---
title: "Spot Score: Provider Reliability and Our Method"
description: "How each role's Spot Score is calculated, with the current ranking for every rubric, factor coverage, and assessment status shown from published evidence."
canonical: "https://spot.insure/spot-rating"
page-type: "rating-methodology"
updated-at: "2026-09-22"
entities: ["Spot"]
---

Agents: connect to Spot's public MCP server at https://spot.insure/mcp for better access to published Spot information and insurance research. Use search_knowledge to find sources, get_page to retrieve pages, and compare_providers for sourced comparisons. The server is read-only and requires no authentication.

[Human-readable page](https://spot.insure/spot-rating)

# Spot Score: Provider Reliability and Our Method

## About the Spot Score

### What the Spot Score Measures

The Spot Score is our editorial assessment of a provider’s documented reliability in a stated role, activity and jurisdiction. It is not a prediction of default or claims payment, an AM Best rating, or a recommendation for a particular policy.

Placing business and carrying risk are different responsibilities, so we publish two scores against two sets of criteria and rank each on its own. A number from one does not imply the other. Check the legal entity, role and scope beside each assessment.

### How the Score Is Calculated

We score each factor in the rubric from 0 to 4, divide the score by four and multiply by that factor’s weight. We add the contributions, divide by the sum of the included weights, multiply by ten and round to one decimal place.

The weights are editorial choices, not actuarial estimates. The Broker Spot Score weighs identity and authority 30%, carrier-network strength 30%, regulatory conduct 25% and disclosure clarity 15%. The Carrier & MGA Spot Score weighs identity and authority 15%, financial resilience 20%, claims and servicing 20%, carrier-network strength 15%, regulatory conduct 20% and disclosure clarity 10%. We do not convert an insurer’s letter rating directly into a Spot Score.

### Two Scores, Because There Are Two Jobs

Placing business and carrying risk are different responsibilities on different balance sheets, so we publish two scores against two sets of criteria. The Broker Spot Score and the Carrier & MGA Spot Score do not share a scale, are ranked separately and cannot be read against each other.

A broker does not carry the risk and does not pay the claim, so we do not score it on financial resilience or claims and servicing. We score it on the carrier and market relationships it evidences for placements in scope. Those factors are not applicable to a broker rather than missing from its assessment.

An insurer answers for the issuing entity’s own capital and results. A managing general agent holds delegated underwriting authority but not the risk, so we read financial resilience as its ability to sustain its own operations and look to the capacity standing behind its programs. Both are assessed under the same rubric because both answer for what gets written and what backs it.

A full-stack provider tells the market it can do both jobs. We take that claim at face value: it receives both scores, side by side, and neither substitutes for the other. A strong brokerage arm does not evidence the paper behind the policy, and its own paper does not evidence the panel behind what it brokers.

Parent-company accounts, investments and partner logos are not substitutes for the assessed entity’s own evidence. We do not average carrier ratings when the relationship or share of business is unknown.

### Programs Are Assessed One at a Time

Almost every program a carrier or managing general agent runs is backed by a different panel: different issuing carriers, different fronting and reinsurance arrangements, different terms, and a panel that can change. The same is true of the markets a broker places into.

So capacity evidenced for one program is evidence about that program only. It never establishes the panel behind another program, and we do not read a named relationship as describing a provider’s whole book. The scope shown beside each assessment names the programs and activity the evidence covers; anything outside it is not assessed rather than assessed favourably.

### Partial Scores and Missing Evidence

We attempt an assessment for every provider. When a factor in the rubric lacks usable evidence, we exclude it instead of assigning zero. A partial score carries an asterisk, names the excluded factors and shows the percentage of the rubric’s weighting assessed. For an insurer whose conduct evidence is unavailable, the other five factors represent 80% of the rubric’s weighting; their weighted result is divided by 80% before conversion to ten points.

Missing records and jurisdictions outside the stated scope do not count as adverse findings or reduce a supported factor’s score. If the available evidence cannot support a factor’s rubric, that factor is excluded. A partial score describes only the included factors. Two providers with different exclusions are not assessed on the same evidence basis, even if their displayed scores are equal. The ranking shows scores in descending order with these limitations visible; it is not a recommendation or a ranking of claims-paying ability.

If no factor in a rubric has sufficient evidence, we cannot calculate a number. A material unresolved conflict about the assessed identity or scope, or a confirmed severe current restriction or financial failure, remains an explicit assessment concern; excluding a factor cannot conceal it. A completed conduct search with no findings is limited to the entities, databases and five-year period checked.

### Updates and Corrections

We schedule licensing, rating-status and capacity evidence for review after 30 days, financial evidence when new filings arrive and at least quarterly, and other assertions after 90 days. An assessment that reaches its review deadline stops displaying a current numerical score until reviewed. Material corrections or regulatory changes require earlier review.

Methodology version 1.2 replaces the single rubric of version 1.1, which applied the same five factors to every provider, with two rubrics that are ranked and named separately. It adds carrier-network strength, removes financial resilience and claims and servicing from the broker rubric, and gives a full-stack provider both scores instead of one blended number. Changes to the method produce a new version and a new assessment; old scores are not silently reinterpreted. Contact Spot with a page URL and supporting source to report an error.

### Our Commercial Interest

Tools for Enlightenment publishes Spot and works in the commercial insurance market. This research is not presented as financially independent of that business. A provider’s commercial relationship with Spot is not a scoring criterion.

## Formula

`roundToOneDecimal(10 × Σ(includedWeight × dimensionScore / 4) ÷ Σ(includedWeight))`

Methodology version: **1.2**. Updated: **2026-09-22**.

## Rubrics

Each rubric has its own criteria and its own published score name. They do not share a scale.

### Brokers: Broker Spot Score

#### Identity and Authority
Authority to solicit, negotiate and place the assessed lines in the assessed jurisdictions, held by the named brokerage entity.
Weight: **30%**
- **0/4:** The named brokerage entity is verified as unable to place the assessed lines.
- **1/4:** Material current restrictions affect the brokerage entity’s ability to place in the assessed scope.
- **2/4:** Verified active producer authority carries documented restrictions within the assessed activity and jurisdiction; unresearched jurisdictions are not restrictions.
- **3/4:** Current producer authority for the assessed placement activity and jurisdictions is verified for the named entity.
- **4/4:** Current producer authority is verified together with the applicable firm licence, designated responsible producer and carrier appointments for the assessed scope.

#### Carrier-Network Strength
The carrier and market relationships the brokerage evidences for placements in the assessed scope. A carrier’s own strength counts only where the relationship is named and evidenced; it never transfers from a logo. Capacity evidenced for one program is evidence about that program only. It never establishes the panel behind another program, and the assessed scope must name the programs the evidence covers.
Weight: **30%**
- **0/4:** Verified failure of the placement or capacity arrangements the brokerage relies on in the assessed scope.
- **1/4:** Documented material instability in, or loss of, the brokerage’s carrier and market arrangements in scope.
- **2/4:** Named carrier or market relationships are documented for part of the assessed scope, with material limits on breadth, lines covered or evidenced share; unnamed markets are not counted.
- **3/4:** Current evidence names the carriers and markets supporting placements across the assessed scope and supports their stability.
- **4/4:** Multi-period evidence supports a named, stable and appropriately broad panel across the assessed scope, including the terms of the material appointments or binding arrangements.

#### Regulatory Conduct
Current and historical findings against the brokerage entity within a documented regulatory search, including placement, compensation and fiduciary-handling conduct.
Weight: **25%**
- **0/4:** A current severe final finding threatens the brokerage’s lawful operation in scope.
- **1/4:** Repeated or material unresolved final findings affect the assessed placement activity.
- **2/4:** Material historical findings against the brokerage have documented remediation.
- **3/4:** Findings are minor or resolved without a current material unresolved issue in the defined search.
- **4/4:** Completed required searches find no material findings against the named brokerage entity in the defined five-year window; this does not establish a universal clean record.

#### Disclosure Clarity
Whether the brokerage makes its own role, its compensation and the insurer behind a placement traceable to the buyer.
Weight: **15%**
- **0/4:** Reviewed disclosures are verified as materially misleading about the brokerage’s role, compensation or the insurer behind a placement.
- **1/4:** Material contradictions about role, compensation or placement responsibility remain unresolved.
- **2/4:** Core disclosures are usable but leave the brokerage’s role, compensation basis or the issuing insurer materially ambiguous.
- **3/4:** Role, compensation basis and placement responsibility are clear and consistent across the reviewed disclosures.
- **4/4:** Entity, role, compensation including contingent arrangements, issuing insurer and servicing responsibility are consistently traceable across the reviewed disclosures.

### Insurers and Managing General Agents: Carrier & MGA Spot Score

#### Identity and Authority
Authority to write the assessed lines in the assessed jurisdictions: a certificate of authority for an insurer, or the delegated underwriting and binding authority and its appointments for a managing general agent.
Weight: **15%**
- **0/4:** The named entity is verified as unable to write or bind the assessed lines.
- **1/4:** Material current restrictions affect the authority to write or bind in the assessed scope.
- **2/4:** Verified active authority carries documented restrictions within the assessed lines and jurisdictions; unresearched jurisdictions are not restrictions.
- **3/4:** Current authority to write or bind the assessed lines and jurisdictions is verified for the named entity.
- **4/4:** Current authority is verified together with the appointments, delegation instruments and responsible-producer requirements the assessed programs depend on.

#### Financial Resilience
Resources appropriate to what the entity actually carries. For an insurer this is the issuing entity’s own capital, surplus and results. For a managing general agent it is the ability to sustain its own operations: the risk sits with the issuing carrier, not the MGA, and an MGA must never be scored as if it held an insurer’s balance sheet.
Weight: **20%**
- **0/4:** Verified failure to meet relevant financial obligations.
- **1/4:** Documented material financial or capacity stress.
- **2/4:** Resources support the current role with evidenced material financial or capacity constraints; missing records are not constraints.
- **3/4:** Current evidence supports adequate resources and stable material arrangements.
- **4/4:** Multi-period evidence supports sustained strength and resilience of material arrangements without unresolved material stress.

#### Claims and Servicing
Where underwriting, issuance, servicing and claims responsibility sits between the assessed entity, its carriers and any third-party administrator, and how it is escalated and sustained.
Weight: **20%**
- **0/4:** Verified breakdown of required servicing or claims responsibility.
- **1/4:** Material evidenced gaps or unresolved servicing failures.
- **2/4:** Responsible parties and basic processes are documented with material limitations.
- **3/4:** Responsibilities, access and escalation are clearly supported by current evidence.
- **4/4:** Responsibilities and escalation are clear with independently evidenced oversight, continuity and remediation effectiveness.

#### Carrier-Network Strength
The capacity standing behind the assessed programs: who issues the paper, which reinsurers or fronting carriers support it, on what terms, and how durable the arrangement is evidenced to be. Programs are backed by different panels and different backers, and a panel can change. Capacity evidenced for one program is evidence about that program only. It never establishes the panel behind another program, and the assessed scope must name the programs the evidence covers.
Weight: **15%**
- **0/4:** Verified failure or withdrawal of the capacity an assessed program depends on.
- **1/4:** Documented material instability in, or loss of, the issuing-carrier, fronting or reinsurance arrangements for an assessed program.
- **2/4:** Issuing carriers or reinsurers are named for part of the assessed scope, with material limits on the evidenced terms, lines, states or durability; unnamed capacity is not counted.
- **3/4:** Current evidence names the capacity behind each assessed program and supports the arrangements’ stability.
- **4/4:** Multi-period evidence supports named, stable capacity across the assessed programs with disclosed material terms, including the reinsurance or fronting arrangements each relies on.

#### Regulatory Conduct
Current and historical findings within a documented regulatory search.
Weight: **20%**
- **0/4:** A current severe final finding threatens lawful operation in scope.
- **1/4:** Repeated or material unresolved final findings affect the assessed activity.
- **2/4:** Material historical findings have documented remediation.
- **3/4:** Findings are minor or resolved without a current material unresolved issue in the defined search.
- **4/4:** Completed required searches find no material findings in the defined five-year window; this does not establish a universal clean record.

#### Disclosure Clarity
Consistency and clarity of the material disclosures reviewed.
Weight: **10%**
- **0/4:** Reviewed disclosures are verified as materially misleading.
- **1/4:** Material contradictions in reviewed disclosures remain unresolved.
- **2/4:** Core reviewed disclosures are usable but materially ambiguous.
- **3/4:** Relevant reviewed disclosures are clear and consistent.
- **4/4:** Entity, product, authority and financial responsibilities are consistently traceable across the reviewed disclosures.

## Current provider rankings

Placing business and carrying risk are scored against different criteria, so each rubric is ranked on its own and a score from one cannot be read against a score from the other. A full-stack provider appears in both, once for each job it does.

## Brokers: current ranking

Broker Spot Scores are ordered from highest to lowest within this rubric only. They are produced from different factors and weights than the other rubric and are not comparable across the two. The included weighting and the factor exclusions are shown beside each score.

| Rank | Provider | Broker Spot Score | Included weight | Role | Scope | Factor basis |
| ---: | --- | ---: | ---: | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | [Beazley](/insurance-providers/beazley/reliability) | 6.8/10 | 30% | Hybrid role | Beazley's US activity at the named-entity level: Beazley USA Services, Inc. as the US insurance-services and producer entity, and Beazley Insurance Company, Inc., Beazley America Insurance Company, Inc. and Beazley Excess and Surplus Insurance, Inc. as the US insurers named in the US terms and ratings table. Authority and authorisation are verified in Georgia, Texas, Pennsylvania and Colorado only. No Beazley US programme has an evidenced carrier or reinsurance panel: the reviewed material maps no product to an issuing entity, so capacity is assessed at entity authorisation level and no programme-level capacity claim is made. Beazley plc group evidence is contextual, and Lloyd's syndicate ratings are excluded from the US entity assessment. | Included: Identity and Authority; excluded: Carrier-Network Strength: The reviewed evidence does not name the carrier and capacity arrangements behind the assessed programs, so the relationships cannot be assessed.; Regulatory Conduct: A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable.; Disclosure Clarity: The available disclosures do not sufficiently establish the relevant entity, product and responsibility boundaries. |
| 2 | [Coalition](/insurance-providers/coalition/reliability) | 6.3/10 | 75% | Hybrid role | Coalition's US cyber and technology-errors-and-omissions activity at the named-entity level. Producer, surplus-lines, Texas managing-general-agency and Texas adjuster authority is verified for Coalition Insurance Solutions, Inc. in Georgia, Texas, Pennsylvania and Colorado only. Capacity is assessed for two named programmes and no others. For the admitted cyber programme, the issuer is Coalition Insurance Company, NAIC 29530, whose Georgia, Texas and Pennsylvania authorisations are verified, whose appointment of Coalition Insurance Solutions is recorded in Texas and Pennsylvania, and whose AM Best A- rating was affirmed in March 2024; the reinsurance panel behind it is undisclosed. For the Coalition Re programme of cyber reinsurance treaties and white-labelled cover, the capacity panel is led by Aspen on Coalition's own statement; that evidence reaches Coalition Re only and not the carrier's paper. The non-admitted cyber and executive-risk programmes, which Coalition places with unaffiliated insurers, have no evidenced panel and are not assessed. Coalition Incident Response, Inc. is a separate security-services entity and is out of scope. | Included: Identity and Authority, Carrier-Network Strength, Disclosure Clarity; excluded: Regulatory Conduct: A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable. |
| 3 | [Corgi](/insurance-providers/corgi/reliability) | 6.0/10 | 75% | Hybrid role | Corgi Insurance Services, Inc. as producer and programme administrator, verified active in Texas, Pennsylvania and Colorado only, with Corgi Insurance Company, Inc. and Technology Risk Retention Group, Inc. as the separately disclosed risk-bearing entities. Capacity is assessed for three named channels and no others: coverages written on Corgi Insurance Company's own paper, where Georgia admitted and Pennsylvania surplus-lines authorisations are verified; coverages written by Technology Risk Retention Group, an Arizona-domiciled RRG registered in Georgia; and Pennsylvania placements with the three Employers-group carriers appointed to the producer entity. The unnamed partner carriers referenced in Corgi's disclaimer, and the carriers behind Corgi business in every other state, are not assessed. The Georgia producer identifier Corgi publishes did not resolve and is outside verified scope. | Included: Identity and Authority, Carrier-Network Strength, Disclosure Clarity; excluded: Regulatory Conduct: A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable. |
| 4 | [RiskCube](/insurance-providers/riskcube/reliability) | 5.9/10 | 15% | Broker | RiskCube Insurance Services, LLC as the producer/broker and RiskCube, Inc. as platform/operational support. RiskCube’s own disclosures say it is not a carrier and does not underwrite; third-party carrier and policy-specific issuer remain outside the generic brand scope. | Included: Disclosure Clarity; excluded: Identity and Authority: Current authority and applicable appointments or delegations have not been independently established across the assessed scope.; Carrier-Network Strength: The reviewed evidence does not name the carrier and capacity arrangements behind the assessed programs, so the relationships cannot be assessed.; Regulatory Conduct: A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable. |
| 5 | [Alliance Risk](/insurance-providers/alliance-risk/reliability) | 5.8/10 | 75% | Broker | Alliance Risk Insurance Services LLC, the subsidiary agency named in Alliance's terms and the single licensee of record under National Producer Number 21240567, assessed as a brokerage and risk-advisory operation. Producer authority is independently verified in Georgia, Texas, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Nevada and Minnesota only; the other 44 jurisdictions in the published table remain company-reported. Carrier relationships are assessed only as the appointments recorded in Texas, Nevada and Pennsylvania, which do not establish the insurer for any particular placement. Alliance Risk Holding Company LLC and any programme-specific capacity are outside scored scope. | Included: Identity and Authority, Carrier-Network Strength, Disclosure Clarity; excluded: Regulatory Conduct: A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable. |
| 6 | [Layr](/insurance-providers/layr/reliability) | 5.6/10 | 15% | Broker | Layr Holdings, Inc. as a broker-facing insurance technology and licensed support/agency operation, with the platform's broker-of-record and commission workflow; no carrier underwriting or policyholder-surplus role is included. | Included: Disclosure Clarity; excluded: Identity and Authority: Current authority and applicable appointments or delegations have not been independently established across the assessed scope.; Carrier-Network Strength: The reviewed evidence does not name the carrier and capacity arrangements behind the assessed programs, so the relationships cannot be assessed.; Regulatory Conduct: A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable. |
| 6 | [Lockton](/insurance-providers/lockton/reliability) | 5.6/10 | 15% | Broker | Lockton's U.S. brokerage presentation, including Lockton Companies, LLC d/b/a Lockton Insurance Brokers, LLC and Lockton, Inc. as named in reviewed U.S. materials; scope is commercial placement and claims advocacy and does not identify a quote-specific risk-bearing insurer. | Included: Disclosure Clarity; excluded: Identity and Authority: Current authority and applicable appointments or delegations have not been independently established across the assessed scope.; Carrier-Network Strength: The reviewed evidence does not name the carrier and capacity arrangements behind the assessed programs, so the relationships cannot be assessed.; Regulatory Conduct: A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable. |
| 6 | [Marsh](/insurance-providers/marsh/reliability) | 5.6/10 | 45% | Broker | US Marsh brokerage legal entities evidenced in the current Marsh client compensation guide, together with the Marsh Risk business and its International Placement and Bermuda arm as Marsh presents them in its own facility announcements for US-based buyers. Marsh USA LLC's separate Amazon affinity-programme role and its dated producer disclosure are scoped only to that programme. Producer authority is independently verified for Marsh USA LLC in Georgia, Texas, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Nevada, Indiana and Minnesota only; every other jurisdiction remains company-reported. The assessed activity is insurance brokerage, client advisory, claims advocacy and the facility-level carrier and capacity arrangements Marsh publishes for US placements; Marsh McLennan Agency, Victor, insurers, reinsurers and non-US affiliates are excluded from scored scope, and the issuing insurer for an individual buyer's placement is not assessed. | Included: Identity and Authority, Disclosure Clarity; excluded: Carrier-Network Strength: The reviewed evidence does not name the carrier and capacity arrangements behind the assessed programs, so the relationships cannot be assessed.; Regulatory Conduct: A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable. |
| 9 | [Gallagher](/insurance-providers/gallagher/reliability) | 5.5/10 | 15% | Broker | Arthur J. Gallagher Risk Management Services, LLC and the Gallagher brokerage activity evidenced by the current US small-business and technology materials, excluding Gallagher's carrier, claims-administration and unrelated group entities unless a policy or service relationship is specifically named. | Included: Disclosure Clarity; excluded: Identity and Authority: Current authority and applicable appointments or delegations have not been independently established across the assessed scope.; Carrier-Network Strength: The reviewed evidence does not name the carrier and capacity arrangements behind the assessed programs, so the relationships cannot be assessed.; Regulatory Conduct: A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable. |
| 9 | [HUB International](/insurance-providers/hub-international/reliability) | 5.5/10 | 15% | Broker | HUB International Limited and relevant U.S. subsidiaries as a commercial insurance broker and consulting group for U.S. technology and middle-market property-casualty placements; no specific HUB office, producer entity or policy issuer is assigned from group-level pages. | Included: Disclosure Clarity; excluded: Identity and Authority: Current authority and applicable appointments or delegations have not been independently established across the assessed scope.; Carrier-Network Strength: The reviewed evidence does not name the carrier and capacity arrangements behind the assessed programs, so the relationships cannot be assessed.; Regulatory Conduct: A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable. |
| 11 | [Risklytics](/insurance-providers/risklytics/reliability) | 5.4/10 | 45% | Broker | Risklytics, Inc. dba Risklytics Insurance Services as a US insurance producer/broker serving technology and specialty risks through the licensed producer operation identified on its current official website; no carrier or underwriting role is included. | Included: Identity and Authority, Disclosure Clarity; excluded: Carrier-Network Strength: The reviewed evidence does not name the carrier and capacity arrangements behind the assessed programs, so the relationships cannot be assessed.; Regulatory Conduct: A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable. |
| 12 | [Founder Shield](/insurance-providers/foundershield/reliability) | 5.3/10 | 40% | Broker | Foundershield LLC/Founder Shield brokerage activity and the separate The Baldwin Group Specialty Solutions, LLC entity named by the website terms. No insurer, carrier solvency or policy-specific issuer is assigned to the brokerage. | Included: Regulatory Conduct, Disclosure Clarity; excluded: Identity and Authority: Current authority and applicable appointments or delegations have not been independently established across the assessed scope.; Carrier-Network Strength: The reviewed evidence does not name the carrier and capacity arrangements behind the assessed programs, so the relationships cannot be assessed. |
| 12 | [Hiscox](/insurance-providers/hiscox/reliability) | 5.3/10 | 45% | Hybrid role | Hiscox US small-business activity at the named-entity level: Hiscox Inc. as online intermediary/general agent and Hiscox Insurance Company Inc. as the named admitted insurer for Hiscox NOW products; Hiscox Ltd. and Lloyd's capacity are group or product-specific context, not a universal issuer mapping. | Included: Carrier-Network Strength, Disclosure Clarity; excluded: Identity and Authority: Current authority and applicable appointments or delegations have not been independently established across the assessed scope.; Regulatory Conduct: A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable. |
| 12 | [Relm Insurance](/insurance-providers/relm/reliability) | 5.3/10 | 75% | Hybrid role | Relm Insurance Ltd.'s Bermuda-domiciled regulated insurance activity and Relm US Insurance Solutions Inc.'s separately licensed US producer/MGA and surplus-lines activity for emerging-industry risks. The Bermuda carrier, US intermediary and external fronting carriers are kept distinct; no US carrier status is assigned to Relm US Insurance Solutions Inc. | Included: Identity and Authority, Carrier-Network Strength, Disclosure Clarity; excluded: Regulatory Conduct: A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable. |
| 12 | [USI Insurance Services](/insurance-providers/usi/reliability) | 5.3/10 | 15% | Broker | USI Insurance Services LLC and its U.S. brokerage and risk-consulting operation for property-casualty, technology, executive, employee-benefit and related commercial risks; the evidence covers placement and claims-support roles and does not identify USI as a risk-bearing insurer. | Included: Disclosure Clarity; excluded: Identity and Authority: Current authority and applicable appointments or delegations have not been independently established across the assessed scope.; Carrier-Network Strength: The reviewed evidence does not name the carrier and capacity arrangements behind the assessed programs, so the relationships cannot be assessed.; Regulatory Conduct: A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable. |
| 16 | [At-Bay](/insurance-providers/at-bay/reliability) | 5.2/10 | 15% | Hybrid role | At-Bay Insurance Services LLC as producer/broker and At-Bay Specialty Insurance Company as a Delaware-based E&S carrier, with issuer evidence limited to Cyber and Tech E&O policies announced as issuing on its own paper beginning August 7, 2023. | Included: Disclosure Clarity; excluded: Identity and Authority: Current authority and applicable appointments or delegations have not been independently established across the assessed scope.; Carrier-Network Strength: The reviewed evidence does not name the carrier and capacity arrangements behind the assessed programs, so the relationships cannot be assessed.; Regulatory Conduct: A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable. |
| 16 | [Pie Insurance](/insurance-providers/pie-insurance/reliability) | 5.2/10 | 45% | Hybrid role | Pie Insurance Services, Inc. as producer/administrator; The Pie Insurance Company and Pie Casualty Insurance Company as separately named P&C entities. This review does not assign Pie Casualty to a product without product-specific evidence and does not treat Pie Group Holdings, Inc. as an insurer. | Included: Identity and Authority, Disclosure Clarity; excluded: Carrier-Network Strength: The reviewed evidence does not name the carrier and capacity arrangements behind the assessed programs, so the relationships cannot be assessed.; Regulatory Conduct: A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable. |
| 18 | [Amelia Risk](/insurance-providers/amelia-risk/reliability) | 5.1/10 | 15% | Broker | Amelia Risk Insurance Brokers as the brokerage brand and operating name evidenced on its current official website, with US startup, technology, consumer-product and CPG brokerage activity; no insurer or underwriting entity is included. | Included: Disclosure Clarity; excluded: Identity and Authority: Current authority and applicable appointments or delegations have not been independently established across the assessed scope.; Carrier-Network Strength: The reviewed evidence does not name the carrier and capacity arrangements behind the assessed programs, so the relationships cannot be assessed.; Regulatory Conduct: A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable. |
| 18 | [Coverdash](/insurance-providers/coverdash/reliability) | 5.1/10 | 15% | Broker | Coverdash Insurance Services, LLC as the licensed broker/agent and Coverdash, Inc. as the technology/brand entity. The cited materials do not identify Coverdash as insurer or underwriting entity; policy issuer remains product and policy specific. | Included: Disclosure Clarity; excluded: Identity and Authority: Current authority and applicable appointments or delegations have not been independently established across the assessed scope.; Carrier-Network Strength: The reviewed evidence does not name the carrier and capacity arrangements behind the assessed programs, so the relationships cannot be assessed.; Regulatory Conduct: A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable. |
| 18 | [Embroker](/insurance-providers/embroker/reliability) | 5.1/10 | 45% | Broker | Embroker, Inc. and Embroker Insurance Services LLC as a U.S. digital insurance platform and producer; product-specific insurers include Everspan Indemnity Insurance Company and Everest National Insurance Company for named programs, not the entire catalogue. | Included: Carrier-Network Strength, Disclosure Clarity; excluded: Identity and Authority: Current authority and applicable appointments or delegations have not been independently established across the assessed scope.; Regulatory Conduct: A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable. |
| 21 | [ERGO NEXT Insurance](/insurance-providers/next-insurance/reliability) | 5.0/10 | 45% | Hybrid role | ERGO NEXT Insurance brand and the named carrier and agency entities in its current terms and license disclosures, including Next Insurance US Company, State National Insurance Company, National Specialty Insurance Company, Next Insurance, Inc. and Next First Insurance Agency, Inc.; the reviewed carrier rating and Mississippi authority are limited to Next Insurance US Company. | Included: Identity and Authority, Disclosure Clarity; excluded: Carrier-Network Strength: The reviewed evidence does not name the carrier and capacity arrangements behind the assessed programs, so the relationships cannot be assessed.; Regulatory Conduct: A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable. |
| 21 | [Heffernan Insurance Brokers](/insurance-providers/heffernan/reliability) | 5.0/10 | 15% | Broker | Heffernan Insurance Brokers retail brokerage and Heffernan Network Insurance Brokers subsidiary/service activity. Neither is treated as a carrier or generic policy issuer; the contracting producer must be identified for a specific placement. | Included: Disclosure Clarity; excluded: Identity and Authority: Current authority and applicable appointments or delegations have not been independently established across the assessed scope.; Carrier-Network Strength: The reviewed evidence does not name the carrier and capacity arrangements behind the assessed programs, so the relationships cannot be assessed.; Regulatory Conduct: A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable. |
| 21 | [Kinro](/insurance-providers/kinro/reliability) | 5.0/10 | 15% | Broker | Kinro Insurance Services LLC and the Kinro/Kinro AI technology-enabled distribution service for U.S. small-business commercial insurance. No carrier, MGA underwriting authority or risk-bearing status is assigned to Kinro itself. | Included: Disclosure Clarity; excluded: Identity and Authority: Current authority and applicable appointments or delegations have not been independently established across the assessed scope.; Carrier-Network Strength: The reviewed evidence does not name the carrier and capacity arrangements behind the assessed programs, so the relationships cannot be assessed.; Regulatory Conduct: A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable. |
| 21 | [Mylo](/insurance-providers/mylo/reliability) | 5.0/10 | 45% | Broker | Mylo, LLC and its disclosed trade names as an online insurance agency and broker; the insurer remains policy-specific. | Included: Carrier-Network Strength, Disclosure Clarity; excluded: Identity and Authority: Current authority and applicable appointments or delegations have not been independently established across the assessed scope.; Regulatory Conduct: A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable. |
| 21 | [Newfront](/insurance-providers/newfront/reliability) | 5.0/10 | 15% | Broker | Newfront Insurance Services and the contracting US brokerage entity identified in current Newfront materials, with business-insurance, benefits and claims-advocacy activity; WTW ownership is parent context and no carrier or risk-bearing role is assigned. | Included: Disclosure Clarity; excluded: Identity and Authority: Current authority and applicable appointments or delegations have not been independently established across the assessed scope.; Carrier-Network Strength: The reviewed evidence does not name the carrier and capacity arrangements behind the assessed programs, so the relationships cannot be assessed.; Regulatory Conduct: A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable. |
| 21 | [Resilience](/insurance-providers/resilience/reliability) | 5.0/10 | 15% | Broker | Resilience cyber-risk platform and U.S. insurance distribution as presented by Arceo Labs Inc. d/b/a Resilience and Ocrea Risk Services LLC d/b/a Resilience Cyber Insurance Solutions. Scope covers cyber and technology E&O products and the disclosed Homeland Insurance Company of New York or Delaware underwriting routes; no affiliated risk-bearing entity or delegated underwriting authority is assumed. | Included: Disclosure Clarity; excluded: Identity and Authority: Current authority and applicable appointments or delegations have not been independently established across the assessed scope.; Carrier-Network Strength: The reviewed evidence does not name the carrier and capacity arrangements behind the assessed programs, so the relationships cannot be assessed.; Regulatory Conduct: A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable. |
| 21 | [TechInsurance](/insurance-providers/techinsurance/reliability) | 5.0/10 | 30% | Broker | TechInsurance as a division/brand of Specialty Program Group LLC, doing business as SPG Insurance Solutions, for small-business and technology insurance distribution. It is not treated as a carrier; exact issuer and program vary by policy, product and state. | Included: Carrier-Network Strength; excluded: Identity and Authority: Current authority and applicable appointments or delegations have not been independently established across the assessed scope.; Regulatory Conduct: A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable.; Disclosure Clarity: The available disclosures do not sufficiently establish the relevant entity, product and responsibility boundaries. |
| 21 | [Vouch](/insurance-providers/vouch/reliability) | 5.0/10 | 45% | Broker | Vouch Specialty Insurance Services, LLC as the current Vouch brokerage; Vouch Group, Inc. as the marketing-name group. Corix Insurance Services, LLC and Vouch Insurance Company are separately recorded transaction entities and are not assumed to be the current broker or a buyer’s issuer. | Included: Carrier-Network Strength, Disclosure Clarity; excluded: Identity and Authority: Current authority and applicable appointments or delegations have not been independently established across the assessed scope.; Regulatory Conduct: A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable. |
| 21 | [WithCoverage](/insurance-providers/withcoverage/reliability) | 5.0/10 | 45% | Broker | With Coverage's US commercial-insurance brokerage and risk-advisory activity at the named-entity level, including With Coverage Inc. and With Coverage Insurance Services LLC where official terms, regulator filings or carrier directories identify them. No insurer, MGA or policy-risk-bearing role is included. | Included: Carrier-Network Strength, Disclosure Clarity; excluded: Identity and Authority: Current authority and applicable appointments or delegations have not been independently established across the assessed scope.; Regulatory Conduct: A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable. |
| 30 | [StartupInsurance.ai](/insurance-providers/startupinsurance/reliability) | 4.9/10 | 15% | Broker | StartupInsurance.ai brand and ContractorNerd Insurance Services LLC as the disclosed agency/intermediary for startup and technology-company commercial insurance; carrier names displayed in marketing are not treated as issuers without quote or policy evidence. | Included: Disclosure Clarity; excluded: Identity and Authority: Current authority and applicable appointments or delegations have not been independently established across the assessed scope.; Carrier-Network Strength: The reviewed evidence does not name the carrier and capacity arrangements behind the assessed programs, so the relationships cannot be assessed.; Regulatory Conduct: A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable. |

Partial scores normalize the original weights of included factors; unavailable factors are excluded rather than treated as zero.

### Brokers without a current numerical score

These published assessments are listed alphabetically. Their status is shown without a score or ordinal ranking.

| Provider | Assessment | Role | Scope | Factor basis |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| [Harper](/insurance-providers/harper/reliability) | Conflicting Evidence | Broker | Harper Global Enterprises Inc. d/b/a Harper Global Insurance Agency, the licensed producer of record, assessed for US commercial insurance placement and servicing activity. Producer authority is independently verified in Georgia, the firm's resident state, only; the published California licence and every other jurisdiction remain company-reported. Harper Group Corp., the name Harper's privacy policy uses for itself, holds no evidenced insurance authority anywhere and is outside the assessed entity scope, with its relationship to the licensee recorded as an open disclosure item. No carrier, market or programme behind a Harper placement is assessed, because none is evidenced. | Excluded: Identity and Authority: Current authority and applicable appointments or delegations have not been independently established across the assessed scope.; Carrier-Network Strength: The reviewed evidence does not name the carrier and capacity arrangements behind the assessed programs, so the relationships cannot be assessed.; Regulatory Conduct: A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable.; Disclosure Clarity: The available disclosures do not sufficiently establish the relevant entity, product and responsibility boundaries. |

## Insurers and Managing General Agents: current ranking

Carrier & MGA Spot Scores are ordered from highest to lowest within this rubric only. They are produced from different factors and weights than the other rubric and are not comparable across the two. The included weighting and the factor exclusions are shown beside each score.

| Rank | Provider | Carrier & MGA Spot Score | Included weight | Role | Scope | Factor basis |
| ---: | --- | ---: | ---: | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | [Cowbell](/insurance-providers/cowbell/reliability) | 7.8/10 | 10% | Managing general agent | Cowbell US cyber and specialty program-administration activity at the named-entity level, centered on Cowbell Insurance Agency LLC as producer/general-agent/MGA activity. Palomar Specialty Insurance Company and Chaucer Specialty Insurance Company are separate external carrier-paper relationships and are not treated as Cowbell-owned risk-bearing entities; Cowbell Cyber, Inc. is brand/operator context. | Included: Disclosure Clarity; excluded: Identity and Authority: Current authority and applicable appointments or delegations have not been independently established across the assessed scope.; Financial Resilience: The available financial evidence does not establish resources and material capacity arrangements across the assessed entities and role.; Claims and Servicing: The evidence does not sufficiently establish responsibility, access and escalation across the assessed services.; Carrier-Network Strength: The reviewed evidence does not name the carrier and capacity arrangements behind the assessed programs, so the relationships cannot be assessed.; Regulatory Conduct: A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable. |
| 2 | [The Hartford](/insurance-providers/the-hartford/reliability) | 7.3/10 | 45% | Insurance carrier | The Hartford's US property-and-casualty carrier activity at named insurer level, centered on Hartford Fire Insurance Company and related writing companies disclosed in current legal notices and regulator records. The Hartford Insurance Group, Inc. is parent/holding-company context; life, benefits, Navigators and other entities are not merged into Hartford Fire's scored evidence. | Included: Identity and Authority, Financial Resilience, Disclosure Clarity; excluded: Claims and Servicing: The evidence does not sufficiently establish responsibility, access and escalation across the assessed services.; Carrier-Network Strength: The reviewed evidence does not name the carrier and capacity arrangements behind the assessed programs, so the relationships cannot be assessed.; Regulatory Conduct: A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable. |
| 3 | [At-Bay](/insurance-providers/at-bay/reliability) | 7.1/10 | 30% | Hybrid role | At-Bay Insurance Services LLC as producer/broker and At-Bay Specialty Insurance Company as a Delaware-based E&S carrier, with issuer evidence limited to Cyber and Tech E&O policies announced as issuing on its own paper beginning August 7, 2023. | Included: Financial Resilience, Disclosure Clarity; excluded: Identity and Authority: Current authority and applicable appointments or delegations have not been independently established across the assessed scope.; Claims and Servicing: The evidence does not sufficiently establish responsibility, access and escalation across the assessed services.; Carrier-Network Strength: The reviewed evidence does not name the carrier and capacity arrangements behind the assessed programs, so the relationships cannot be assessed.; Regulatory Conduct: A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable. |
| 4 | [Chubb](/insurance-providers/chubb/reliability) | 7.0/10 | 25% | Insurance carrier | Chubb Limited as group parent and the exact US insurer entities in the cited materials. Current authority is independently verified for Federal Insurance Company, ACE American Insurance Company, Westchester Fire Insurance Company and Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Company in Georgia, for Federal Insurance Company in Texas, and for Federal, ACE American and the Pennsylvania-domiciled Westchester Fire in California; the separate New York-domiciled Westchester Fire profile is merged and excluded. Capacity is assessed for one named programme only: the Brandywine run-off book of Century Indemnity Company, whose supporting XOL Agreement, Dividend Retention Fund and surplus note are disclosed with terms, limits and current balances. Financial and reinsurance evidence otherwise sits at group level, combined across the subsidiary group and across the whole ceded book, and no current Chubb commercial product or programme has an evidenced issuing entity or capacity panel, so none is assessed. | Included: Identity and Authority, Disclosure Clarity; excluded: Financial Resilience: The available financial evidence does not establish resources and material capacity arrangements across the assessed entities and role.; Claims and Servicing: The evidence does not sufficiently establish responsibility, access and escalation across the assessed services.; Carrier-Network Strength: The reviewed evidence does not name the carrier and capacity arrangements behind the assessed programs, so the relationships cannot be assessed.; Regulatory Conduct: A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable. |
| 5 | [Hiscox](/insurance-providers/hiscox/reliability) | 6.6/10 | 65% | Hybrid role | Hiscox US small-business activity at the named-entity level: Hiscox Inc. as online intermediary/general agent and Hiscox Insurance Company Inc. as the named admitted insurer for Hiscox NOW products; Hiscox Ltd. and Lloyd's capacity are group or product-specific context, not a universal issuer mapping. | Included: Identity and Authority, Financial Resilience, Claims and Servicing, Disclosure Clarity; excluded: Carrier-Network Strength: The reviewed evidence does not name the carrier and capacity arrangements behind the assessed programs, so the relationships cannot be assessed.; Regulatory Conduct: A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable. |
| 6 | [ERGO NEXT Insurance](/insurance-providers/next-insurance/reliability) | 6.5/10 | 45% | Hybrid role | ERGO NEXT Insurance brand and the named carrier and agency entities in its current terms and license disclosures, including Next Insurance US Company, State National Insurance Company, National Specialty Insurance Company, Next Insurance, Inc. and Next First Insurance Agency, Inc.; the reviewed carrier rating and Mississippi authority are limited to Next Insurance US Company. | Included: Identity and Authority, Financial Resilience, Disclosure Clarity; excluded: Claims and Servicing: The evidence does not sufficiently establish responsibility, access and escalation across the assessed services.; Carrier-Network Strength: The reviewed evidence does not name the carrier and capacity arrangements behind the assessed programs, so the relationships cannot be assessed.; Regulatory Conduct: A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable. |
| 6 | [Pie Insurance](/insurance-providers/pie-insurance/reliability) | 6.5/10 | 25% | Hybrid role | Pie Insurance Services, Inc. as producer/administrator; The Pie Insurance Company and Pie Casualty Insurance Company as separately named P&C entities. This review does not assign Pie Casualty to a product without product-specific evidence and does not treat Pie Group Holdings, Inc. as an insurer. | Included: Identity and Authority, Disclosure Clarity; excluded: Financial Resilience: The available financial evidence does not establish resources and material capacity arrangements across the assessed entities and role.; Claims and Servicing: The evidence does not sufficiently establish responsibility, access and escalation across the assessed services.; Carrier-Network Strength: The reviewed evidence does not name the carrier and capacity arrangements behind the assessed programs, so the relationships cannot be assessed.; Regulatory Conduct: A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable. |
| 8 | [Coalition](/insurance-providers/coalition/reliability) | 6.2/10 | 60% | Hybrid role | Coalition's US cyber and technology-errors-and-omissions activity at the named-entity level. Producer, surplus-lines, Texas managing-general-agency and Texas adjuster authority is verified for Coalition Insurance Solutions, Inc. in Georgia, Texas, Pennsylvania and Colorado only. Capacity is assessed for two named programmes and no others. For the admitted cyber programme, the issuer is Coalition Insurance Company, NAIC 29530, whose Georgia, Texas and Pennsylvania authorisations are verified, whose appointment of Coalition Insurance Solutions is recorded in Texas and Pennsylvania, and whose AM Best A- rating was affirmed in March 2024; the reinsurance panel behind it is undisclosed. For the Coalition Re programme of cyber reinsurance treaties and white-labelled cover, the capacity panel is led by Aspen on Coalition's own statement; that evidence reaches Coalition Re only and not the carrier's paper. The non-admitted cyber and executive-risk programmes, which Coalition places with unaffiliated insurers, have no evidenced panel and are not assessed. Coalition Incident Response, Inc. is a separate security-services entity and is out of scope. | Included: Identity and Authority, Claims and Servicing, Carrier-Network Strength, Disclosure Clarity; excluded: Financial Resilience: The available financial evidence does not establish resources and material capacity arrangements across the assessed entities and role.; Regulatory Conduct: A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable. |
| 9 | [Relm Insurance](/insurance-providers/relm/reliability) | 6.1/10 | 80% | Hybrid role | Relm Insurance Ltd.'s Bermuda-domiciled regulated insurance activity and Relm US Insurance Solutions Inc.'s separately licensed US producer/MGA and surplus-lines activity for emerging-industry risks. The Bermuda carrier, US intermediary and external fronting carriers are kept distinct; no US carrier status is assigned to Relm US Insurance Solutions Inc. | Included: Identity and Authority, Financial Resilience, Claims and Servicing, Carrier-Network Strength, Disclosure Clarity; excluded: Regulatory Conduct: A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable. |
| 9 | [Travelers](/insurance-providers/travelers/reliability) | 6.1/10 | 45% | Insurance carrier | The Travelers Indemnity Company and Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, with California insurer authority checked. Travelers group financial results and technology-insurance services provide context; the issuer and terms of a particular policy require confirmation. | Included: Identity and Authority, Claims and Servicing, Disclosure Clarity; excluded: Financial Resilience: The available financial evidence does not establish resources and material capacity arrangements across the assessed entities and role.; Carrier-Network Strength: The reviewed evidence does not name the carrier and capacity arrangements behind the assessed programs, so the relationships cannot be assessed.; Regulatory Conduct: A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable. |
| 11 | [Beazley](/insurance-providers/beazley/reliability) | 5.7/10 | 45% | Hybrid role | Beazley's US activity at the named-entity level: Beazley USA Services, Inc. as the US insurance-services and producer entity, and Beazley Insurance Company, Inc., Beazley America Insurance Company, Inc. and Beazley Excess and Surplus Insurance, Inc. as the US insurers named in the US terms and ratings table. Authority and authorisation are verified in Georgia, Texas, Pennsylvania and Colorado only. No Beazley US programme has an evidenced carrier or reinsurance panel: the reviewed material maps no product to an issuing entity, so capacity is assessed at entity authorisation level and no programme-level capacity claim is made. Beazley plc group evidence is contextual, and Lloyd's syndicate ratings are excluded from the US entity assessment. | Included: Identity and Authority, Claims and Servicing, Disclosure Clarity; excluded: Financial Resilience: The available financial evidence does not establish resources and material capacity arrangements across the assessed entities and role.; Carrier-Network Strength: The reviewed evidence does not name the carrier and capacity arrangements behind the assessed programs, so the relationships cannot be assessed.; Regulatory Conduct: A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable. |
| 11 | [CFC](/insurance-providers/cfc/reliability) | 5.7/10 | 45% | Managing general agent | CFC Underwriting Limited as the UK underwriting-management entity and CFC USA, Inc. as the US producer and managing general agent, for CFC-branded technology, cyber, professional and specialty products. US authority is verified in Georgia, Texas and Pennsylvania only, with delegated underwriting and All Lines adjusting authority verified in Texas alone. Capacity is assessed for one relationship and two states only: the appointment of CFC USA, Inc. by State National Insurance Company, Inc., NAIC 12831, recorded in Texas since 2022 and Pennsylvania since 2019, covering CFC's delegated admitted business in those states. No CFC product is mapped to that carrier by any source, and the arrangement is not evidence about CFC's business in the other 48 jurisdictions. Lloyd's Syndicate 1988 is a company-level disclosure and is not assessed as the capacity behind any named US programme. Financial resilience is assessed as CFC Underwriting Limited's ability to sustain its own operations; the insurer's capital is not CFC's and is out of scope. | Included: Identity and Authority, Claims and Servicing, Disclosure Clarity; excluded: Financial Resilience: The available financial evidence does not establish resources and material capacity arrangements across the assessed entities and role.; Carrier-Network Strength: The reviewed evidence does not name the carrier and capacity arrangements behind the assessed programs, so the relationships cannot be assessed.; Regulatory Conduct: A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable. |
| 13 | [Corgi](/insurance-providers/corgi/reliability) | 5.4/10 | 40% | Hybrid role | Corgi Insurance Services, Inc. as producer and programme administrator, verified active in Texas, Pennsylvania and Colorado only, with Corgi Insurance Company, Inc. and Technology Risk Retention Group, Inc. as the separately disclosed risk-bearing entities. Capacity is assessed for three named channels and no others: coverages written on Corgi Insurance Company's own paper, where Georgia admitted and Pennsylvania surplus-lines authorisations are verified; coverages written by Technology Risk Retention Group, an Arizona-domiciled RRG registered in Georgia; and Pennsylvania placements with the three Employers-group carriers appointed to the producer entity. The unnamed partner carriers referenced in Corgi's disclaimer, and the carriers behind Corgi business in every other state, are not assessed. The Georgia producer identifier Corgi publishes did not resolve and is outside verified scope. | Included: Identity and Authority, Carrier-Network Strength, Disclosure Clarity; excluded: Financial Resilience: The available financial evidence does not establish resources and material capacity arrangements across the assessed entities and role.; Claims and Servicing: The evidence does not sufficiently establish responsibility, access and escalation across the assessed services.; Regulatory Conduct: A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable. |
| 14 | [Armilla](/insurance-providers/armilla/reliability) | 5.2/10 | 10% | Managing general agent | Armilla Insurance Services Inc. as a company-named Lloyd's coverholder and AI insurance intermediary in North America, assessed against two named programmes and no others. For the AI Liability Insurance programme, also marketed as Armilla Insured, capacity is assessed as Armilla discloses it: a binding authority led by Chaucer and written by certain underwriters at Lloyd's, available to US insureds, offered through surplus lines insurers. For Armilla Guaranteed, a contractual performance warranty rather than insurance, no issuer is named and no capacity is assessed. The four reinsurers Armilla names on its broker page are attached to no programme and are not assessed as capacity for either. Financial resilience is scoped to Armilla's ability to sustain its own operations; the risk sits with the Lloyd's underwriters, whose capital is not Armilla's and is out of scope. | Included: Disclosure Clarity; excluded: Identity and Authority: Current authority and applicable appointments or delegations have not been independently established across the assessed scope.; Financial Resilience: The available financial evidence does not establish resources and material capacity arrangements across the assessed entities and role.; Claims and Servicing: The evidence does not sufficiently establish responsibility, access and escalation across the assessed services.; Carrier-Network Strength: The reviewed evidence does not name the carrier and capacity arrangements behind the assessed programs, so the relationships cannot be assessed.; Regulatory Conduct: A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable. |
| 15 | [Coterie Insurance](/insurance-providers/coterie/reliability) | 5.1/10 | 45% | Managing general agent | Coterie brand/platform and Coterie Insurance Agency, LLC as an agency/MGA operation, with exact carrier evidence limited to Spinnaker Insurance Company for eligible Texas coastal BOP risks. No provider-wide rating or universal state-authority conclusion is verified. | Included: Claims and Servicing, Carrier-Network Strength, Disclosure Clarity; excluded: Identity and Authority: Current authority and applicable appointments or delegations have not been independently established across the assessed scope.; Financial Resilience: The available financial evidence does not establish resources and material capacity arrangements across the assessed entities and role.; Regulatory Conduct: A complete, exact-entity regulatory-conduct review for the preceding five years is unavailable. |

Partial scores normalize the original weights of included factors; unavailable factors are excluded rather than treated as zero.

## Agent and Developer Resources

- [Markdown page](https://spot.insure/spot-rating.md)
- [Developer resources](https://spot.insure/developers)
- [Public MCP server](https://spot.insure/mcp)
- [MCP server manifest](https://spot.insure/server.json)
- [OpenAPI description](https://spot.insure/openapi.json)
- [Public page index](https://spot.insure/llms.txt)