Rate and form filing automation that catches the gaps before a regulator sees them, and answers objections from the record
Gaps caught before a regulator sees them; objections answered from the record.
See one case, screen by screen ↓Software that helps an insurer prepare, check, submit and track rate, rule and form filings with each state's insurance department, and answer the objection letters that come back. Rate & Form Filing Automation adds agents that build each state's package from the program record, check it against the state checklist and itself, and draft objection answers from the filing record.
How to choose AI solutions for insurance →
Updated
One rate revision becomes five filings. Each state gets the same actuarial memorandum and exhibits, cut for that state, with its own forms, rate manual pages, SERFF schedule fields and checklist items. The package is assembled by hand, and the analyst checks every exhibit against the memorandum by eye.
Most objections are not about the rate. They are about a gap or an inconsistency: an overall change rounded differently in SERFF, a model version updated in the memorandum but not the exhibit footnote, a form whose footer edition does not match the schedule. Then the letter arrives with a short response window, and each answer is rebuilt from email and old filings — even when the same department asked the same question last year.
Estimated split, in working days, for one state's homeowners rate and form filing and one objection letter — by hand and with the solution.
Six agents build, check and pre-answer every state filing and draft each objection answer; the actuary signs.
Kestrel Ridge Mutual's HO-3 Southeast 2027 revision — +8.5% overall, +$26.66M of annual premium across 162,980 policies, effective 1 February 2027 for new business — is in flight in five states. On Monday 12 October, South Carolina has to be submitted by Friday, and a Georgia objection letter arrived at 07:52. Here is what happens next, screen by screen, in the working solution.
Across the top, the five states as folders: Georgia with objection letter 1 due 11 November, South Carolina showing 3 differ and 1 missing, Tennessee approved after 31 days with no objection, Alabama on day 14 of review, Virginia with 7 to do. Below, South Carolina's package as a stack of tabs grouped the way SERFF groups them — General Information, Rate/Rule Schedule, Form Schedule, Supporting Documentation — each one complete, differing or missing.
“The footnote names model version 23.1; memorandum §5 and the run of 8 Sep say 24.0.”
Dana presses Re-check and the agents run in view. The package assembler builds 18 items from the program record and the South Carolina checklist, on exhibits version 3 that Marcus uploaded at 08:12. The state requirements checker reads 22 checklist items and finds item 9 missing. The consistency checker ties 412 numbers across the 18 items and finds 3 that differ. The deadline watcher confirms: submit by Fri 16 Oct, expected approval around 20 Nov, 73 days before 1 February.
“Over to Dana Okafor — 4 items to settle before submission.”
The Rate/Rule schedule tab shows the overall rate change typed into SERFF as 11.0%, while memorandum §1 and Exhibit 1 line 9 say 11.2%. The margin note explains why: 11.0% was typed on 2 October, when version 2 of the exhibits selected 11.0%. Dana fixes it with one click — use 11.2% from the memorandum — and the change is on the record with her name.
“SERFF shows exactly what was typed.”
Exhibit 4, Catastrophe provisions, names hurricane model version 23.1 in its footnote; memorandum §5 and the model run of 8 September used 24.0. Dana cannot edit an exhibit, so the fix is “Send to Marcus to correct”. The tab turns to “with Marcus” until Marcus Lindqvist corrects the footnote to version 24.0.
“With Marcus Lindqvist. An exhibit or a signature changes only with the actuary.”
South Carolina's checklist asks for the hurricane model documentation and the actuary's statement of reliance under Actuarial Standard of Practice No. 38. The last one was filed in 2025 for version 23.1, so it cannot be reused. One click drafts it for version 24.0 from the 2025 statement and sends it to Marcus to sign. The roof surfacing form, KR HO 04 93, has a 10 26 footer against a 01 27 schedule — that goes to Priya Venkatesan for the right copy.
Graham Pettit has reviewed Kestrel Ridge's last two South Carolina filings. Three of his questions recur and fit this one — demand surge and event set, the net cost of reinsurance, territories 12 and 14 changing by more than 15% — and each is already answered in a supporting document, Anticipated questions, pointing to Exhibit 4 p.2, Exhibit 5 p.2 and Exhibit 7 p.1. A policy-fee question asked once, in 2023, is below the rule; Dana can pre-answer it anyway.
With every fix landed, the folder reads “Ready to submit”. The confirmation says it plainly: 18 of 18 items complete and consistent, 3 past questions pre-answered, selected +11.2%, effective 1 February 2027, filing fee paid by EFT on submission. Dana submits KRMI-134561902 and the deadline watcher starts its clock.
Ellen Brantley, Property and Casualty Rate Analyst, asks two questions: support for the non-modeled wind and hail catastrophe provision of 18.4%, and why the selected loss trend of +6.5% exceeds the +5.0% selected in 2025. Each question sits beside its drafted answer, with exhibit-and-page chips under it. No rate change, concession or withdrawal is offered.
“Every sentence comes from the filing record; each answer names the exhibit and page.”
Clicking “Exhibit 4, page 3” opens the Georgia page itself: the ratio of wind and hail losses from events above $1.5 million to non-catastrophe losses for 20 accident years, 2006–2025. The 20-year average is 17.9%, the 10-year 19.9%, and 75% × 20-year + 25% × 10-year gives 18.4% — the same weighting as the 2025 filing, approved 3 December 2025.
Marcus approves both answers. The trend answer shows its work: a 20-point fit of +6.8% and a 12-point fit of +6.2%, and had the 2025 trend been kept, the indication would be +10.9% rather than +12.6%. Three questions Ellen Brantley asked in 2025 were pre-answered and not asked this year — 2025 brought 2 letters, 7 questions and 61 days added; 2026, 1 letter and 2 questions. Dana sends the response in SERFF, 30 days before it was due.
“No exhibit, rate or form is changed by this response.”
The same revision, seen by the four people who move it from the memorandum to approval — what their week looked like, and what it looks like now.
Six agents build, check and pre-answer every state filing and draft each objection answer; the actuary signs.
Builds each state's package from the program memorandum, exhibits, forms and the state's checklist, and fills the SERFF fields.
Reads each department's filing instructions and checklist and marks every required item present or missing.
Ties every number, model version and edition date across memorandum, exhibits, manual pages, SERFF fields and forms.
Reads this department's past objection letters and the company's responses, finds the questions that recur, and drafts pre-answers for the next filing.
Drafts each answer to an objection from the filing record, citing exhibit and page, and hands it to the actuary.
Tracks response windows, review days and effective dates in every state and warns early.
Approves and signs every actuarial answer. The agents propose; a named person decides.
Anyone on the filing team can ask in plain words — or tell it what to fix. Every answer points to the page it comes from.
What will South Carolina likely ask about this filing?
Graham Pettit reviewed our last two South Carolina homeowners filings. Three of his questions recur and fit this filing, and all three are already answered in Anticipated questions: the demand surge and event set, the net cost of reinsurance — asked in 2023, 2024 and 2025 — and territories 12 and 14 moving more than 15%. His 2025 procedural question, a SERFF overall change that did not match the memorandum, is the gap the check found today: 11.0% against 11.2%.
Draft the answer to Georgia’s wind and hail question
Drafted from the record. The 18.4% provision is the ratio of wind and hail losses from events above $1.5 million to non-catastrophe losses over 20 accident years, 2006–2025: the 20-year average is 17.9%, the 10-year 19.9%, weighted 75/25. It is the method approved on 3 December 2025. The answer is waiting for Marcus Lindqvist’s sign-off.
Is every number in the South Carolina filing consistent?
Not yet. Of 412 numbers, these differ: the SERFF overall change says 11.0% and should be 11.2%; the Exhibit 4 footnote says model 23.1 and should be 24.0; the KR HO 04 93 footer says 10 26 and should be 01 27. And state checklist item 9 — the hurricane model documentation and reliance statement — is missing.
Will every state be approved before 1 February?
On current review times, yes: Tennessee was approved 2 October, 122 days ahead; Alabama around 3 November, 90 days; Georgia around 19 November, 74 days; South Carolina around 20 November, 73 days; Virginia around 15 December, 48 days. Virginia is the tightest: a second objection there would add about two months. Georgia holds only if the response goes this week.
13 screens from the working solution, on its sample data. Pick one to see it large.
The rules every package and every answer is held to. Changes are versioned and on the audit trail.
| Setting | Default | Choose from |
|---|---|---|
| Block submission while an item is inconsistent or missing | On | On · Off — the analyst can still submit with a reason and a second person |
| Numbers that must match exactly | Rates, versions, editions, counts | Rates, versions, editions, counts · Rates and versions only · Everything, including premium to the dollar |
| Premium tolerance between exhibits and SERFF fields | $1 | Any dollar amount |
| Pre-answer a past question when | Twice in 3 years, or once in the last year | Twice in 3 years, or once in the last year · Twice in 3 years · Once in the last 3 years |
| Pre-answers go into | Anticipated questions (one document) | Anticipated questions (one document) · The memorandum, as an appendix |
| Response window we work to | 30 days in every state | 30 days in every state · 30 days, Georgia 20 · The department's stated date |
| Actuarial answers signed by | Marcus Lindqvist, FCAS | Marcus Lindqvist, FCAS · Helen Achebe, FCAS |
| Changes to a selected rate or a form | Priya Venkatesan, product manager | Priya Venkatesan, product manager · Head of personal lines pricing |
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 filing data · “typical” = published figures (ZestyAI, Approval Velocity 2026 — 20,183 approved US rate filings, 12 months to 8 May 2026, via Insurance Journal, 19 Aug 2026: 44% drew at least one objection, a median objection added 38 days, Georgia homeowners filings with an objection took a median 187 days) · “estimated” = our estimate. People, companies, reviewers, tracking numbers and forms named on this page are fictional — characters and sample data in the working solution.
Software that helps an insurer prepare, check, submit and track rate, rule and form filings with each state's insurance department, and answer the objection letters that come back. Rate & Form Filing Automation adds agents that build each state's package from the program record, check it against the state checklist and itself, and draft objection answers from the filing record.
The consistency checker ties every number, model version and edition date across the memorandum, exhibits, manual pages, SERFF fields and forms, and reports both values and their pages when they differ. The state requirements checker marks every checklist item present or missing. In the demo it found an overall change typed as 11.0% in SERFF against 11.2% in the memorandum, an outdated model version in an exhibit footnote, a form footer edition that did not match the schedule, and a missing reliance statement.
No. The agents never invent, edit or change a figure. An exhibit or a signature changes only with the pricing actuary, and a form only with the product manager; every fix is on the record with who made it.
The objection responder matches each question in the letter to the memorandum section and exhibit page that answer it, checks earlier answers to the same reviewer, and drafts a plain answer that quotes the figures and names the page. It never sends and never offers a rate change, concession or withdrawal. The actuary approves each actuarial answer before the analyst sends the response in SERFF.
It pre-answers the likely ones. The reviewer history reader reads the department's past objection letters and the company's responses, and where a question was asked twice in three years or once in the last year, drafts an answer from the new exhibits into a supporting document, Anticipated questions. It never claims a question will be asked.
Yes. Whether to block submission with open items, which numbers must match exactly, the premium tolerance, when to pre-answer a past question, the response window, who signs actuarial answers and who approves rate or form changes are all settings, versioned and on the audit trail.
Yes. The agents assemble, check and draft; the rate filing analyst submits and sends; the pricing actuary signs every actuarial answer; the product manager approves any change to a selected rate or form. A submission with open items needs a reason and the chief actuary's second signature.
The Agentic Solution Engine builds and deploys it from your requirements and documents — your state checklists, a program's memorandum and exhibits, your forms and a sample of past objection letters — and it goes live once every quality gate has passed. We will walk you through it on one of your own filings first.
Only the renewals whose hazard or roof changed reach an underwriter.
1-min demoAerial Imagery VerificationNo bind, cancel or nonrenewal resting on one out-of-date picture.
1-min demoCompetitor Rate Filing AnalysisEvery competitor filing searchable, each answer cited to its filing page.
1-min demoWe’ll run Rate & Form Filing Automation on one of your own past filings and its objection letters.