Alliance Risk vs 
Corgi: How Do They Compare for Commercial Auto Insurance?
Corgi advertises trucking liability limits up to $1 million with an MCS-90 endorsement (a federal filing for motor carriers); Alliance Risk is a brokerage for contractors, logistics and food distributors that analyzes fleet usage.
Alliance Risk brokers liability and physical-damage auto with optional hired/non-owned coverage for several trades; Corgi focuses on trucking liability with MCS-90, filings at bind and limits up to $1 million. 1,3
What Are the Key Differences Between Alliance Risk and Corgi Commercial Auto Insurance?
Fleet Brokerage vs. Trucking Liability
Corgi’s product is trucking liability, not the broader fleet mix Alliance Risk describes: it lists auto liability, physical damage, UM/UIM, MedPay or PIP, and optional hired and non-owned coverage for multiple industries. 3 1
Filings and Limits
Alliance Risk’s reviewed pages give premium ranges ($1,200–$2,400 per vehicle for small businesses, $3,000–$10,000+ for larger fleets) but do not publish liability limits or deductibles. Corgi advertises commercial auto liability limits up to $1 million with self-insured retention options, and says the product includes an MCS-90 endorsement and required state filings issued at bind. 1 3
Services Beside the Policy
Alliance Risk describes fleet and usage analysis, driver safety programs, telematics and GPS integrations, and claims advisors for accident scenarios. Corgi’s reviewed trucking pages, as captured, do not describe comparable fleet-safety or claims-advisor services; both sets of reviewed pages leave the issuing insurer unnamed. 1 3
What Should You Confirm in Alliance Risk and Corgi Commercial Auto Insurance Quotes?
- Ask Corgi whether the quote is the trucking liability product with MCS-90 and state filings, and which insurer issues it. 3
- Ask Alliance Risk which carrier it would use for a trucking or mixed fleet and whether MCS-90 filings are in scope. 1
- Compare Corgi’s $1 million liability cap and SIR options with Alliance Risk’s unpublished limits and published premium ranges. 3 1
- Confirm physical damage and hired/non-owned auto: Alliance Risk lists them; Corgi’s reviewed trucking description is liability-focused. 1 3
Alliance Risk vs Corgi Commercial Auto Insurance Compared
Alliance Risk vs Corgi: Commercial Auto Insurance: documented features by provider
| Criteria | Alliance Risk Commercial Auto Insurance | Corgi Trucking Commercial Auto Liability |
|---|---|---|
| Coverage Features | Alliance Risk's commercial auto offering covers auto liability, collision, comprehensive, uninsured/underinsured motorist and medical payments or personal injury protection, plus optional hired and non-owned auto (HNOA) liability for employees driving personal or rented vehicles on the job. 1Company-reported. Commercial auto product page; actual policy structure depends on the carrier and the policy as issued. | Corgi describes the product as commercial auto liability insurance for trucking operators that includes an MCS-90 endorsement (a federal financial-responsibility filing for motor carriers) and handles required state filings issued at bind. 3Company-reported. Page metadata for trucking.corgi.insure/insurance/auto-liability; the underlying policy form, named insured requirements and exclusions were not accessible in the reviewed page content. |
| Role in This Line | Alliance Risk arranges commercial auto placements as a brokerage rather than underwriting the coverage itself, per its general brokerage disclosure. 2Company-reported. General brokerage disclosure on the coverage catalogue page, applied to the commercial auto line. | Corgi's commercial auto liability product for trucking operators is hosted on a separate site, trucking.corgi.insure, distinct from the startup-insurance product pages on corgi.insure that carry CGL, D&O, Cyber and the other startup modules. 3,4Company-reported. Site structure as observed on 2026-09-23. The trucking site is a JavaScript-rendered application; the reviewed pages returned only page metadata (title and description) without executing client-side rendering, so no further page content was reviewed. |
