CFC vs Risklytics

CFC is a specialist insurance provider operating an MGA model: a managing general agent performs underwriting functions for insurance capacity providers. Its disclosures identify CFC Underwriting Limited and the U.S. producer CFC USA, Inc.; the CFC brand should not be treated as the name of every policy’s insurer. ^5,4

Risklytics describes itself as a commercial insurance brokerage. Its current legal disclosures identify Risklytics, Inc., doing business as Risklytics Insurance Services, as the producer arranging coverage rather than the insurer. ^31,32

The U.S. technology application asks a senior staff member to complete it and return it to the company’s insurance broker. It requests revenue, funding, subsidiaries, products, major contracts, security controls, IP procedures and claims history. CFC’s Connect portal separately supports broker trading and describes a broker appointment process. ^3,6

Risklytics says it drafts an application using your description and public business information, including your website, for you to check and sign. It advertises Slack and email placement updates. The application-preparation process and its speed were not tested. ³⁰

Risklytics says it reviews the application with you, approaches suitable insurers and reads quote wording before making a recommendation. Its FAQ says the insurer binds after you accept a quote; timing varies with the coverage and operation. ³⁵

CFC reports that CFC USA, Inc. holds producer licenses in all 50 states and Washington, D.C., plus excess and surplus lines authorization in California, Georgia, New York and Texas. It identifies its California licensing name as CFC General Insurance Agency, Inc. This is CFC’s disclosure, not an independently checked California license record or confirmation of product eligibility. ⁴

CFC’s January 2026 U.S. management-liability brochure lists California-domiciled business and standalone employment practices liability under risks it declines. This restriction is specific to the described management-liability offering; it does not establish a California exclusion for every CFC product. ¹¹

The reviewed U.S. technology page, brochure and application do not establish the currently available admitted or surplus-lines route for a particular California startup. CFC announced admitted technology E&O in 2023, but the reviewed materials do not supply a current California product eligibility schedule. ^1,2,3,29

Risklytics publishes agency NPN 22311838 and Massachusetts resident license 3004393145. Its state table, dated September 10, 2026, also lists Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, New Jersey, Ohio, Texas and Washington. These are company-reported identifiers, not independently verified licenses or product eligibility. ³¹

California is absent from the reviewed agency-license table. A California-authorized producer and product route remain unconfirmed in the reviewed disclosures; this does not establish that Risklytics cannot arrange California coverage. Confirm the responsible producer, authority and insurer for your operation before relying on a quote. ^31,32,40

CFC’s U.S. claims page provides a general claim-reporting form, email and telephone route, plus a separate cyber-incident phone route and app reporting. These channels establish how CFC invites notifications, not claims payment speed or the outcome of a coverage decision. ⁸

A dedicated claims-reporting procedure or detailed broker claims-assistance commitment was not found in the reviewed terms, FAQ and contact page. The terms distinguish Risklytics from independent carriers and wholesalers and disclaim control over their claim handling. Ask for the policy’s reporting contact and the broker’s role after a loss. ^32,35,36