O log item for each finding with the date the client relies on it.
Decides each finding and signs; the account manager approves client notes. The agents propose; a named person decides.
Checkers and account managers can ask in plain words about a finding, a form, the expiring policy, or what a client still relies on. Every answer points to its page.
Why is the waiver of subrogation missing?
It was promised three times and printed nowhere. Sterling Vance’s subcontract requires a waiver for Sterling Vance Construction and Alder Point Health Partners. Ashgrove quoted CG 24 04 with both names and bound it. The issued policy lists 61 forms on pages 2–3 and none of them is CG 24 04, CG 24 53 or a waiver under another number. It was on the expiring policy, so it was dropped at renewal.
What changed from the expiring policy?
Against ACP 4418206, five things changed: the products-completed aggregate went from $2,000,000 to $1,000,000; the CG 24 04 waiver and CG 20 01 primary wording are missing; CG 21 39 was attached; and GRM Service Co., LLC was left off. The other 54 forms, both locations and the classifications match.
Draft the correction request to Ashgrove
Drafted for Helena Strand: 10 items, each with the page in the policy, quote and binder, effective 1 Oct 2026, reply by Fri 16 Oct. I left out the CG 20 10 edition, which you accepted as issued. CG 20 37 is worded as a new request, because it was never quoted. Nothing is sent until you press Send.
Which clients rely on missing coverage in the next 7 days?
Three clients, 19 open items: Mesa Lumen Solar on Wed 14 Oct, 5 items; Basalt Ridge Roofing on Fri 16 Oct, 3 items, with Pellridge; Granite Ridge Mechanical on Mon 19 Oct, 11 items, 4 promised but missing. Mesa Lumen has not been opened by a checker yet.
13 screens from the working solution, on its sample data. Pick one to see it large.
What every policy is checked against, and who decides, are settings. Changes are versioned and on the record.
| Setting | Default | Choose from |
|---|---|---|
| Documents compared | Quote, binder, client request and contract requirements, expiring policy, carrier forms library | Each on or off |
| Severity | High: named insured, limits, a restrictive endorsement that was not quoted | Medium: deductibles, premium, schedules of locations, vehicles or equipment · Low: form edition, wording with the same effect |
| Always flag when not quoted | CG 21 39 · CG 21 44 · CG 22 79 · CG 21 47 | CG 21 39 · CG 21 44 · CG 22 79 · CG 21 47 — or CG 21 39 · CG 21 44 — or CG 21 39 only |
| Required endorsements, construction subcontract | 7 forms | 7 forms · 5 forms (no auto, no WC) · Read from each contract only |
| Required endorsements, commercial lease | 2 forms | 2 forms · Read from each lease only |
| Check within | 3 days from arrival | 1 to 10 days |
| Deliver to the client within | 30 days from binding | 30 · 45 · 60 days |
| Exposure open longer than this goes to the E&O manager | 14 days | 7 · 14 · 30 days |
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 book · “target” = the design goal, measured in the live solution · “estimated” = our estimate · “typical” = published figures (Swiss Re Corporate Solutions agency E&O data via IA Magazine — failure to procure coverage is about 30% of claims; Risk & Insurance — checking backlogs up to six months). People, agencies, carriers, insureds and projects named on this page are fictional — characters and sample data in the working solution.
Software that compares an issued insurance policy with what was quoted, bound and requested, and reports every difference. Insurance Policy Checking adds five agents that read the whole policy, compare it with the quote, binder, client request and expiring policy, search for every promised endorsement, and draft the correction request to the carrier.
The policy reader builds a page map of every term in the issued policy. The three-way comparer finds the same term in the quote, the binder and the expiring policy and reports what each one says, with its page. A click on any difference shows the matching passage in all three documents at once.
Yes. The promise finder lists every coverage and endorsement promised in the client’s request, application, contract requirements, quote and binder, and searches the policy for each by form number, alternative forms, title and wording. Anything with no match goes on the promised-but-missing pile with who promised it, and items that were never quoted are marked as the agency’s own gap.
No. The correction drafter writes the request and the client note, but nothing is sent until the policy checker presses Send. Anything that goes to the client is approved by the account manager first.
Yes. The checker can accept any item as issued, and the reason goes on the file and the E&O log. In the working solution, the checker accepts an older CG 20 10 edition because it is the carrier’s filed form in the state and has the same effect for ongoing operations under this contract.
Every open difference goes on an E&O exposure log with its age, its owner and the date the client relies on the coverage. Items open longer than a set number of days go to the E&O manager, and an item closes only when the endorsement arrives.
Yes. The documents compared, the severity rules, the restrictive endorsements always flagged, the endorsements required by contract type, the days to check and deliver, and when an exposure goes to the E&O manager are all settings, versioned and on the record.
The Agentic Solution Engine builds and deploys it from your requirements and documents — your checking rules, contract requirements and a sample of issued policies with their quotes and binders — and it goes live once every quality gate has passed. We will walk you through it on your own policies first.
Out-of-appetite submissions cut, every market tied to its guide page.
1-min demoBroker Submission AutomationClient data keyed once, not once per carrier; submissions out same day.
1-min demoInsurance Quote ComparisonA side-by-side in minutes, every difference traced to the quote page.
1-min demoWe’ll run Insurance Policy Checking on a sample of your own issued policies, quotes and binders.