instruction
stringlengths 37
465
| input
stringlengths 0
1.95k
| output
stringlengths 405
2.53k
| citation
listlengths 1
3
⌀ | link_validation
listlengths 0
3
| final_status
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
As a North Carolina marine underwriter managing a mid-term endorsement file for a hospitality-focused boutique hotel (NAICS 721110) located in Raleigh, explain how you assess cargo handling, terminal protection, and transit accumulation and recommend pricing and terms. Detail risk controls, loss experience, regulatory considerations, and pricing recommendation.
|
underwriting_decision: Quote with cat accumulation review and reefer temperature monitoring. Process endorsement with revised pricing.
underwriting_reasoning: Because overall controls align with peers but catastrophe aggregation warrants monitoring, the account requires disciplined terms. Require cyber MFA validation and apply +10% rate. Incorporate OSHA 300 log trends into schedule rating justification.
rating_logic: AIMU cargo underwriting guidelines; ISO inland marine rating; CISA port security advisories; NC Rate Bureau coastal adjustments
rating_focus: cargo handling, terminal protection, and transit accumulation
citation: https://www.verisk.com
|
[
"https://www.verisk.com"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.verisk.com",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "HTTP 200"
}
] |
valid
|
|
Advanced judgement: teach interpretation of loss runs, reserves, and corrective actions for last-mile delivery programs in New Jersey.
|
Account: metro parcel contractor covering mixed suburban and logistics parks across NJ. Fleet: 112 units of compact cargo vans and walk-ins (model years 2017-2023) with compact cargo vans and walk-ins with driver ID badges. Operations: residential drops and locker returns on port neighborhoods with theft-prone alleys (downtown congestion zones). Territory: New Jersey - NJ PIP options, dense tollways, and UM stacking risk require documentation.. Loss history: ten mirror strikes and two dog bites with loss ratio 38% and $185k cyclist injury. Controls/tech: gamified safety scores and ride-alongs plus vision-based driver assist. Maintenance & yard: mobile tire swaps and depot PM and warehouse lot with CCTV. Contracts/filings: grocer SLA demanding 98% on-time with operates under MA RMV commercial regime. Focus: Summarize incurred amounts, open reserves, and remedial investments. and coverage goal adds contingent auto for gig drivers and $500k UM/UIM.
|
Push beyond checklist thinking by Compare ten mirror strikes and two dog bites to exposure trend in 112 units of compact cargo vans and walk-ins (model years 2017-2023). Attritional hits inside late-night pharmacy dispatches may persist another term unless controls mature. Large loss $185k cyclist injury must be stress-tested for repeat potential given e-commerce parcels. Blend credibility with ISO commercial auto manuals plus gig program guides before concluding whether support a 3% credit if KPIs remain favorable is justified. Raise deductibles toward $2.5k liability/$1k comp and consider aggregate stop-loss wording. Document how {remediation} maps to each dominant loss driver.
|
[
"https://www.naic.org"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.naic.org",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
As a Colorado builders risk underwriter managing a renewal file for a regional grocery distribution hub (NAICS 424410) located in Colorado Springs, explain how you assess construction phase hazards, protective safeguards, and soft cost coverage and recommend pricing and terms. Detail risk controls, loss experience, regulatory considerations, and pricing recommendation.
|
underwriting_decision: Provide renewal with delay-in-completion sublimit and weather monitoring plan. Renew with targeted pricing adjustments.
underwriting_reasoning: Because overall controls align with peers but catastrophe aggregation warrants monitoring, the account requires disciplined terms. Require cyber MFA validation and apply +10% rate. Reflect NCCI assigned risk surcharge for high experience mod.
rating_logic: ISO Builders Risk Manual; NFPA 241; NFIP flood tables for construction; CO DOI wildfire mitigation bulletin
rating_focus: construction phase hazards, protective safeguards, and soft cost coverage
citation: https://www.verisk.com; https://www.osha.gov; https://www.fema.gov/flood-insurance
|
[
"https://www.verisk.com",
"https://www.osha.gov",
"https://www.fema.gov/flood-insurance"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.verisk.com",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "HTTP 200"
},
{
"url": "https://www.osha.gov",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "HTTP 200"
},
{
"url": "https://www.fema.gov/flood-insurance",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "HTTP 200"
}
] |
valid
|
|
Guide an underwriter through evaluating marine exposures for a importer shipping electronics via West Coast ports operating from Rockford, Illinois.
|
Marine | {"segment": "terminal operator", "cargo_type": "construction materials", "annual_shipments_value_millions": 190.1, "mode_of_transit": "air freight", "ports_of_call": "New York and Newark", "packaging_quality": "manufacturer crate with vibration monitors", "storage_protection": "port operated warehouse with limited protection", "loss_history_5yr": {"claim_count": 2, "largest_loss": 372172}, "cat_exposure": "freeze", "regulatory_consideration": "Department of Insurance requires transparency on schedule rating credits and deductibles.", "contingent_business_interruption": "coverage requested for key suppliers", "accumulation_management": "daily inventory tracking at ports"}
|
Importer shipping electronics via west coast ports ships construction materials via air freight through New York and Newark, defining exposure. Packaging quality is manufacturer crate with vibration monitors with storage protection port operated warehouse with limited protection. Loss history summary: 2 losses, largest $372,172. Department of Insurance requires transparency on schedule rating credits and deductibles. Freeze exposure requires accumulation controls and warehouse vetting. Contingent business interruption request: coverage requested for key suppliers; accumulation oversight daily inventory tracking at ports. | Set marine rate factor 1.0 with $5,000 per conveyance. Require accumulation reporting and loss control follow up on port operated warehouse with limited protection.
|
[
"https://www.aimu.org"
] |
[] |
valid
|
Explain how to evaluate contract risk for a management consulting seeking E&O coverage.
|
Explain how to evaluate contract risk for a management consulting seeking E&O coverage.
|
Start by explaining the key underwriting logic behind the scenario: 'Explain how to evaluate contract risk for a management consulting seeking E&O coverage.'. Highlight why alignment with regulatory expectations and operational fleet realities is essential. Emphasize step-by-step reasoning, referencing the source material from https://www.techinsurance.com to ensure compliance, risk visibility, and defensible coverage structure selection. Conclude with how a trainee should document exposures, justify decisions, and align risk characteristics with filed guidance.
|
[
"https://www.techinsurance.com"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.techinsurance.com",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "HTTP 200"
}
] |
valid
|
Describe the regulatory diligence steps for law firm E&O underwriting.
|
Describe the regulatory diligence steps for law firm E&O underwriting.
|
Start by explaining the key underwriting logic behind the scenario: 'Describe the regulatory diligence steps for law firm E&O underwriting.'. Highlight why alignment with regulatory expectations and operational fleet realities is essential. Emphasize step-by-step reasoning, referencing the source material from https://www.verisk.com to ensure compliance, risk visibility, and defensible coverage structure selection. Conclude with how a trainee should document exposures, justify decisions, and align risk characteristics with filed guidance.
|
[
"https://www.verisk.com"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.verisk.com",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "HTTP 200"
}
] |
valid
|
As a Pennsylvania workers compensation underwriter managing a mid-term endorsement file for a roofing contractor yard with fleet (NAICS 238160) located in Erie, explain how you assess class codes, experience mod, and medical cost trends and recommend pricing and terms. Detail risk controls, loss experience, regulatory considerations, and pricing recommendation.
|
underwriting_decision: Quote with schedule debit for high severity loss and mandate return-to-work plan. Process endorsement with revised pricing.
underwriting_reasoning: Because community fire protection is weaker (PPC 9); recent loss pattern shows 4 claims including $250K slip-and-fall settlement in 2022; severity trend pushes experience modifier above benchmark, the account requires disciplined terms. Apply +12% property schedule load with protective safeguards warranty. Coordinate ISO filings with state DOI bulletin requirements.
rating_logic: NCCI Basic Manual; NCCI Experience Rating Plan; OSHA recordkeeping guidance; PA Insurance Department schedule rating bulletin
rating_focus: class codes, experience mod, and medical cost trends
citation: https://www.osha.gov; https://www.naic.org
|
[
"https://www.osha.gov",
"https://www.naic.org"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.osha.gov",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "HTTP 200"
},
{
"url": "https://www.naic.org",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "HTTP 200"
}
] |
valid
|
|
Core Skills – coach a junior underwriter to explain how catastrophe and weather readiness factors into the underwriting call for Specialty Vehicles accounts in New York?
|
Core Skills – coach a junior underwriter to explain how catastrophe and weather readiness factors into the underwriting call for Specialty Vehicles accounts in New York?
|
Start by explaining the key underwriting logic behind the scenario: 'Core Skills – coach a junior underwriter to explain how catastrophe and weather readiness factors into the underwriting call for Specialty Vehicles accounts in New York?'. Highlight why alignment with regulatory expectations and operational fleet realities is essential. Emphasize step-by-step reasoning, referencing the source material from https://www.fema.gov/emergency-managers/national-preparedness to ensure compliance, risk visibility, and defensible coverage structure selection. Conclude with how a trainee should document exposures, justify decisions, and align risk characteristics with filed guidance.
|
[
"https://www.fema.gov/emergency-managers/national-preparedness"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.fema.gov/emergency-managers/national-preparedness",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "HTTP 200"
}
] |
valid
|
Training Stage: Expert (portfolio impact). As a trainee commercial underwriter learning Directors and Officers, evaluate the submission for a private equity portfolio company in Wilmington, NC. Provide step-by-step judgement like a mentor. Emphasize the priority: Coordinate excess layering, coinsurance, and market capacity. Mentor yourself on how to discuss referral triggers, aggregation, and facultative or reinsurance strategies.
|
learning_goal: Incorporate experience rating, CAT modeling, and facultative thresholds to protect the book. Coordinate excess layering, coinsurance, and market capacity.
training_stage: Expert
line_of_business: Directors and Officers
state: North Carolina
underwriting_reasoning: Start by Coordinate excess layering, coinsurance, and market capacity. Because this account operates in North Carolina, reference NC Rate Bureau coastal adjustments to stay compliant. Align governance, financial leverage, and peer benchmarking with limit and attachment strategy. Apply Executive Liability Underwriting Guide (2025) to anchor rate selections, and document how deviations align with filed guidance.
pricing_decision: Structure tower with 3 layers, lead pricing at 0.7000000000000001 per mil, Side A excess to follow.
loss_control_recommendation: Enhance disclosure controls and monitor SEC comment letter trends.
rating_reference: Executive Liability Underwriting Guide (2025)
citation: https://www.naic.org; https://www.irmi.com
portfolio_consideration: book diversification objective met
mentor_tip: Document how portfolio impact insights support pricing and regulatory defensibility.
|
[
"https://www.naic.org",
"https://www.irmi.com"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.naic.org",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "HTTP 200"
},
{
"url": "https://www.irmi.com",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "HTTP 200"
}
] |
valid
|
|
As a Texas builders risk underwriter managing a renewal file for a cold storage logistics warehouse (NAICS 493120) located in Austin, explain how you assess construction phase hazards, protective safeguards, and soft cost coverage and recommend pricing and terms. Detail risk controls, loss experience, regulatory considerations, and pricing recommendation.
|
underwriting_decision: Provide renewal with delay-in-completion sublimit and weather monitoring plan. Renew with targeted pricing adjustments.
underwriting_reasoning: Because building lacks fully compliant automatic sprinklers; recent loss pattern shows 2 claims including $1.2M fire loss due to electrical fault in 2020, the account requires disciplined terms. Maintain renewal pricing with 5% credit contingent on sprinkler testing. Document FMCSA compliance and MCS-90 endorsement obligations.
rating_logic: ISO Builders Risk Manual; NFPA 241; NFIP flood tables for construction; TX DOI coastal wind deductible bulletin
rating_focus: construction phase hazards, protective safeguards, and soft cost coverage
citation: https://www.osha.gov; https://www.fema.gov/flood-insurance; https://www.verisk.com
|
[
"https://www.osha.gov",
"https://www.fema.gov/flood-insurance",
"https://www.verisk.com"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.osha.gov",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "HTTP 200"
},
{
"url": "https://www.fema.gov/flood-insurance",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "HTTP 200"
},
{
"url": "https://www.verisk.com",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "HTTP 200"
}
] |
valid
|
|
Outline claim severity considerations for a regional architectural firm designing healthcare projects expanding throughout the Mountain region.
|
Professional (E&O) | {"professional_service": "regional architectural firm designing healthcare projects", "billings_millions": 41.3, "professional_staff_count": 261, "limit_requested_millions": 3, "retention_requested": "$250,000", "contract_review_frequency": "quarterly sampling", "peer_review_process": "informal second set of eyes", "regulatory_hotspot": "DOI requests documentation for hail mitigation credits and construction defect exclusions.", "loss_history_5yr": {"claim_count": 1, "largest_loss": 908039}, "cyber_dependency": "heavy reliance on cloud hosted client data"}
|
Regional architectural firm designing healthcare projects in Grand Junction, CO generates billings of 41.3 million impacting rate on line. Staffing of 261 professionals and retention $250,000 shapes severity appetite. Contract review cadence is quarterly sampling with peer review informal second set of eyes. Loss history summary: 1 claims with largest $908,039. DOI requests documentation for hail mitigation credits and construction defect exclusions. Cyber dependency assessment: heavy reliance on cloud hosted client data. | Indicate professional liability rate factor 1.05 with tie retention change to peer review compliance. Document contract improvements and data security alignment.
|
[
"https://www.aaisonline.com; https://www.irmi.com"
] |
[] |
valid
|
As a Arizona directors & officers underwriter managing a loss control follow-up file for a pharmaceutical manufacturing site (NAICS 325412) located in Phoenix, explain how you assess governance controls, regulatory inquiries, and securities class action trends and recommend pricing and terms. Detail risk controls, loss experience, regulatory considerations, and pricing recommendation.
|
underwriting_decision: Decline primary; consider excess once governance remediation is documented. Hold binding until outstanding recommendations cleared.
underwriting_reasoning: Because building lacks fully compliant automatic sprinklers, the account requires disciplined terms. Increase wind deductible to 5% and apply +20% windstorm factor. Coordinate ISO filings with state DOI bulletin requirements.
rating_logic: NAIC D&O supplements; ISO management liability rating; SEC enforcement analytics; AZ DOI brush hazard circular
rating_focus: governance controls, regulatory inquiries, and securities class action trends
citation: https://www.cisa.gov; https://www.verisk.com; https://www.naic.org
|
[
"https://www.cisa.gov",
"https://www.verisk.com",
"https://www.naic.org"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.cisa.gov",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "HTTP 200"
},
{
"url": "https://www.verisk.com",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "HTTP 200"
},
{
"url": "https://www.naic.org",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "HTTP 200"
}
] |
valid
|
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate completed operations for a concrete foundation subcontractor operating in Washington.
|
Cover commissioning evidence, warranty management, risk transfer, limits, pricing of run-off exposure, ISO class code 91585, and payroll rating basis, and Washington allows pure comparative negligence and venue selections with high wage loss multipliers.
|
I scope Completed Operations for the concrete foundation subcontractor in Washington because complex building systems tied to performs excavation, forms, reinforcing steel, and pours for mid-rise projects cause latent water intrusions where Washington allows pure comparative negligence and venue selections with high wage loss multipliers. Exposure identification: Improper flashing, HVAC condensate, or plumbing joints lead to mold and BI claims months after completion. The operation faces rebar impalements, forming collapses, and completed operations water intrusion along with Products-Completed Operations Aggregate considerations. Control evaluation: I expect warranty tracking systems, crane lift plans, and photos of concealed work. Without commissioning packets, plaintiffs claim negligent installation and insurers pay to open walls. Severity view: Severity mounts because water damage implicates mold, tenant displacement, and reputational loss. Frequency view: Frequency mirrors project volume and the mix of multifamily vs. commercial shells. Rating: ISO class code 91585 on a payroll basis. Align payroll and subcontract values with ISO class code 91585 and trend completed ops claims per project. This ensures payroll basis reflects onsite labor and incidental equipment rental. Disposition: Preferred when commissioning packets and photo logs are archived per project; otherwise apply +0.20 LCM when multifamily projects exceed 40% of revenue. Recommend $2M/$4M primary with $10M excess when projects exceed $25M and keep Products-Completed Operations Aggregate engaged because Maintain a Products-Completed Operations Aggregate equal to at least twice the largest contract. If QC photos exist for every concealed joint, disputes resolve quickly; if not, experts default against the installer. Teaching note: Teach developing underwriters to ask for commissioning packages—it is the quickest proxy for future severity. Because pure comparative negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how Washington allows pure comparative negligence and venue selections with high wage loss multipliers will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Coach a junior underwriter on framing management consulting professional liability exposure.
|
Coach a junior underwriter on framing management consulting professional liability exposure.
|
Start by explaining the key underwriting logic behind the scenario: 'Coach a junior underwriter on framing management consulting professional liability exposure.'. Highlight why alignment with regulatory expectations and operational fleet realities is essential. Emphasize step-by-step reasoning, referencing the source material from https://www.techinsurance.com to ensure compliance, risk visibility, and defensible coverage structure selection. Conclude with how a trainee should document exposures, justify decisions, and align risk characteristics with filed guidance.
|
[
"https://www.techinsurance.com"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.techinsurance.com",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "HTTP 200"
}
] |
valid
|
As a California general liability underwriter managing a post-catastrophe inspection file for a regional trucking fleet terminal (NAICS 484121) located in Sacramento, explain how you assess premises and operations hazards, products liability, and med pay considerations and recommend pricing and terms. Detail risk controls, loss experience, regulatory considerations, and pricing recommendation.
|
underwriting_decision: Accept with 10% premises liability debit; require updated COI management. Keep coverage subject to remediation plan.
underwriting_reasoning: Because recent loss pattern shows 3 claims including $1.2M fire loss due to electrical fault in 2020; earthquake exposure requires deductible management, the account requires disciplined terms. Maintain renewal pricing with 5% credit contingent on sprinkler testing. Incorporate OSHA 300 log trends into schedule rating justification.
rating_logic: AAIS Commercial GL Program; ISO GL rating plans; OSHA hazard communication standards; CA DOI wildfire surcharge bulletin
rating_focus: premises and operations hazards, products liability, and med pay considerations
citation: https://www.verisk.com; https://www.aaisonline.com; https://www.osha.gov
|
[
"https://www.verisk.com",
"https://www.aaisonline.com",
"https://www.osha.gov"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.verisk.com",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "HTTP 200"
},
{
"url": "https://www.aaisonline.com",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "HTTP 200"
},
{
"url": "https://www.osha.gov",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "HTTP 200"
}
] |
valid
|
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate operations liability for a commercial solar installer operating in Arizona.
|
Cover fall protection controls, subcontractor risk transfer, completed operations evidence, limits, pricing debits, ISO class code 92478, and payroll rating basis, and Arizona's pure comparative negligence mixes with active construction defect dockets and desert slip exposures.
|
I scope Operations Liability for the commercial solar installer in Arizona because elevated work blending with designs and installs rooftop and ground-mount PV systems with crane picks magnifies Labor Law and fall-from-height claims while Arizona's pure comparative negligence mixes with active construction defect dockets and desert slip exposures. Exposure identification: Crane picks, roof penetrations, and scaffold ties can injure workers or the public. The operation faces roof penetrations, energized testing, and completed operations fire allegations along with Products-Completed Operations Aggregate considerations. Control evaluation: I expect completed operations photo documentation, fall protection training, and subcontractor certificate tracking. Absent signed JSAs and COIs, the GC pushes liability upstream and indemnity gaps surface. Severity view: Severity can exceed $10M because New York Labor Law or similar statutes impose near strict liability. Frequency view: Frequency spikes on multi-employer sites when sequencing breaks down or weather interrupts. Rating: ISO class code 92478 on a payroll basis. Tie payroll by operation to ISO class code 92478 and apply LCM loads for crane or torch hours. This ensures payroll basis differentiates field crews from clerical staff. Disposition: Preferred only when every crew signs daily fall-protection JSAs and uploads photos; otherwise apply +0.30 LCM on crane-intensive projects. Recommend $1M/$2M plus $5M excess when projects stay under three stories and keep Products-Completed Operations Aggregate engaged because Keep the Products-Completed Operations Aggregate at least equal to the umbrella attachment for ongoing service contracts. If foremen enforce tie-off plans, frequency drops; if day labor works untrained, severity and frequency both spike. Teaching note: Teach analysts to read hold-harmless clauses before quoting so they know whose loss history they underwrite. Because pure comparative negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how Arizona's pure comparative negligence mixes with active construction defect dockets and desert slip exposures will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.osha.gov/construction"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.osha.gov/construction",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Explain how to structure umbrella for franchise food manufacturer.
|
Houston, Texas franchise food manufacturer seeks 10M umbrella over 2M GL/Auto, WC statutory. Severity drivers include chemical release potential; rolling 5-year loss ratio 50% with several large-auto events.
|
Aggregate view must align umbrella terms with underlying 2M attachments and contractual obligations. Chemical release potential warrants buffer layers plus corridor deductibles to shield from severity creep. Model clash scenarios and confirm auto and GL frequency align with the 10M ask. Decision: Decline limit increase provided updated vendor contracts. Guidance is illustrative only; refer to filed forms.
|
[
"https://www.iii.org/"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.iii.org/",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Training Stage: Mastery (strategic direction). As a trainee commercial underwriter learning Builders Risk, evaluate the submission for a high-rise mixed use build in Tacoma, WA. Provide step-by-step judgement like a mentor. Emphasize the priority: Coach on wrap-up programs, regulatory filings, and long-cycle project oversight. Mentor yourself on how to mentor on positioning, regulatory constraints, and long-range profitability levers.
|
learning_goal: Coach on negotiation tactics, regulatory guardrails, and long-term profitability of the segment. Coach on wrap-up programs, regulatory filings, and long-cycle project oversight.
training_stage: Mastery
line_of_business: Builders Risk
state: Washington
underwriting_reasoning: Start by Coach on wrap-up programs, regulatory filings, and long-cycle project oversight. Because this account operates in Washington, reference WA OIC earthquake deductible advisory to stay compliant. Stage coverage additions with project timeline, soft costs, and CAT seasonality. Monitor wildfire exposure for builders risk timeline impacts. Apply FEMA Construction Floodplain Guidance (2024) to anchor rate selections, and document how deviations align with filed guidance.
pricing_decision: Apply rate 0.408 per $100 of TIV with CAT deductible 4% and testing endorsement.
loss_control_recommendation: Coordinate flood elevation surveys and secure critical equipment storage.
rating_reference: FEMA Construction Floodplain Guidance (2024)
citation: https://www.aaisonline.com; https://www.fema.gov/flood-insurance
portfolio_consideration: book diversification objective met
mentor_tip: Document how strategic direction insights support pricing and regulatory defensibility.
|
[
"https://www.aaisonline.com",
"https://www.fema.gov/flood-insurance"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.aaisonline.com",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "HTTP 200"
},
{
"url": "https://www.fema.gov/flood-insurance",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "HTTP 200"
}
] |
valid
|
|
Explain how to balance construction, occupancy, protection, and flood stress when assessing a temperature-controlled logistics warehouse in Eugene, OR.
|
Property | {"location": "Eugene, OR", "construction_type": "light gauge steel with tilt-up panels", "occupancy": "manufacturing of precision electronics", "total_insurable_value": 82000000, "square_footage": 350746, "year_built": 2004, "sprinkler_system": "wet-pipe automatic", "roof_type": "built-up bitumen", "public_protection_class": 6, "distance_to_fire_department_miles": 2.6, "loss_history_5yr": {"claim_count": 1, "largest_loss": 486518}, "state_regulatory_focus": "DCBS expects detailed documentation on earthquake deductibles and green building credits.", "distance_to_coast_miles": 7.4}
|
The light gauge steel with tilt-up panels structure housing manufacturing of precision electronics in Eugene, OR sets the base fire and occupancy factors. Loss experience shows 1 claims with largest loss $486,518, guiding how much credibility to place on schedule credits. DCBS expects detailed documentation on earthquake deductibles and green building credits. Flood exposure drives secondary modifiers and dictates deductible structure. | Set property rate multiplier at 1.06 with a 10 percent catastrophe load. Offer $75,000 water damage deductible with sensory alarms maintained while enforcing quarterly loss control updates.
|
[
"https://www.verisk.com; https://www.nist.gov"
] |
[] |
valid
|
Analytical Mastery – demonstrate how to explain why the requested auto coverage structure must align with tow, utility, and public service fleets operating out of Mississippi?
|
Analytical Mastery – demonstrate how to explain why the requested auto coverage structure must align with tow, utility, and public service fleets operating out of Mississippi?
|
Start by explaining the key underwriting logic behind the scenario: 'Analytical Mastery – demonstrate how to explain why the requested auto coverage structure must align with tow, utility, and public service fleets operating out of Mississippi?'. Highlight why alignment with regulatory expectations and operational fleet realities is essential. Emphasize step-by-step reasoning, referencing the source material from https://content.naic.org/ to ensure compliance, risk visibility, and defensible coverage structure selection. Conclude with how a trainee should document exposures, justify decisions, and align risk characteristics with filed guidance.
|
[
"https://content.naic.org/"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://content.naic.org/",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "HTTP 200"
}
] |
valid
|
As a New York general liability underwriter managing a renewal file for a financial data center campus (NAICS 518210) located in Rochester, explain how you assess premises and operations hazards, products liability, and med pay considerations and recommend pricing and terms. Detail risk controls, loss experience, regulatory considerations, and pricing recommendation.
|
underwriting_decision: Renew with products liability surcharge and contractor risk transfer audit. Renew with targeted pricing adjustments.
underwriting_reasoning: Because community fire protection is weaker (PPC 7); recent loss pattern shows 4 claims including $600K workers comp lost-time claim in 2021, the account requires disciplined terms. Bind subject to signed indemnity agreement and financial review. Align with CISA cyber hygiene minimum control expectations.
rating_logic: AAIS Commercial GL Program; ISO GL rating plans; OSHA hazard communication standards; NY DFS terrorism surcharge notice
rating_focus: premises and operations hazards, products liability, and med pay considerations
citation: https://www.verisk.com
|
[
"https://www.verisk.com"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.verisk.com",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "HTTP 200"
}
] |
valid
|
|
Leadership Level – guide a portfolio leader to demonstrate how to analyze the provided loss history before pricing Trucking & Logistics risks in Wyoming?
|
Leadership Level – guide a portfolio leader to demonstrate how to analyze the provided loss history before pricing Trucking & Logistics risks in Wyoming?
|
Start by explaining the key underwriting logic behind the scenario: 'Leadership Level – guide a portfolio leader to demonstrate how to analyze the provided loss history before pricing Trucking & Logistics risks in Wyoming?'. Highlight why alignment with regulatory expectations and operational fleet realities is essential. Emphasize step-by-step reasoning, referencing the source material from https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-commercial-auto-insurance; https://content.naic.org/ to ensure compliance, risk visibility, and defensible coverage structure selection. Conclude with how a trainee should document exposures, justify decisions, and align risk characteristics with filed guidance.
|
[
"https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-commercial-auto-insurance; https://content.naic.org/"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-commercial-auto-insurance; https://content.naic.org/",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "HTTP 200"
}
] |
valid
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate operations liability for a concrete foundation subcontractor operating in Texas.
|
Cover fall protection controls, subcontractor risk transfer, completed operations evidence, limits, pricing debits, ISO class code 91585, and payroll rating basis, and Texas applies a 51% modified comparative negligence bar but scrutinizes punitive awards and contractual indemnity.
|
I scope Operations Liability for the concrete foundation subcontractor in Texas because elevated work blending with performs excavation, forms, reinforcing steel, and pours for mid-rise projects magnifies Labor Law and fall-from-height claims while Texas applies a 51% modified comparative negligence bar but scrutinizes punitive awards and contractual indemnity. Exposure identification: Crane picks, roof penetrations, and scaffold ties can injure workers or the public. The operation faces rebar impalements, forming collapses, and completed operations water intrusion along with Products-Completed Operations Aggregate considerations. Control evaluation: I expect completed operations photo documentation, subcontractor certificate tracking, and crane lift plans. Absent signed JSAs and COIs, the GC pushes liability upstream and indemnity gaps surface. Severity view: Severity can exceed $10M because New York Labor Law or similar statutes impose near strict liability. Frequency view: Frequency spikes on multi-employer sites when sequencing breaks down or weather interrupts. Rating: ISO class code 91585 on a payroll basis. Tie payroll by operation to ISO class code 91585 and apply LCM loads for crane or torch hours. This ensures payroll basis reflects onsite labor and incidental equipment rental. Disposition: Refer if Labor Law venues apply and every crew signs daily fall-protection JSAs and uploads photos cannot be validated. Recommend $2M/$4M primary with $10M umbrella for crane or roofing work and keep Products-Completed Operations Aggregate engaged because Keep the Products-Completed Operations Aggregate at least equal to the umbrella attachment for ongoing service contracts. If foremen enforce tie-off plans, frequency drops; if day labor works untrained, severity and frequency both spike. Teaching note: Teach analysts to read hold-harmless clauses before quoting so they know whose loss history they underwrite. Because modified comparative negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how Texas applies a 51% modified comparative negligence bar but scrutinizes punitive awards and contractual indemnity will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Assess WC exposure for seasonal roofing crews.
|
San Juan, Puerto Rico seasonal roofing crews; payroll USD 149.7M with experience mod 0.97. WC exposure centers on catastrophic severity potential; 4-year loss ratio 27% from few indemnity claims yet frequency rising.
|
Class mix with catastrophic severity potential requires scrutiny of job task segregation, crew supervision, and medical networks. Loss ratio of 27% (few indemnity claims yet frequency rising) is stable and within appetite, supporting a rate near USD 3.19 per 100 payroll plus potential large deductible. Promote ergonomic coaching and validate mod drivers against OSHA logs in Puerto Rico. Decision: Decline until safety improves while requiring supervisor training proof. Guidance is illustrative only; refer to filed forms.
|
[
"https://www.osha.gov/"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.osha.gov/",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
As a Texas workers compensation underwriter managing a loss control follow-up file for a regional grocery distribution hub (NAICS 424410) located in Houston, explain how you assess class codes, experience mod, and medical cost trends and recommend pricing and terms. Detail risk controls, loss experience, regulatory considerations, and pricing recommendation.
|
underwriting_decision: Place in assigned risk pool pending ergonomic program improvements. Hold binding until outstanding recommendations cleared.
underwriting_reasoning: Because community fire protection is weaker (PPC 8), the account requires disciplined terms. Maintain renewal pricing with 5% credit contingent on sprinkler testing. Reflect NCCI assigned risk surcharge for high experience mod.
rating_logic: NCCI Basic Manual; NCCI Experience Rating Plan; OSHA recordkeeping guidance; TX DOI coastal wind deductible bulletin
rating_focus: class codes, experience mod, and medical cost trends
citation: https://www.ncci.com; https://www.osha.gov; https://www.naic.org
|
[
"https://www.ncci.com",
"https://www.osha.gov",
"https://www.naic.org"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.ncci.com",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "HTTP 200"
},
{
"url": "https://www.osha.gov",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "HTTP 200"
},
{
"url": "https://www.naic.org",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "HTTP 200"
}
] |
valid
|
|
Explain how to evaluate contract risk for a management consulting seeking E&O coverage.
|
Explain how to evaluate contract risk for a management consulting seeking E&O coverage.
|
Start by explaining the key underwriting logic behind the scenario: 'Explain how to evaluate contract risk for a management consulting seeking E&O coverage.'. Highlight why alignment with regulatory expectations and operational fleet realities is essential. Emphasize step-by-step reasoning, referencing the source material from https://www.verisk.com to ensure compliance, risk visibility, and defensible coverage structure selection. Conclude with how a trainee should document exposures, justify decisions, and align risk characteristics with filed guidance.
|
[
"https://www.verisk.com"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.verisk.com",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "HTTP 200"
}
] |
valid
|
Walk through insurable interest for the described telehealth provider professional liability file risk.
|
Telehealth Provider headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio bills USD 71.0M annually and takes on design-build responsibilities. Claims-made history shows loss ratio 60% with defense-driven costs.
|
Insurable interest exists when the insured would suffer an economic loss if the property or liability event occurs, which keeps insurance from becoming a wager. At the foundation stage, define every core term before linking it to submission data. Scenario application: Professional services involve design-build responsibilities, fees USD 71.0M, loss ratio 60%. Practice: Show new learners how ownership, contractual obligations, or legal liability create the financial stake described in the scenario. Review QA/QC, contract terms, and retro date integrity before selecting limits and retentions. Key Takeaway: Confirm insurable interest before binding; without it, coverage cannot respond.
|
[
"https://www.iii.org/article/what-is-commercial-property-insurance"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.iii.org/article/what-is-commercial-property-insurance",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate completed operations for a property management firm operating in New York.
|
Cover commissioning evidence, warranty management, risk transfer, limits, pricing of run-off exposure, ISO class code 61217, and area rating basis, and New York Labor Law 240/241 imposes near absolute liability on elevation claims and drives defense inflation.
|
I scope Completed Operations for the property management firm in New York because complex building systems tied to manages mixed-use towers, retail promenades, and parking decks cause latent water intrusions where New York Labor Law 240/241 imposes near absolute liability on elevation claims and drives defense inflation. Exposure identification: Improper flashing, HVAC condensate, or plumbing joints lead to mold and BI claims months after completion. The operation faces parking structure falls, negligent security allegations, and lobby slip hazards along with Products-Completed Operations Aggregate considerations. Control evaluation: I expect certificate tracking for tenants and vendors, photos of concealed work, and warranty tracking systems. Without commissioning packets, plaintiffs claim negligent installation and insurers pay to open walls. Severity view: Severity mounts because water damage implicates mold, tenant displacement, and reputational loss. Frequency view: Frequency mirrors project volume and the mix of multifamily vs. commercial shells. Rating: ISO class code 61217 on a area basis. Align payroll and subcontract values with ISO class code 61217 and trend completed ops claims per project. This ensures area basis ties to managed square footage including garages and amenities. Disposition: Accept with run-off reserve monitoring and carry +15% on completed ops charges until commissioning is digitized. Recommend $2M/$4M primary with $10M excess when projects exceed $25M and keep Products-Completed Operations Aggregate engaged because Maintain a Products-Completed Operations Aggregate equal to at least twice the largest contract. If QC photos exist for every concealed joint, disputes resolve quickly; if not, experts default against the installer. Teaching note: Teach developing underwriters to ask for commissioning packages—it is the quickest proxy for future severity. Because comparative negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how New York Labor Law 240/241 imposes near absolute liability on elevation claims and drives defense inflation will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Training Stage: Advanced (complex modifiers). As a trainee commercial underwriter learning Workers Compensation, evaluate the submission for a ski resort operator in Atlanta, GA. Provide step-by-step judgement like a mentor. Emphasize the priority: Coordinate deductible programs, retrospective rating, and loss sensitive plans. Mentor yourself on how to tie bureau loss costs, state deviations, and account specifics into a composite rate.
|
learning_goal: Reconcile endorsements, territorial nuances, and large account considerations with bureau filings. Coordinate deductible programs, retrospective rating, and loss sensitive plans.
training_stage: Advanced
line_of_business: Workers Compensation
state: Georgia
underwriting_reasoning: Start by Coordinate deductible programs, retrospective rating, and loss sensitive plans. Because this account operates in Georgia, reference GA DOI ISO loss cost memo to stay compliant. Reconcile experience mod, class relativities, and deductible plan appetite. Apply NCCI Basic Manual and Experience Rating Plan (2025) to anchor rate selections, and document how deviations align with filed guidance.
pricing_decision: Bind subject to experience mod 1.5 and large deductible plan with $198000 retention.
loss_control_recommendation: Deploy nurse triage vendor and update safety committee agendas quarterly.
rating_reference: NCCI Basic Manual and Experience Rating Plan (2025)
citation: https://www.naic.org; https://www.ncci.com
mentor_tip: Document how complex modifiers insights support pricing and regulatory defensibility.
|
[
"https://www.naic.org",
"https://www.ncci.com"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.naic.org",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "HTTP 200"
},
{
"url": "https://www.ncci.com",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "HTTP 200"
}
] |
valid
|
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate products liability for a nutraceutical manufacturer operating in Massachusetts.
|
Cover ingredient sourcing, quality control, recall planning, limits, pricing modifiers, ISO class code 59650, and gross sales rating basis, and Massachusetts Chapter 93A can treble damages for unfair practices, affecting product and advertising injury picks.
|
I scope Products Liability for the nutraceutical manufacturer in Massachusetts because ingestible goods produced alongside GMP plants blending botanicals, encapsulation lines, and fulfillment centers trigger contamination allegations whenever Massachusetts Chapter 93A can treble damages for unfair practices, affecting product and advertising injury picks. Exposure identification: Cross-contact, temperature abuse, and allergen mislabeling can trigger nationwide recalls. The operation faces potency variance, cross-contamination, and mislabeling claims along with Products-Completed Operations Aggregate considerations. Control evaluation: I expect third-party sanitation audits, supplier approval programs, and automated weight checks. Missing lot tracking or kill-step validation extends recall scope and spikes severity. Severity view: Severity hinges on hospitalizations or class actions, so per-occurrence limits must contemplate multi-state recalls. Frequency view: Frequency tracks with batch size and outsourced co-packers, so the model must monitor supplier discipline. Rating: ISO class code 59650 on a gross sales basis. Tie ISO class code 59650 to gross sales and adjust for per-unit exposure when exports exceed 25%. This ensures gross sales basis reflects capsules, powders, and online subscriptions. Disposition: Preferred once mock recalls prove every lot is traced within two hours; otherwise add +20% for co-packers lacking third-party audits. Recommend $1M/$2M plus $5M umbrella when sales stay regional and controls are hardened and keep Products-Completed Operations Aggregate engaged because Set the Products-Completed Operations Aggregate at least two times the occurrence limit to absorb recall clusters. If UL or third-party labs certify each lot, severity drops; if co-packers skip HACCP logs, frequency spikes. Teaching note: Remind trainees that supply-chain transparency drives both rating basis accuracy and coverage negotiations. Because comparative negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how Massachusetts Chapter 93A can treble damages for unfair practices, affecting product and advertising injury picks will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
How should an underwriter analyze completed and ongoing operations liability on this fitness facility in Florida?
|
Account: small fitness center franchise located in Florida (moisture-driven slip frequency and active plaintiff bar).
Industry Classification: ISO 48501 / NAICS 713940 rated on gross sales with annual physical audit.
Financial Basis: $85M in receipts and $1.2M payroll.
Premises Exposure: shared parking lot with uneven asphalt and limited lighting with sees school tour groups weekly during peak season.
Operations Exposure: relies on cloud-based work orders for customer sites and service-tier SLAs and deploys vendor-managed delivery teams under FMCSA authority.
Products Exposure: maintains e-commerce sales that ship nationwide with barcode lot tracking with QC supported by executes vendor hold-harmless reviews quarterly.
Completed Operations: provides as-built documentation but not always sealed by professionals.
Contractual / Additional Insured: COI tracking occurs quarterly via spreadsheets.
Claims History: completed operations suit alleging water intrusion awaits mediation.
Limits & Deductibles: $2M / $4M primary plus $10M excess tower and defense outside limits per ISO CG 00 01.
Risk Controls: executes vendor hold-harmless reviews quarterly.
Regulatory Compliance: OSHA 1926 fall protection plans updated annually.
Scenario: broker requesting quick indication for lender covenant.
|
Use ISO CG 00 01 occurrence form relativities for class code 48501 and gross sales exposure base. Field supervision must align with relies on cloud-based work orders for customer sites and service-tier SLAs while warranty practice of provides as-built documentation but not always sealed by professionals drives completed operations load; confirm job file audits. Trend completed operations suit alleging water intrusion awaits mediation against Florida severity expectations and pure comparative negligence statutes while validating exposure shifts from broker requesting quick indication for lender covenant. Tie OSHA 1926.501 fall protection plans directly to relies on cloud-based work orders for customer sites and service-tier SLAs oversight. Add 15% products rate load until completed operations suit alleging water intrusion awaits mediation stabilizes and corrective actions prove effective. Underwriting decision: Conditional bind subject to loss control verification.
| null |
[
{
"url": "https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1926/1926.501",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Teach a foundational analyst to outline how to review premises liability controls for a food-truck commissary and catering kitchen requesting $10M/$10M limits.
|
ISO class 7398 food-truck commissary and catering kitchen in Illinois manages commissary stalls have wet floors from daily washdowns and propane storage. The location is maintaining 85% occupancy with convention peaks, reported three slip-and-fall claims totaling $180,000 over five years, and Illinois courts allow Biometric Information Privacy Act suits under GL policies, pressuring defense costs.. The insured requests $10M/$10M limits with $50,000 SIR while maintaining atriums with glass railings and open balconies.
|
1. Concept explanation: This stage reinforces how the CGL occurrence form responds to negligence basics. Premises liability under the ISO CG 00 01 form centers on the insured's duty to maintain safe conditions for invitees, as highlighted by the Insurance Information Institute and NAIC consumer guidance.
2. Real-world application: Walkthroughs validate how the insured mitigates maintaining atriums with glass railings and open balconies by maintaining documented floor inspection logs and spill response within 15 minutes, aligning with OSHA walking-working surface rules and NFPA 101 life-safety expectations.
3. Decision reasoning: Decisions at this level confirm that exposures align with ISO CG 00 01 triggers and baseline loss controls. Blend traffic data such as maintaining 85% occupancy with convention peaks, the noted loss experience of reported three slip-and-fall claims totaling $180,000 over five years, and Illinois courts allow Biometric Information Privacy Act suits under GL policies, pressuring defense costs. to decide whether to surcharge rates, mandate inspections, or modify deductibles.
4. Key takeaway: link every coverage explanation back to the insured's duty of care shown in Illinois courts allow Biometric Information Privacy Act suits under GL policies, pressuring defense costs..
|
[
"https://www.osha.gov/walking-working-surfaces"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.osha.gov/walking-working-surfaces",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Advanced judgement: connect coverage structure, limits, and deductibles to exposure for company vehicle fleets in Massachusetts.
|
Account: pest control franchise covering coastal evacuation zone inside MA. Fleet: 84 units of crew-cab pickups with service bodies (model years 2019-2024) with crew-cab pickups with service bodies with speed limiters and telematics fobs. Operations: dense residential spray routes plus hospitality fogging on metro dispatch with occasional border-state trips (blend of metro and 250-mile regional swings). Territory: Massachusetts - MA compulsory PIP and managed competition rules.. Loss history: two intersection crashes and one UM claim with loss ratio 58% and $310k UM settlement. Controls/tech: outsourced MVR monitoring with hotlists plus smartphone telematics apps. Maintenance & yard: mobile PM vendors plus fluid analysis and leased municipal yard with limited lighting. Contracts/filings: health system agreements needing $1M CSL proof with state Form E evidence; no federal filing. Focus: Explain contractual requirements, filings, and appetite for retentions. and coverage goal requires HNOA for sales staff and drive-other-car endorsements.
|
Push beyond checklist thinking by Inventory needs such as requires HNOA for sales staff and drive-other-car endorsements plus health system agreements needing $1M CSL proof. Coverage tweaks should mirror attritional causes in two intersection crashes and one UM claim. Use $310k UM settlement to decide if layered deductibles or captive corridors make sense. ISO/AAIS fleet relativities and state-filed deviations plus contractual promises defend hold neutral but warn of deductible participation. Adjust $1k comp/$2.5k collision and consider aggregate stop-loss for volatility. Tie every coverage change to a spelled-out risk factor.
|
[
"https://www.irmi.com",
"https://www.naic.org"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.irmi.com",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
},
{
"url": "https://www.naic.org",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Coach a junior underwriter on framing technology service provider professional liability exposure.
|
Coach a junior underwriter on framing technology service provider professional liability exposure.
|
Start by explaining the key underwriting logic behind the scenario: 'Coach a junior underwriter on framing technology service provider professional liability exposure.'. Highlight why alignment with regulatory expectations and operational fleet realities is essential. Emphasize step-by-step reasoning, referencing the source material from https://www.irmi.com to ensure compliance, risk visibility, and defensible coverage structure selection. Conclude with how a trainee should document exposures, justify decisions, and align risk characteristics with filed guidance.
|
[
"https://www.irmi.com"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.irmi.com",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "HTTP 200"
}
] |
valid
|
How should an underwriter analyze completed and ongoing operations liability on this modular builder in Georgia?
|
Account: national modular home builder located in Georgia (punitive exposure on motor carrier and premises claims).
Industry Classification: ISO 98449 / NAICS 236115 rated on payroll with hybrid payroll/sales audit.
Financial Basis: $8M in receipts and $11M payroll.
Premises Exposure: warehouse mezzanine reached by steep stair towers with limited public access but high contractor turnover throughout the day.
Operations Exposure: uses cranes and aerial lifts on congested downtown projects and uses only insured subs but hold-harmless wording is inconsistent.
Products Exposure: keeps serialized lot control integrated with ERP and recall playbooks with QC supported by maintains vendor approval platform with live COI tracking.
Completed Operations: offers five-year workmanship guarantees backed by photo logs.
Contractual / Additional Insured: vendor agreements mandate $5M umbrella certificates within 30 days.
Claims History: no paid losses but OSHA citations triggered $18K in fines.
Limits & Deductibles: $1M / $2M primary including CG 20 10 & CG 20 37 plus $10M umbrella and expense within limits for umbrella layer.
Risk Controls: maintains vendor approval platform with live COI tracking.
Regulatory Compliance: State DOI filing requires silica endorsement CG 21 96 on heavy trades.
Scenario: client added e-commerce channel requiring deeper products review.
|
Benchmark AAIS CGL filings for comparable modular builder risks before applying schedule rating. Because uses only insured subs but hold-harmless wording is inconsistent, require photo documentation and signoffs before closing punch-lists to contain rework claims. Trend no paid losses but OSHA citations triggered $18K in fines against Georgia severity expectations and modified comparative negligence statutes while validating exposure shifts from client added e-commerce channel requiring deeper products review. Confirm FMCSA safety management controls for delivery components embedded in uses cranes and aerial lifts on congested downtown projects. Grant 5% credit for maintains vendor approval platform with live COI tracking once documentation is received but cap total credits at 10%. Underwriting decision: Modify terms pending contractual transfer evidence.
| null |
[
{
"url": "https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1926/1926.501",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Discuss rate and deductible structuring for a data center construction with modular components where hail is a material concern.
|
Builders Risk | {"project_description": "data center construction with modular components", "project_location": "Grand Rapids, MI", "construction_phase": "foundation", "total_insurable_value_millions": 213.9, "scheduled_completion_months": 33, "delivery_method": "CM at risk", "site_security": "24/7 security with cameras", "fire_protection_plan": "portable extinguishers only", "water_damage_controls": "no formal controls", "loss_history_prior_projects": {"claim_count": 0, "largest_loss": 0}, "cat_exposure": "hail", "regulatory_consideration": "DFI evaluates manufacturing risk credits and requires auto residual market coordination.", "prefabrication_percentage": 35}
|
Project in Grand Rapids, MI valued at 213.9 million and currently in foundation stage. Site security: 24/7 security with cameras; fire controls: portable extinguishers only; water controls: no formal controls. Historical performance: no prior builders risk claims. DFI evaluates manufacturing risk credits and requires auto residual market coordination. Hail exposure guides deductible and limit structure. Prefabrication percentage: 35 percent. | Apply builders risk rate 0.435 per $100 of values with $25,000 all other perils / $250,000 wind. Document site controls and maintain CAT aggregation review.
|
[
"https://www.osha.gov; https://www.fema.gov/flood-insurance"
] |
[] |
valid
|
Lay out a pricing rationale for an experienced management consulting account.
|
Lay out a pricing rationale for an experienced management consulting account.
|
Start by explaining the key underwriting logic behind the scenario: 'Lay out a pricing rationale for an experienced management consulting account.'. Highlight why alignment with regulatory expectations and operational fleet realities is essential. Emphasize step-by-step reasoning, referencing the source material from https://www.naic.org to ensure compliance, risk visibility, and defensible coverage structure selection. Conclude with how a trainee should document exposures, justify decisions, and align risk characteristics with filed guidance.
|
[
"https://www.naic.org"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.naic.org",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "HTTP 200"
}
] |
valid
|
Show how broker and insured communication informs an accept/modify/decline decision for the modular home assemblers workers' comp submission risk.
|
Employer in Denver, Colorado with modular home assemblers reports USD 34.9M payroll, mod 1.34. Primary injury drivers: heat stress. Three-year loss ratio 56% with both medical-only and indemnity claims.
|
Transparent communication on pricing logic and required controls builds trust and avoids surprises. Decision-level mentoring stresses appetite, authority, compliance, and broker negotiation. Scenario application: Job duties revolve around modular home assemblers, hazards include heat stress, payroll USD 34.9M, mod 1.34, loss ratio 56%. Practice: Model how to explain the outcome, including any subjectivities, based on the file facts. Validate class codes, review loss run notes, and align safety programs before pricing. Key Takeaway: Document every commitment shared with the broker.
|
[
"https://www.iii.org/article/understanding-your-insurance-policy"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.iii.org/article/understanding-your-insurance-policy",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Training Stage: Mastery (strategic direction). As a trainee commercial underwriter learning Professional Liability, evaluate the submission for a accounting practice in Cleveland, OH. Provide step-by-step judgement like a mentor. Emphasize the priority: Coach on regulatory filings, emerging exposures, and advisory bulletins. Mentor yourself on how to mentor on positioning, regulatory constraints, and long-range profitability levers.
|
learning_goal: Coach on negotiation tactics, regulatory guardrails, and long-term profitability of the segment. Coach on regulatory filings, emerging exposures, and advisory bulletins.
training_stage: Mastery
line_of_business: Professional Liability
state: Ohio
underwriting_reasoning: Start by Coach on regulatory filings, emerging exposures, and advisory bulletins. Because this account operates in Ohio, reference OH BWC and schedule rating memo to stay compliant. Validate retro dates, contract risk transfer, and severity potential before setting rate. Apply ISO E&O Rating Considerations (Verisk, 2025) to anchor rate selections, and document how deviations align with filed guidance.
pricing_decision: Recommend 5M limit with 160000 retention and +17% severity load.
loss_control_recommendation: Implement credentialing audits for subcontractors and telehealth providers.
rating_reference: ISO E&O Rating Considerations (Verisk, 2025)
citation: https://www.aaisonline.com; https://www.irmi.com
portfolio_consideration: aggregate exposure nearing threshold
mentor_tip: Document how strategic direction insights support pricing and regulatory defensibility.
|
[
"https://www.aaisonline.com",
"https://www.irmi.com"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.aaisonline.com",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "HTTP 200"
},
{
"url": "https://www.irmi.com",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "HTTP 200"
}
] |
valid
|
|
As the GL underwriter, outline the premises analysis for this auto parts distributor submission.
|
Account: regional auto parts distributor located in Massachusetts (comparative negligence with consumer protection statute Chapter 93A).
Industry Classification: ISO 45600 / NAICS 423120 rated on gross sales with hybrid payroll/sales audit.
Financial Basis: $4M in receipts and $4.8M payroll.
Premises Exposure: aging sprinkler system pending NFPA 25 inspection with experiences weekend surges that double occupancy.
Operations Exposure: conducts quarterly safety drills with joint employee/vendor teams and keeps work in-house with union labor and minimal subcontracting.
Products Exposure: distributes telematics sensors to fleet operators with QC supported by adopts UL-certified components and barcoded lot tracking.
Completed Operations: warranty extends two years with limited jobsite inspections.
Contractual / Additional Insured: vendor agreements mandate $5M umbrella certificates within 30 days.
Claims History: medical payments reimbursements average $2K annually.
Limits & Deductibles: $2M / $2M occurrence/aggregate with $5K med pay and $5M umbrella and separate $250K defense endorsement purchased.
Risk Controls: adopts UL-certified components and barcoded lot tracking.
Regulatory Compliance: FMCSA driver qualification files audited quarterly.
Scenario: exposure change due to expansion into two new states.
|
Use ISO CG 00 01 occurrence form relativities for class code 45600 and gross sales exposure base. Validate ingress and egress controls given aging sprinkler system pending NFPA 25 inspection and experiences weekend surges that double occupancy; insist on documentable housekeeping logs tied to adopts UL-certified components and barcoded lot tracking. Trend medical payments reimbursements average $2K annually against Massachusetts severity expectations and comparative negligence statutes while validating exposure shifts from exposure change due to expansion into two new states. Confirm FMCSA safety management controls for delivery components embedded in conducts quarterly safety drills with joint employee/vendor teams. Attach per-project aggregate endorsement to keep $2M / $2M occurrence/aggregate with $5K med pay and $5M umbrella from collapsing under exposure change due to expansion into two new states expansion. Underwriting decision: Accept with risk control follow-up.
| null |
[
{
"url": "https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1926/1926.501",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Advanced judgement: connect coverage structure, limits, and deductibles to exposure for last-mile delivery programs in New Jersey.
|
Account: grocery micro-fulfillment fleet covering coastal evacuation zone inside NJ. Fleet: 72 units of compact cargo vans and walk-ins (model years 2017-2023) with compact cargo vans and walk-ins with driver ID badges. Operations: 90-minute chilled deliveries on college towns with steep hills and snowpack (downtown congestion zones). Territory: New Jersey - NJ PIP options, dense tollways, and UM stacking risk require documentation.. Loss history: ten mirror strikes and two dog bites with loss ratio 38% and $185k cyclist injury. Controls/tech: VR reversing drills and curbside assessments plus tablet route navigation. Maintenance & yard: OEM electric van maintenance and garage with public access. Contracts/filings: health system STAT contract with files NJ Form E and NYC commercial plates. Focus: Explain contractual requirements, filings, and appetite for retentions. and coverage goal adds contingent auto for gig drivers and $500k UM/UIM.
|
Push beyond checklist thinking by Inventory needs such as adds contingent auto for gig drivers and $500k UM/UIM plus health system STAT contract. Coverage tweaks should mirror attritional causes in ten mirror strikes and two dog bites. Use $185k cyclist injury to decide if layered deductibles or captive corridors make sense. ISO commercial auto manuals plus gig program guides plus contractual promises defend lean toward +6% surcharge until controls prove out. Adjust $5k collision with aggregate cap and consider aggregate stop-loss for volatility. Tie every coverage change to a spelled-out risk factor.
|
[
"https://www.irmi.com",
"https://www.naic.org"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.irmi.com",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
},
{
"url": "https://www.naic.org",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Training Stage: Progression (factor weighting). As a trainee commercial underwriter learning Professional Liability, evaluate the submission for a life sciences consultant in Jersey City, NJ. Provide step-by-step judgement like a mentor. Emphasize the priority: Weight contract risk transfer and limit adequacy. Mentor yourself on how to explain how to balance frequency versus severity and manual debits or credits.
|
learning_goal: Practice weighting loss drivers against benchmarks and schedule rating or loss cost modifiers. Weight contract risk transfer and limit adequacy.
training_stage: Progression
line_of_business: Professional Liability
state: New Jersey
underwriting_reasoning: Start by Weight contract risk transfer and limit adequacy. Because this account operates in New Jersey, reference NJ DOBI hurricane deductible addendum to stay compliant. Validate retro dates, contract risk transfer, and severity potential before setting rate. Apply Specialty Professional Liability Manual (AAIS, 2024) to anchor rate selections, and document how deviations align with filed guidance.
pricing_decision: Recommend 2M limit with 100000 retention and +16% severity load.
loss_control_recommendation: Review client engagement letters with legal counsel every renewal.
rating_reference: Specialty Professional Liability Manual (AAIS, 2024)
citation: https://www.aaisonline.com; https://www.irmi.com
mentor_tip: Document how factor weighting insights support pricing and regulatory defensibility.
|
[
"https://www.aaisonline.com",
"https://www.irmi.com"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.aaisonline.com",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "HTTP 200"
},
{
"url": "https://www.irmi.com",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "HTTP 200"
}
] |
valid
|
|
Training Stage: Advanced (complex modifiers). As a trainee commercial underwriter learning Directors and Officers, evaluate the submission for a nonprofit healthcare system in Tempe, AZ. Provide step-by-step judgement like a mentor. Emphasize the priority: Address investigations, derivative claims, and Side A needs. Mentor yourself on how to tie bureau loss costs, state deviations, and account specifics into a composite rate.
|
learning_goal: Reconcile endorsements, territorial nuances, and large account considerations with bureau filings. Address investigations, derivative claims, and Side A needs.
training_stage: Advanced
line_of_business: Directors and Officers
state: Arizona
underwriting_reasoning: Start by Address investigations, derivative claims, and Side A needs. Because this account operates in Arizona, reference AZ DOI brush hazard circular to stay compliant. Align governance, financial leverage, and peer benchmarking with limit and attachment strategy. Apply NAIC Directors and Officers Regulatory Report (2024) to anchor rate selections, and document how deviations align with filed guidance.
pricing_decision: Structure tower with 6 layers, lead pricing at 0.8 per mil, Side A excess to follow.
loss_control_recommendation: Formalize crisis management tabletop exercises with outside counsel.
rating_reference: NAIC Directors and Officers Regulatory Report (2024)
citation: https://www.verisk.com/insurance/; https://www.naic.org
mentor_tip: Document how complex modifiers insights support pricing and regulatory defensibility.
|
[
"https://www.verisk.com/insurance/",
"https://www.naic.org"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.verisk.com/insurance/",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "HTTP 200"
},
{
"url": "https://www.naic.org",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "HTTP 200"
}
] |
valid
|
|
Lay out a pricing rationale for an experienced law firm account.
|
Lay out a pricing rationale for an experienced law firm account.
|
Start by explaining the key underwriting logic behind the scenario: 'Lay out a pricing rationale for an experienced law firm account.'. Highlight why alignment with regulatory expectations and operational fleet realities is essential. Emphasize step-by-step reasoning, referencing the source material from https://www.iii.org to ensure compliance, risk visibility, and defensible coverage structure selection. Conclude with how a trainee should document exposures, justify decisions, and align risk characteristics with filed guidance.
|
[
"https://www.iii.org"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.iii.org",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "HTTP 200"
}
] |
valid
|
As a Ohio workers compensation underwriter managing a new business file for a pharmaceutical manufacturing site (NAICS 325412) located in Cleveland, explain how you assess class codes, experience mod, and medical cost trends and recommend pricing and terms. Detail risk controls, loss experience, regulatory considerations, and pricing recommendation.
|
underwriting_decision: Renew with experience mod surcharge and nurse case management requirement. Quote with disciplined underwriting guardrails.
underwriting_reasoning: Because building lacks fully compliant automatic sprinklers; severity trend pushes experience modifier above benchmark, the account requires disciplined terms. Increase wind deductible to 5% and apply +20% windstorm factor. Document FMCSA compliance and MCS-90 endorsement obligations.
rating_logic: NCCI Basic Manual; NCCI Experience Rating Plan; OSHA recordkeeping guidance; OH DOI GL schedule rating bulletin
rating_focus: class codes, experience mod, and medical cost trends
citation: https://www.osha.gov; https://www.naic.org
|
[
"https://www.osha.gov",
"https://www.naic.org"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.osha.gov",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "HTTP 200"
},
{
"url": "https://www.naic.org",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "HTTP 200"
}
] |
valid
|
|
Training Stage: Progression (factor weighting). As a trainee commercial underwriter learning Inland Marine, evaluate the submission for a installation floater for solar farm in San Diego, CA. Provide step-by-step judgement like a mentor. Emphasize the priority: Assess theft and collision controls and deductible options. Mentor yourself on how to explain how to balance frequency versus severity and manual debits or credits.
|
learning_goal: Practice weighting loss drivers against benchmarks and schedule rating or loss cost modifiers. Assess theft and collision controls and deductible options.
training_stage: Progression
line_of_business: Inland Marine
state: California
underwriting_reasoning: Start by Assess theft and collision controls and deductible options. Because this account operates in California, reference CA DOI wildfire mitigation surcharge bulletin to stay compliant. Weigh property schedule dispersion against theft controls and deductibles. Aggregation in wildfire requires storage segregation. Apply AIMU Loss Control Guidelines (2024) to anchor rate selections, and document how deviations align with filed guidance.
pricing_decision: Schedule rate at 80 cents per $100 with deductible 1900.
loss_control_recommendation: Document cargo handling SOPs and dual-control release verification.
rating_reference: AIMU Loss Control Guidelines (2024)
citation: https://www.aaisonline.com; https://www.aimu.org
mentor_tip: Document how factor weighting insights support pricing and regulatory defensibility.
|
[
"https://www.aaisonline.com",
"https://www.aimu.org"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.aaisonline.com",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "HTTP 200"
},
{
"url": "https://www.aimu.org",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "HTTP 200"
}
] |
valid
|
|
Walk through evaluating controls and exposure for a logistics provider coordinating cloud driven supply chains handling sensitive data in Tacoma, WA.
|
Cyber | {"industry_profile": "logistics provider coordinating cloud driven supply chains", "records_at_risk_millions": 3.25, "critical_systems": "fully outsourced payment platform", "mfa_deployed": "enterprise wide", "backup_frequency": "hourly snapshots", "security_awareness_training": "quarterly learning", "incident_response_plan": "tested tabletop in last 12 months", "vendor_risk_management": "contractual reviews only", "loss_history_3yr": {"incident_count": 0, "largest_loss": 0}, "regulatory_focus": "Office of Insurance Commissioner requires earthquake risk justification and green building credits.", "systemic_vendor_dependency": "heavily reliant on single cloud provider", "ransomware_controls": "no advanced ransomware controls"}
|
Logistics provider coordinating cloud driven supply chains in Tacoma, WA houses 3.25 million records and depends on fully outsourced payment platform. MFA status is enterprise wide with backups hourly snapshots and training quarterly learning. Incident response maturity: tested tabletop in last 12 months. Vendor risk approach: contractual reviews only. Loss history shows no recent cyber incidents. Office of Insurance Commissioner requires earthquake risk justification and green building credits. Systemic vendor dependency: heavily reliant on single cloud provider. Ransomware control status: no advanced ransomware controls. | Apply cyber rate factor 1.09 with limit deployment aligned to systemic exposure. maintain retention with coinsurance waiver.
|
[
"https://www.nist.gov; https://www.cisa.gov"
] |
[] |
valid
|
Lay out a pricing rationale for an experienced law firm account.
|
Lay out a pricing rationale for an experienced law firm account.
|
Start by explaining the key underwriting logic behind the scenario: 'Lay out a pricing rationale for an experienced law firm account.'. Highlight why alignment with regulatory expectations and operational fleet realities is essential. Emphasize step-by-step reasoning, referencing the source material from https://www.irmi.com to ensure compliance, risk visibility, and defensible coverage structure selection. Conclude with how a trainee should document exposures, justify decisions, and align risk characteristics with filed guidance.
|
[
"https://www.irmi.com"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.irmi.com",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "HTTP 200"
}
] |
valid
|
Training Stage: Expert (portfolio impact). As a trainee commercial underwriter learning Builders Risk, evaluate the submission for a hospital expansion project in Trenton, NJ. Provide step-by-step judgement like a mentor. Emphasize the priority: Coordinate towers, soft costs, delay in completion, and facultative strategy. Mentor yourself on how to discuss referral triggers, aggregation, and facultative or reinsurance strategies.
|
learning_goal: Incorporate experience rating, CAT modeling, and facultative thresholds to protect the book. Coordinate towers, soft costs, delay in completion, and facultative strategy.
training_stage: Expert
line_of_business: Builders Risk
state: New Jersey
underwriting_reasoning: Start by Coordinate towers, soft costs, delay in completion, and facultative strategy. Because this account operates in New Jersey, reference NJ DOBI hurricane deductible addendum to stay compliant. Stage coverage additions with project timeline, soft costs, and CAT seasonality. Monitor wind exposure for builders risk timeline impacts. Apply Builders Risk Rating Guide (Verisk, 2025) to anchor rate selections, and document how deviations align with filed guidance.
pricing_decision: Apply rate 0.311 per $100 of TIV with CAT deductible 4% and testing endorsement.
loss_control_recommendation: Update project CPM schedule monthly and escalate delay drivers early.
rating_reference: Builders Risk Rating Guide (Verisk, 2025)
citation: https://www.verisk.com/insurance/; https://www.fema.gov/flood-insurance
portfolio_consideration: book diversification objective met
mentor_tip: Document how portfolio impact insights support pricing and regulatory defensibility.
|
[
"https://www.verisk.com/insurance/",
"https://www.fema.gov/flood-insurance"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.verisk.com/insurance/",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "HTTP 200"
},
{
"url": "https://www.fema.gov/flood-insurance",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "HTTP 200"
}
] |
valid
|
|
Training Stage: Foundation (baseline exposure discovery). As a trainee commercial underwriter learning General Liability, evaluate the submission for a coastal amusement park in Pittsburgh, PA. Provide step-by-step judgement like a mentor. Emphasize the priority: Spot premises exposures, operations scope, and class code fit. Mentor yourself on how to walk through COPE data capture and fit with filed manuals.
|
learning_goal: Identify core exposure, protection, and occupancy elements that drive initial underwriting screens. Spot premises exposures, operations scope, and class code fit.
training_stage: Foundation
line_of_business: General Liability
state: Pennsylvania
underwriting_reasoning: Start by Spot premises exposures, operations scope, and class code fit. Because this account operates in Pennsylvania, reference PA Insurance Department schedule rating bulletin to stay compliant. Balance premises, operations, and products hazards with loss history debits. Apply ISO Commercial General Liability Manual (Verisk, 2025) to anchor rate selections, and document how deviations align with filed guidance.
pricing_decision: Offer terms with 7.9% schedule modification and products-completed ops aggregate of 4M.
loss_control_recommendation: Expand product recall plan testing and track customer indemnity certificates.
rating_reference: ISO Commercial General Liability Manual (Verisk, 2025)
citation: https://www.naic.org; https://www.verisk.com/insurance/
mentor_tip: Document how baseline exposure discovery insights support pricing and regulatory defensibility.
|
[
"https://www.naic.org",
"https://www.verisk.com/insurance/"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.naic.org",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "HTTP 200"
},
{
"url": "https://www.verisk.com/insurance/",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "HTTP 200"
}
] |
valid
|
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate products liability for a custom electronics assembler operating in Indiana.
|
Cover ingredient sourcing, quality control, recall planning, limits, pricing modifiers, ISO class code 58958, and gross sales rating basis, and Indiana caps punitive damages yet requires safety program evidence before credits are granted.
|
I scope Products Liability for the custom electronics assembler in Indiana because ingestible goods produced alongside surface-mount soldering, firmware loading, and burn-in testing trigger contamination allegations whenever Indiana caps punitive damages yet requires safety program evidence before credits are granted. Exposure identification: Cross-contact, temperature abuse, and allergen mislabeling can trigger nationwide recalls. The operation faces battery failures, overheating boards, and firmware bugs triggering recalls along with Products-Completed Operations Aggregate considerations. Control evaluation: I expect HAACP or HARPC plans, UL certification files, and third-party sanitation audits. Missing lot tracking or kill-step validation extends recall scope and spikes severity. Severity view: Severity hinges on hospitalizations or class actions, so per-occurrence limits must contemplate multi-state recalls. Frequency view: Frequency tracks with batch size and outsourced co-packers, so the model must monitor supplier discipline. Rating: ISO class code 58958 on a gross sales basis. Tie ISO class code 58958 to gross sales and adjust for per-unit exposure when exports exceed 25%. This ensures gross sales account for OEM assemblies and direct shipments. Disposition: Accept with a surveillance reminder and add +20% for co-packers lacking third-party audits until QA automation is verified. Recommend $2M/$4M primary with $10M excess for national distribution and keep Products-Completed Operations Aggregate engaged because Set the Products-Completed Operations Aggregate at least two times the occurrence limit to absorb recall clusters. If UL or third-party labs certify each lot, severity drops; if co-packers skip HACCP logs, frequency spikes. Teaching note: Remind trainees that supply-chain transparency drives both rating basis accuracy and coverage negotiations. Because modified comparative negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how Indiana caps punitive damages yet requires safety program evidence before credits are granted will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
As a Texas builders risk underwriter managing a renewal file for a craft brewery with taproom (NAICS 312120) located in Dallas, explain how you assess construction phase hazards, protective safeguards, and soft cost coverage and recommend pricing and terms. Detail risk controls, loss experience, regulatory considerations, and pricing recommendation.
|
underwriting_decision: Bind builders risk with water damage deductible and hot work compliance. Renew with targeted pricing adjustments.
underwriting_reasoning: Because building lacks fully compliant automatic sprinklers; community fire protection is weaker (PPC 8); recent loss pattern shows 2 claims including $250K slip-and-fall settlement in 2022, the account requires disciplined terms. Apply +12% property schedule load with protective safeguards warranty. Align with CISA cyber hygiene minimum control expectations.
rating_logic: ISO Builders Risk Manual; NFPA 241; NFIP flood tables for construction; TX DOI coastal wind deductible bulletin
rating_focus: construction phase hazards, protective safeguards, and soft cost coverage
citation: https://www.osha.gov; https://www.verisk.com
|
[
"https://www.osha.gov",
"https://www.verisk.com"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.osha.gov",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "HTTP 200"
},
{
"url": "https://www.verisk.com",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "HTTP 200"
}
] |
valid
|
|
Explain how to evaluate contract risk for a technology service provider seeking E&O coverage.
|
Explain how to evaluate contract risk for a technology service provider seeking E&O coverage.
|
Start by explaining the key underwriting logic behind the scenario: 'Explain how to evaluate contract risk for a technology service provider seeking E&O coverage.'. Highlight why alignment with regulatory expectations and operational fleet realities is essential. Emphasize step-by-step reasoning, referencing the source material from https://www.iii.org to ensure compliance, risk visibility, and defensible coverage structure selection. Conclude with how a trainee should document exposures, justify decisions, and align risk characteristics with filed guidance.
|
[
"https://www.iii.org"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.iii.org",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "HTTP 200"
}
] |
valid
|
Training Stage: Mastery (strategic direction). As a trainee commercial underwriter learning Directors and Officers, evaluate the submission for a regional bank in Seattle, WA. Provide step-by-step judgement like a mentor. Emphasize the priority: Coach on regulatory inquiries, ESG disclosures, and long-term strategy. Mentor yourself on how to mentor on positioning, regulatory constraints, and long-range profitability levers.
|
learning_goal: Coach on negotiation tactics, regulatory guardrails, and long-term profitability of the segment. Coach on regulatory inquiries, ESG disclosures, and long-term strategy.
training_stage: Mastery
line_of_business: Directors and Officers
state: Washington
underwriting_reasoning: Start by Coach on regulatory inquiries, ESG disclosures, and long-term strategy. Because this account operates in Washington, reference WA OIC earthquake deductible advisory to stay compliant. Align governance, financial leverage, and peer benchmarking with limit and attachment strategy. Apply Executive Liability Underwriting Guide (2025) to anchor rate selections, and document how deviations align with filed guidance.
pricing_decision: Structure tower with 6 layers, lead pricing at 1.9000000000000001 per mil, Side A excess to follow.
loss_control_recommendation: Formalize crisis management tabletop exercises with outside counsel.
rating_reference: Executive Liability Underwriting Guide (2025)
citation: https://www.naic.org; https://www.irmi.com
portfolio_consideration: cross-line bundling opportunity
mentor_tip: Document how strategic direction insights support pricing and regulatory defensibility.
|
[
"https://www.naic.org",
"https://www.irmi.com"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.naic.org",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "HTTP 200"
},
{
"url": "https://www.irmi.com",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "HTTP 200"
}
] |
valid
|
|
Coach a junior underwriter on framing accounting firm professional liability exposure.
|
Coach a junior underwriter on framing accounting firm professional liability exposure.
|
Start by explaining the key underwriting logic behind the scenario: 'Coach a junior underwriter on framing accounting firm professional liability exposure.'. Highlight why alignment with regulatory expectations and operational fleet realities is essential. Emphasize step-by-step reasoning, referencing the source material from https://www.cisa.gov to ensure compliance, risk visibility, and defensible coverage structure selection. Conclude with how a trainee should document exposures, justify decisions, and align risk characteristics with filed guidance.
|
[
"https://www.cisa.gov"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.cisa.gov",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "HTTP 200"
}
] |
valid
|
Coach a junior underwriter on framing technology service provider professional liability exposure.
|
Coach a junior underwriter on framing technology service provider professional liability exposure.
|
Start by explaining the key underwriting logic behind the scenario: 'Coach a junior underwriter on framing technology service provider professional liability exposure.'. Highlight why alignment with regulatory expectations and operational fleet realities is essential. Emphasize step-by-step reasoning, referencing the source material from https://www.verisk.com to ensure compliance, risk visibility, and defensible coverage structure selection. Conclude with how a trainee should document exposures, justify decisions, and align risk characteristics with filed guidance.
|
[
"https://www.verisk.com"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.verisk.com",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "HTTP 200"
}
] |
valid
|
As a Ohio marine underwriter managing a mid-term endorsement file for a urban mixed-use office tower (NAICS 531120) located in Cincinnati, explain how you assess cargo handling, terminal protection, and transit accumulation and recommend pricing and terms. Detail risk controls, loss experience, regulatory considerations, and pricing recommendation.
|
underwriting_decision: Bind subject to updated hurricane evacuation and +10% wind load. Process endorsement with revised pricing.
underwriting_reasoning: Because building lacks fully compliant automatic sprinklers; community fire protection is weaker (PPC 8); recent loss pattern shows 3 claims including $600K workers comp lost-time claim in 2021, the account requires disciplined terms. Provide conditional renewal with $50K retention increase. Apply NFIP mandatory deductible for special flood hazard area.
rating_logic: AIMU cargo underwriting guidelines; ISO inland marine rating; CISA port security advisories; OH DOI GL schedule rating bulletin
rating_focus: cargo handling, terminal protection, and transit accumulation
citation: https://www.cisa.gov; https://www.verisk.com
|
[
"https://www.cisa.gov",
"https://www.verisk.com"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.cisa.gov",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "HTTP 200"
},
{
"url": "https://www.verisk.com",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "HTTP 200"
}
] |
valid
|
|
Analytical Mastery – demonstrate how to guide how a senior underwriter should position this Delivery & Service Vans risk inside a multi-state portfolio?
|
Analytical Mastery – demonstrate how to guide how a senior underwriter should position this Delivery & Service Vans risk inside a multi-state portfolio?
|
Start by explaining the key underwriting logic behind the scenario: 'Analytical Mastery – demonstrate how to guide how a senior underwriter should position this Delivery & Service Vans risk inside a multi-state portfolio?'. Highlight why alignment with regulatory expectations and operational fleet realities is essential. Emphasize step-by-step reasoning, referencing the source material from https://content.naic.org/ to ensure compliance, risk visibility, and defensible coverage structure selection. Conclude with how a trainee should document exposures, justify decisions, and align risk characteristics with filed guidance.
|
[
"https://content.naic.org/"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://content.naic.org/",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "HTTP 200"
}
] |
valid
|
Outline deductible strategy for regional steel service center.
|
Cleveland, Ohio regional steel service center; CMU walls with steel deck construction, central station fire alarm, TIV USD 24.4M. Property and business income exposure involves storm surge corridor and lake-effect snow and freeze; 5-year loss ratio 21% with single tornado-related BI claim.
|
Cmu walls with steel deck construction with central station fire alarm keeps inherent fire severity moderate, yet storm surge corridor tied to lake-effect snow and freeze elevates catastrophe volatility. Loss experience at 21% from single tornado-related BI claim supports a base rate near USD 0.98 per 100 TIV with a 10% named storm deductible. Cat modelling should stress test aggregation for the regional steel service center and confirm flood gate deployment drills. Decision: Decline unless protections improve while requiring proof of roof maintenance logs. Guidance is illustrative only; refer to filed forms.
|
[
"https://www.naic.org/"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.naic.org/",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Describe the reasoning behind limit and retention decisions for a manufacturing firm with connected operational technology facing windstorm driven systemic risk.
|
Cyber | {"industry_profile": "manufacturing firm with connected operational technology", "records_at_risk_millions": 11.9, "critical_systems": "hybrid manufacturing OT", "mfa_deployed": "partial coverage", "backup_frequency": "hourly snapshots", "security_awareness_training": "monthly phishing simulations", "incident_response_plan": "tested tabletop in last 12 months", "vendor_risk_management": "contractual reviews only", "loss_history_3yr": {"incident_count": 2, "largest_loss": 1372729}, "regulatory_focus": "Department of Insurance closely tracks coastal capacity and surplus lines placements.", "systemic_vendor_dependency": "outsourced to niche vendor with limited redundancy", "ransomware_controls": "EDR and network segmentation deployed"}
|
Manufacturing firm with connected operational technology in New Orleans, LA houses 11.9 million records and depends on hybrid manufacturing OT. MFA status is partial coverage with backups hourly snapshots and training monthly phishing simulations. Incident response maturity: tested tabletop in last 12 months. Vendor risk approach: contractual reviews only. Loss history shows 2 incidents with largest $1,372,729. Department of Insurance closely tracks coastal capacity and surplus lines placements. Systemic vendor dependency: outsourced to niche vendor with limited redundancy. Ransomware control status: EDR and network segmentation deployed. | Apply cyber rate factor 2.09 with limit deployment aligned to systemic exposure. increase retention by 50 percent unless MFA is hardened.
|
[
"https://www.cisa.gov"
] |
[] |
valid
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate personal & advertising injury for a national janitorial service operating in Texas.
|
Cover content clearance, data privacy controls, vendor oversight, limits, pricing impact, ISO class code 96816, and payroll rating basis, and Texas applies a 51% modified comparative negligence bar but scrutinizes punitive awards and contractual indemnity.
|
I scope Personal & Advertising Injury for the national janitorial service in Texas because digital marketing layered onto provides floor care, medical office cleaning, and construction final cleans fuels copyright or privacy allegations, particularly where Texas applies a 51% modified comparative negligence bar but scrutinizes punitive awards and contractual indemnity. Exposure identification: Influencer campaigns, data capture, and comparative ads spark defamation or privacy suits. The operation faces wet-floor slips, property damage from chemicals, and employee dishonesty claims along with Personal & Advertising Injury considerations. Control evaluation: I expect crisis communication playbooks, CAN-SPAM and TCPA compliance logs, and content rights management repositories. Without counsel sign-off, brands recycle unlicensed content and claims balloon. Severity view: Severity spikes when class actions include statutory damages for privacy breaches. Frequency view: Frequency rises with rapid campaign cycles and outsourced agencies. Rating: ISO class code 96816 on a payroll basis. Fold advertising exposure into ISO class code 96816 by validating gross sales tied to marketing reach. This ensures payroll basis separates day porters from nighttime floor crews. Disposition: Preferred when legal reviews each campaign and archives approvals with metadata; otherwise provide a -3% credit when content rights management software is active. Recommend $2M/$4M when national campaigns target regulated products and keep Personal & Advertising Injury engaged because Ensure Personal & Advertising Injury limits match the occurrence limit when influencer activity is constant. If marketing counsel clears every drop, litigation risk stays manageable; if freelance creators reuse content carelessly, frequency jumps. Teaching note: Remind analysts that advertising injury sits inside the GL form, so they must audit marketing just like premises exposures. Because modified comparative negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how Texas applies a 51% modified comparative negligence bar but scrutinizes punitive awards and contractual indemnity will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.naic.org/"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.naic.org/",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Explain how underwriting teams evaluate technology and cyber dependencies inside E&O pricing.
|
State: Illinois. Professional class: Technology & Digital Services (Tech E&O) delivering API integration for payments clients, SaaS platform hosting for regulated industries, custom software development sprints. Exposure metrics: annual revenue $103.3M, 397 active clients, largest engagement $3.5M, subject to SEC advisory registration reviews. Top exposures: software defects corrupting client data, downtime breaching SLAs, improper incident notification under privacy laws. Claims history: no paid or reserved E&O claims in the past five policy years. Technology-specific risks: BYOD policies that weaken device hygiene, limited indemnity caps on IP infringement. Risk controls: vendor risk scoring for subcontractors, QA environments mirroring production before releases, secure SDLC with peer code review and automated testing. Limits and retention: $5M each claim / $5M aggregate with $100K self-insured retention, retroactive date 2013, requested 12-month ERP. Regulatory and contractual requirements: state privacy statutes and NAIC data security model law, CISA/NIST zero-trust and CSF mappings. Scenario: Underwriter must connect cyber hygiene evidence to Tech E&O appetite and defense-inside-limits wording.
|
Underwriters align the file with DOL EBSA fiduciary process bulletins, NIST Cybersecurity Framework implementation tiers to benchmark pricing for the technology service provider services highlighted. In Illinois, CPA firm permits tie to peer review outcomes while the ARDC reviews law firm communication controls and Cook County venues fuel aggressive e-discovery budgets and biometric privacy class action activity, which shapes negotiation over technology dependency and cyber hygiene. Exposure review links revenue $103.3M, 397 clients, and subject to SEC advisory registration reviews to state privacy statutes and NAIC data security model law, CISA/NIST zero-trust and CSF mappings obligations. Loss history is clean, yet modeling still assumes biometric privacy statutes and wage class actions magnify settlement expectations. Risk controls such as vendor risk scoring for subcontractors, QA environments mirroring production before releases, secure SDLC with peer code review and automated testing plus engagement letters, QA testing, and client acceptance screening demonstrate mitigation maturity. Technology dependency review ties BYOD policies that weaken device hygiene, limited indemnity caps on IP infringement to CISA/NIST hygiene expectations. Underwriter rationale: because a loss-free record that supports base rates and biometric privacy statutes and wage class actions magnify settlement expectations, require managed detection and response contracts to mirror indemnity terms.
|
[
"https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa",
"https://www.nist.gov"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
},
{
"url": "https://www.nist.gov",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Outline claim severity considerations for a mid-sized law firm handling employment litigation expanding throughout the Northeast region.
|
Professional (E&O) | {"professional_service": "mid-sized law firm handling employment litigation", "billings_millions": 49.2, "professional_staff_count": 454, "limit_requested_millions": 10, "retention_requested": "$25,000", "contract_review_frequency": "ad hoc review", "peer_review_process": "informal second set of eyes", "regulatory_hotspot": "DFS maintains strict form approvals and labor law considerations for construction.", "loss_history_5yr": {"claim_count": 0, "largest_loss": 0}, "cyber_dependency": "limited reliance due to on premises systems"}
|
Mid-sized law firm handling employment litigation in Buffalo, NY generates billings of 49.2 million impacting rate on line. Staffing of 454 professionals and retention $25,000 shapes severity appetite. Contract review cadence is ad hoc review with peer review informal second set of eyes. Loss history summary: no reported E&O claims. DFS maintains strict form approvals and labor law considerations for construction. Cyber dependency assessment: limited reliance due to on premises systems. | Indicate professional liability rate factor 1.58 with accept lower retention due to controls. Document contract improvements and data security alignment.
|
[
"https://www.irmi.com"
] |
[] |
valid
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate operations liability for a HVAC mechanical contractor operating in North Carolina.
|
Cover fall protection controls, subcontractor risk transfer, completed operations evidence, limits, pricing debits, ISO class code 91580, and payroll rating basis, and North Carolina's contributory negligence defense works only when documentation proves the invitee ignored warnings.
|
I scope Operations Liability for the HVAC mechanical contractor in North Carolina because elevated work blending with design-build HVAC projects, crane lifts, and ongoing maintenance agreements magnifies Labor Law and fall-from-height claims while North Carolina's contributory negligence defense works only when documentation proves the invitee ignored warnings. Exposure identification: Crane picks, roof penetrations, and scaffold ties can injure workers or the public. The operation faces hot work near combustibles, condensate leaks, and completed operations mold claims along with Products-Completed Operations Aggregate considerations. Control evaluation: I expect ANSI A10 fall protection plans, subcontractor agreements with COIs, and daily job hazard analyses. Absent signed JSAs and COIs, the GC pushes liability upstream and indemnity gaps surface. Severity view: Severity can exceed $10M because New York Labor Law or similar statutes impose near strict liability. Frequency view: Frequency spikes on multi-employer sites when sequencing breaks down or weather interrupts. Rating: ISO class code 91580 on a payroll basis. Tie payroll by operation to ISO class code 91580 and apply LCM loads for crane or torch hours. This ensures payroll captures sheet-metal fabrication and service crews. Disposition: Accept with field audits plus grant a -5% credit only when wrap-up OCIP evidence is provided until tie-off compliance is verified. Recommend $1M/$2M plus $5M excess when projects stay under three stories and keep Products-Completed Operations Aggregate engaged because Keep the Products-Completed Operations Aggregate at least equal to the umbrella attachment for ongoing service contracts. If foremen enforce tie-off plans, frequency drops; if day labor works untrained, severity and frequency both spike. Teaching note: Teach analysts to read hold-harmless clauses before quoting so they know whose loss history they underwrite. Because contributory negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how North Carolina's contributory negligence defense works only when documentation proves the invitee ignored warnings will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
As a New Jersey commercial auto underwriter managing a mid-term endorsement file for a multistate law firm headquarters (NAICS 541110) located in Jersey City, explain how you assess fleet safety, radius of operation, and MCS-90 compliance and recommend pricing and terms. Detail risk controls, loss experience, regulatory considerations, and pricing recommendation.
|
underwriting_decision: Bind with MCS-90 filing and increase symbol 1 liability limit to $2M. Process endorsement with revised pricing.
underwriting_reasoning: Because building lacks fully compliant automatic sprinklers; community fire protection is weaker (PPC 9), the account requires disciplined terms. Increase wind deductible to 5% and apply +20% windstorm factor. Reflect NCCI assigned risk surcharge for high experience mod.
rating_logic: ISO Commercial Auto Manual; FMCSA CSA basic scores; state financial responsibility filings; NJ DOBI hurricane deductible addendum
rating_focus: fleet safety, radius of operation, and MCS-90 compliance
citation: https://www.verisk.com
|
[
"https://www.verisk.com"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.verisk.com",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "HTTP 200"
}
] |
valid
|
|
Coach a junior underwriter on managing continuity credits with open malpractice files.
|
State: Illinois. Professional class: Management & Strategy Consulting delivering regulatory change management, climate-risk advisory engagements. Exposure metrics: annual revenue $52.4M, 123 active clients, largest engagement $3.7M, embedded in FINRA-supervised broker-dealer projects. Top exposures: benchmarking data misuse that violates confidentiality, erroneous financial modeling that drives client loss. Claims history: no paid or reserved E&O claims in the past five policy years. Risk controls: lessons-learned debriefs captured in a knowledge base, client acceptance committees documenting rationale and conflict checks, project management offices tracking approvals at each gate. Limits and retention: $8M each claim / $8M aggregate with $25K self-insured retention, retroactive date 2010, requested 24-month ERP. Regulatory and contractual requirements: state DOI admitted filings requiring defense-inside-limits wording, AAIS professional liability rate page 7B on advisory services. Scenario: Renewal includes an open claim reserve and broker requests full continuity credit.
|
Underwriters align the file with NIST Cybersecurity Framework implementation tiers, NAIC professional liability underwriting guidelines to benchmark pricing for the consulting practice services highlighted. In Illinois, CPA firm permits tie to peer review outcomes while the ARDC reviews law firm communication controls and Cook County venues fuel aggressive e-discovery budgets and biometric privacy class action activity, which shapes negotiation over continuity and open-claim reserving. Exposure review links revenue $52.4M, 123 clients, and embedded in FINRA-supervised broker-dealer projects to state DOI admitted filings requiring defense-inside-limits wording, AAIS professional liability rate page 7B on advisory services obligations. Loss history is clean, yet modeling still assumes biometric privacy statutes and wage class actions magnify settlement expectations. Risk controls such as lessons-learned debriefs captured in a knowledge base, client acceptance committees documenting rationale and conflict checks, project management offices tracking approvals at each gate plus engagement letters, QA testing, and client acceptance screening demonstrate mitigation maturity. Underwriter rationale: because a loss-free record that supports base rates and biometric privacy statutes and wage class actions magnify settlement expectations, cap renewal terms at expiring $8M each claim / $8M aggregate until the open matter closes.
|
[
"https://www.naic.org",
"https://www.nist.gov"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.naic.org",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
},
{
"url": "https://www.nist.gov",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
As a California commercial auto underwriter managing a mid-term endorsement file for a outpatient surgical center (NAICS 621493) located in Los Angeles, explain how you assess fleet safety, radius of operation, and MCS-90 compliance and recommend pricing and terms. Detail risk controls, loss experience, regulatory considerations, and pricing recommendation.
|
underwriting_decision: Accept with telematics credit offset by high CSA vehicle maintenance BASIC. Process endorsement with revised pricing.
underwriting_reasoning: Because building lacks fully compliant automatic sprinklers, the account requires disciplined terms. Apply +12% property schedule load with protective safeguards warranty. Align with CISA cyber hygiene minimum control expectations.
rating_logic: ISO Commercial Auto Manual; FMCSA CSA basic scores; state financial responsibility filings; CA DOI wildfire surcharge bulletin
rating_focus: fleet safety, radius of operation, and MCS-90 compliance
citation: https://www.osha.gov
|
[
"https://www.osha.gov"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.osha.gov",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "HTTP 200"
}
] |
valid
|
|
Outline comp underwriting stance for non-union municipal utility technicians.
|
San Juan, Puerto Rico non-union municipal utility technicians; payroll USD 60.1M with experience mod 1.19. WC exposure centers on catastrophic severity potential; 4-year loss ratio 12% from no large losses.
|
Class mix with catastrophic severity potential requires scrutiny of job task segregation, crew supervision, and medical networks. Loss ratio of 12% (no large losses) is stable and within appetite, supporting a rate near USD 4.67 per 100 payroll plus potential large deductible. Promote return-to-work program and validate mod drivers against OSHA logs in Puerto Rico. Decision: Modify credits pending site visit while requiring fall protection verification. Guidance is illustrative only; refer to filed forms.
|
[
"https://www.osha.gov/"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.osha.gov/",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
What should a seasoned underwriter document about products liability for this submission?
|
Account: national specialty grocery chain located in Illinois (biometric and privacy class action environment with joint-and-several exposure).
Industry Classification: ISO 09100 / NAICS 445110 rated on gross sales with hybrid payroll/sales audit.
Financial Basis: $4M in receipts and $7.5M payroll.
Premises Exposure: mall inline space sharing corridors and restrooms with other tenants with experiences weekend surges that double occupancy.
Operations Exposure: runs overnight restocking and merchandising resets before store opening and keeps work in-house with union labor and minimal subcontracting.
Products Exposure: imports children's apparel requiring CPSIA compliance with QC supported by adopts UL-certified components and barcoded lot tracking.
Completed Operations: uses field apps to archive photos yet lacks standardized checklists.
Contractual / Additional Insured: COI tracking occurs quarterly via spreadsheets.
Claims History: medical payments reimbursements average $2K annually.
Limits & Deductibles: $1M / $2M and seeking $3M excess follow-form and separate $250K defense endorsement purchased.
Risk Controls: adopts UL-certified components and barcoded lot tracking.
Regulatory Compliance: OSHA 1926 fall protection plans updated annually.
Scenario: marketing submission following carrier non-renewal for losses.
|
Use ISO CG 00 01 occurrence form relativities for class code 09100 and gross sales exposure base. Past loss trend of medical payments reimbursements average $2K annually guides severity picks; insist on destructive testing results and corrective action logs. Trend medical payments reimbursements average $2K annually against Illinois severity expectations and modified comparative negligence statutes while validating exposure shifts from marketing submission following carrier non-renewal for losses. Reinforce OSHA 1910.22 housekeeping protocols to manage mall inline space sharing corridors and restrooms with other tenants hazards. Debit schedule 10% for mall inline space sharing corridors and restrooms with other tenants yet reserve capacity for improvements after the next inspection. Underwriting decision: Accept with risk control follow-up.
| null |
[
{
"url": "https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1926/1926.501",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Training Stage: Mastery (strategic direction). As a trainee commercial underwriter learning Cyber, evaluate the submission for a municipal government portal in Lansing, MI. Provide step-by-step judgement like a mentor. Emphasize the priority: Coach on regulatory reporting, breach response partners, and portfolio aggregation. Mentor yourself on how to mentor on positioning, regulatory constraints, and long-range profitability levers.
|
learning_goal: Coach on negotiation tactics, regulatory guardrails, and long-term profitability of the segment. Coach on regulatory reporting, breach response partners, and portfolio aggregation.
training_stage: Mastery
line_of_business: Cyber
state: Michigan
underwriting_reasoning: Start by Coach on regulatory reporting, breach response partners, and portfolio aggregation. Because this account operates in Michigan, reference MI DIFS commercial auto no-fault coordination bulletin to stay compliant. Tie control maturity and incident frequency to retention and pricing levers. Apply CISA Cybersecurity Performance Goals (2023) to anchor rate selections, and document how deviations align with filed guidance.
pricing_decision: Set base rate with ransomware surcharge of 30% and 500000 retention.
loss_control_recommendation: Segment OT from IT environments and enforce immutable backups.
rating_reference: CISA Cybersecurity Performance Goals (2023)
citation: https://www.nist.gov; https://www.cisa.gov
portfolio_consideration: book diversification objective met
mentor_tip: Document how strategic direction insights support pricing and regulatory defensibility.
|
[
"https://www.nist.gov",
"https://www.cisa.gov"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.nist.gov",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "HTTP 200"
},
{
"url": "https://www.cisa.gov",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "HTTP 200"
}
] |
valid
|
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate products liability for a specialty grocery chain operating in Texas.
|
Cover product design controls, UL or NRTL testing, supply-chain oversight, limits, pricing rationale, ISO class code 09100, and gross sales rating basis, and Texas applies a 51% modified comparative negligence bar but scrutinizes punitive awards and contractual indemnity.
|
I scope Products Liability for the specialty grocery chain in Texas because electrical assemblies paired with regional groceries with commercial kitchens, sampling stations, and parking lots invite fire and shock allegations, especially where Texas applies a 51% modified comparative negligence bar but scrutinizes punitive awards and contractual indemnity. Exposure identification: Battery failures, overheating PCBs, and firmware defects can generate cascading losses. The operation faces hot soup bars, refrigerated cases, and slick entry mats during storms along with Products-Completed Operations Aggregate considerations. Control evaluation: I expect supplier PPAP reviews, UL 1998 or UL 60730 certifications, and firmware version control repositories. Without certification and configuration management, subrogation stalls and severity balloons. Severity view: Severity rises because fires can total structures and trigger subrogation battles with utilities. Frequency view: Frequency correlates with rapid design changes and outsourced assembly lines. Rating: ISO class code 09100 on a gross sales basis. Validate unit counts against ISO schedules and convert to an equivalent gross sales exposure for trending. This ensures gross sales include prepared foods, catering, and delivery apps. Disposition: Preferred when UL or CSA listing reports align with every shipped configuration; otherwise hold a +0.15 LCM when suppliers decline to share PPAP files. Recommend $1M/$2M with $5M umbrella for limited regional pilots and keep Products-Completed Operations Aggregate engaged because Maintain a Products-Completed Operations Aggregate no less than twice the occurrence limit for nationwide tech launches. If firmware is validated through HALT testing, severity moderates; if updates ship without regression testing, claim frequency accelerates. Teaching note: Coach analysts to align engineering change orders with policy term dates so coverage matches the actual design at risk. Because modified comparative negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how Texas applies a 51% modified comparative negligence bar but scrutinizes punitive awards and contractual indemnity will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.nist.gov/standards"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.nist.gov/standards",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate products liability for a medical device distributor operating in Michigan.
|
Cover product design controls, UL or NRTL testing, supply-chain oversight, limits, pricing rationale, ISO class code 45650, and gross sales rating basis, and Michigan product liability reforms still expect QMS evidence and scrutinize completed operations documentation.
|
I scope Products Liability for the medical device distributor in Michigan because electrical assemblies paired with warehouses implantable devices, supports surgeons, and arranges demos invite fire and shock allegations, especially where Michigan product liability reforms still expect QMS evidence and scrutinize completed operations documentation. Exposure identification: Battery failures, overheating PCBs, and firmware defects can generate cascading losses. The operation faces failed sterilization, mislabeling, and inadequate instructions for use along with Products-Completed Operations Aggregate considerations. Control evaluation: I expect temperature monitoring, UL 1998 or UL 60730 certifications, and rep credentialing. Without certification and configuration management, subrogation stalls and severity balloons. Severity view: Severity rises because fires can total structures and trigger subrogation battles with utilities. Frequency view: Frequency correlates with rapid design changes and outsourced assembly lines. Rating: ISO class code 45650 on a gross sales basis. Validate unit counts against ISO schedules and convert to an equivalent gross sales exposure for trending. This ensures gross sales reflect consigned hospital inventory and drop shipments. Disposition: Refer when firmware revisions outpace testing and hold a +0.15 LCM when suppliers decline to share PPAP files cannot absorb the exposure. Recommend $2M/$4M plus $15M excess for smart-home electronics and keep Products-Completed Operations Aggregate engaged because Maintain a Products-Completed Operations Aggregate no less than twice the occurrence limit for nationwide tech launches. If firmware is validated through HALT testing, severity moderates; if updates ship without regression testing, claim frequency accelerates. Teaching note: Coach analysts to align engineering change orders with policy term dates so coverage matches the actual design at risk. Because modified comparative negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how Michigan product liability reforms still expect QMS evidence and scrutinize completed operations documentation will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
As a North Carolina general liability underwriter managing a loss control follow-up file for a high-tech electronics assembler (NAICS 334418) located in Charlotte, explain how you assess premises and operations hazards, products liability, and med pay considerations and recommend pricing and terms. Detail risk controls, loss experience, regulatory considerations, and pricing recommendation.
|
underwriting_decision: Accept with 10% premises liability debit; require updated COI management. Hold binding until outstanding recommendations cleared.
underwriting_reasoning: Because building lacks fully compliant automatic sprinklers; community fire protection is weaker (PPC 7); recent loss pattern shows 4 claims including $75K cyber extortion event contained in 2022, the account requires disciplined terms. Provide conditional renewal with $50K retention increase. Document FMCSA compliance and MCS-90 endorsement obligations.
rating_logic: AAIS Commercial GL Program; ISO GL rating plans; OSHA hazard communication standards; NC Rate Bureau coastal adjustments
rating_focus: premises and operations hazards, products liability, and med pay considerations
citation: https://www.verisk.com
|
[
"https://www.verisk.com"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.verisk.com",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "HTTP 200"
}
] |
valid
|
|
Discuss underwriting priorities for a manufacturer exporting precision machinery overseas staging goods near Philadelphia, PA.
|
Marine | {"segment": "ocean cargo", "cargo_type": "refrigerated seafood", "annual_shipments_value_millions": 30.9, "mode_of_transit": "ocean vessel", "ports_of_call": "Los Angeles and Oakland", "packaging_quality": "manufacturer crate with vibration monitors", "storage_protection": "open lot storage with security patrols", "loss_history_5yr": {"claim_count": 2, "largest_loss": 1385414}, "cat_exposure": "mine subsidence", "regulatory_consideration": "Insurance Department emphasizes fair plan participation and workers comp residual market coordination.", "contingent_business_interruption": "limited to named dependencies", "accumulation_management": "no accumulation monitoring"}
|
Manufacturer exporting precision machinery overseas ships refrigerated seafood via ocean vessel through Los Angeles and Oakland, defining exposure. Packaging quality is manufacturer crate with vibration monitors with storage protection open lot storage with security patrols. Loss history summary: 2 losses, largest $1,385,414. Insurance Department emphasizes fair plan participation and workers comp residual market coordination. Mine subsidence exposure requires accumulation controls and warehouse vetting. Contingent business interruption request: limited to named dependencies; accumulation oversight no accumulation monitoring. | Set marine rate factor 0.87 with $5,000 per conveyance. Require accumulation reporting and loss control follow up on open lot storage with security patrols.
|
[
"https://www.verisk.com; https://www.aimu.org"
] |
[] |
valid
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate products liability for a craft brewery and taproom operating in North Carolina.
|
Cover product design controls, UL or NRTL testing, supply-chain oversight, limits, pricing rationale, ISO class code 16810, and gross sales rating basis, and North Carolina's contributory negligence defense works only when documentation proves the invitee ignored warnings.
|
I scope Products Liability for the craft brewery and taproom in North Carolina because electrical assemblies paired with brewing operations with canning lines, tours, and food trucks invite fire and shock allegations, especially where North Carolina's contributory negligence defense works only when documentation proves the invitee ignored warnings. Exposure identification: Battery failures, overheating PCBs, and firmware defects can generate cascading losses. The operation faces crowded taprooms, hot wort transfer, and product spoilage claims along with Products-Completed Operations Aggregate considerations. Control evaluation: I expect machine guarding inspections, UL 1998 or UL 60730 certifications, and HALT/HASS testing logs. Without certification and configuration management, subrogation stalls and severity balloons. Severity view: Severity rises because fires can total structures and trigger subrogation battles with utilities. Frequency view: Frequency correlates with rapid design changes and outsourced assembly lines. Rating: ISO class code 16810 on a gross sales basis. Validate unit counts against ISO schedules and convert to an equivalent gross sales exposure for trending. This ensures gross sales basis captures taproom pours and packaged distribution. Disposition: Refer when firmware revisions outpace testing and hold a +0.15 LCM when suppliers decline to share PPAP files cannot absorb the exposure. Recommend $2M/$4M plus $15M excess for smart-home electronics and keep Products-Completed Operations Aggregate engaged because Maintain a Products-Completed Operations Aggregate no less than twice the occurrence limit for nationwide tech launches. If firmware is validated through HALT testing, severity moderates; if updates ship without regression testing, claim frequency accelerates. Teaching note: Coach analysts to align engineering change orders with policy term dates so coverage matches the actual design at risk. Because contributory negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how North Carolina's contributory negligence defense works only when documentation proves the invitee ignored warnings will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.nist.gov/standards"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.nist.gov/standards",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
As a Ohio general liability underwriter managing a renewal file for a regional grocery distribution hub (NAICS 424410) located in Columbus, explain how you assess premises and operations hazards, products liability, and med pay considerations and recommend pricing and terms. Detail risk controls, loss experience, regulatory considerations, and pricing recommendation.
|
underwriting_decision: Accept with 10% premises liability debit; require updated COI management. Renew with targeted pricing adjustments.
underwriting_reasoning: Because overall controls align with peers but catastrophe aggregation warrants monitoring, the account requires disciplined terms. Require cyber MFA validation and apply +10% rate. Reflect NCCI assigned risk surcharge for high experience mod.
rating_logic: AAIS Commercial GL Program; ISO GL rating plans; OSHA hazard communication standards; OH DOI GL schedule rating bulletin
rating_focus: premises and operations hazards, products liability, and med pay considerations
citation: https://www.verisk.com
|
[
"https://www.verisk.com"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.verisk.com",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "HTTP 200"
}
] |
valid
|
|
Show how to deploy catastrophe modeling fundamentals for the national casualty book portfolio scenario.
|
Portfolio of 545 risks across multiple states with aggregate TIV USD 647.5M focused on national casualty book. Monitoring tail value at risk for California exposures with growth pressure from brokers.
|
Cat models combine hazard, vulnerability, and financial modules to estimate event-driven loss distributions. Analytical mastery lessons emphasize data, cat models, reinsurance, and aggregation management. Scenario application: 545 risks, USD 647.5M TIV, hotspot California, key metric tail value at risk. Practice: Walk through setting data quality checks, selecting appropriate peril modules, and interpreting PML outputs for the scenario. Compare concentrations to accumulation caps, align cat loads, and coordinate with reinsurance partners. Key Takeaway: Use cat model insights to align limits, deductibles, and reinsurance.
|
[
"https://www.cisa.gov/"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.cisa.gov/",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Core Skills – coach a junior underwriter to explain why the requested auto coverage structure must align with for-hire and private carriers operating out of Tennessee?
|
Core Skills – coach a junior underwriter to explain why the requested auto coverage structure must align with for-hire and private carriers operating out of Tennessee?
|
Start by explaining the key underwriting logic behind the scenario: 'Core Skills – coach a junior underwriter to explain why the requested auto coverage structure must align with for-hire and private carriers operating out of Tennessee?'. Highlight why alignment with regulatory expectations and operational fleet realities is essential. Emphasize step-by-step reasoning, referencing the source material from https://content.naic.org/ to ensure compliance, risk visibility, and defensible coverage structure selection. Conclude with how a trainee should document exposures, justify decisions, and align risk characteristics with filed guidance.
|
[
"https://content.naic.org/"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://content.naic.org/",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "HTTP 200"
}
] |
valid
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate products liability for a specialty grocery chain operating in Colorado.
|
Cover product design controls, UL or NRTL testing, supply-chain oversight, limits, pricing rationale, ISO class code 09100, and gross sales rating basis, and Colorado's construction defect statutes and 50% bar require disciplined subcontractor oversight.
|
I scope Products Liability for the specialty grocery chain in Colorado because electrical assemblies paired with regional groceries with commercial kitchens, sampling stations, and parking lots invite fire and shock allegations, especially where Colorado's construction defect statutes and 50% bar require disciplined subcontractor oversight. Exposure identification: Battery failures, overheating PCBs, and firmware defects can generate cascading losses. The operation faces hot soup bars, refrigerated cases, and slick entry mats during storms along with Products-Completed Operations Aggregate considerations. Control evaluation: I expect supplier PPAP reviews, HALT/HASS testing logs, and vendor hold-harmless agreements. Without certification and configuration management, subrogation stalls and severity balloons. Severity view: Severity rises because fires can total structures and trigger subrogation battles with utilities. Frequency view: Frequency correlates with rapid design changes and outsourced assembly lines. Rating: ISO class code 09100 on a gross sales basis. Validate unit counts against ISO schedules and convert to an equivalent gross sales exposure for trending. This ensures gross sales include prepared foods, catering, and delivery apps. Disposition: Preferred when UL or CSA listing reports align with every shipped configuration; otherwise apply +25% until third-party labs certify the latest revision. Recommend $1M/$2M with $5M umbrella for limited regional pilots and keep Products-Completed Operations Aggregate engaged because Maintain a Products-Completed Operations Aggregate no less than twice the occurrence limit for nationwide tech launches. If firmware is validated through HALT testing, severity moderates; if updates ship without regression testing, claim frequency accelerates. Teaching note: Coach analysts to align engineering change orders with policy term dates so coverage matches the actual design at risk. Because modified comparative negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how Colorado's construction defect statutes and 50% bar require disciplined subcontractor oversight will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.nist.gov/standards"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.nist.gov/standards",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Detail the liability and comp-collision assessment steps for Arizona contract hauling operations amid a conversion to a loss-sensitive plan.
|
Scenario: conversion to a loss-sensitive plan | State: Arizona (Phoenix/Tucson I-10 corridor).
Fleet: 16 units (Contractor Service Trucks, private fleet) - flatbeds, dumps, boom trucks, and mechanic rigs staged on job sites. Ownership mix: 100% owned private fleet with depreciation schedule. Radius/use class: contract hauling between ports and inland distribution centers within 150 miles (contract hauling).
Vehicles & Cargo: refrigerated meat and seafood loads (No hazmat); operations rely on contract hauling between ports and inland distribution centers within 150 miles with contracts spanning Phoenix/Tucson I-10 corridor.
Drivers: Avg age 30, 13 years CDL, 79% clean records; MVR violation rate 1.0 per driver; training: Smith System ride-alongs and FMCSA entry-level driver refreshers.
Safety & Tech: In-house CDL finishing school tied to the OSHA fleet safety plan; Telematics: Lytx video analytics plus distracted-driving detection; Maintenance: EV battery health diagnostics and 6k-mile tire rotations.
Loss history: 0 liability / 2 comp-collision claims over 5 years, loss ratio 31%, no severity losses above $100K, trend: worsening because of nighttime crashes.
Garaging/CAT: desert depot with dust storms, flash floods, and limited hydrants in Phoenix/Tucson I-10 corridor.
Regulatory: FMCSA rating satisfactory, DOT/BASIC status a HOS Compliance BASIC alert at the 72nd percentile, HOS/ELD: HOS coaching required for two drivers after restart errors, filings: Louisiana Form E with UM rejection updated annually, state requirements: Arizona Form E filings, UM/UIM selection, and ADOT dust-storm safety attestations..
Limits & coverages: $1.5M CSL with $5M excess tower with UM/UIM, PIP, and filings handled per state rule.
|
I benchmark the contractor service trucks exposures against ISO/Verisk commercial auto loss costs for the Phoenix/Tucson I-10 corridor territory where desert heat, monsoon dust storms, and border inspections. I triangulate ISO/Verisk commercial auto loss costs with FMCSA BASIC measures, DOT inspection trends, NHTSA crash severity guidance, OSHA fleet safety advisories, and NAIC filing guardrails enforced by the Arizona Department of Insurance and Financial Institutions. Operating contract hauling between ports and inland distribution centers within 150 miles under the contract hauling use class while hauling refrigerated meat and seafood loads (No hazmat) means hazmat exposure is minimal, so severity hinges on operating environment. MVR rate 1.0 per driver is acceptable but I keep Smith System ride-alongs and FMCSA entry-level driver refreshers in place to hold the line. Although In-house CDL finishing school tied to the OSHA fleet safety plan, Lytx video analytics plus distracted-driving detection, and EV battery health diagnostics and 6k-mile tire rotations exist, I treat them as developing controls until KPIs improve. Loss performance at 31% confirms best-in-class performance, so Because results are top decile and telematics data is transparent, I apply a -10% safety credit on liability and -5% on physical damage. FMCSA status is satisfactory with a HOS Compliance BASIC alert at the 72nd percentile; I document that HOS coaching required for two drivers after restart errors and confirm Louisiana Form E with UM rejection updated annually stay synchronized with DOT, NHTSA, and the Arizona Department of Insurance and Financial Institutions. Because this is a conversion to a loss-sensitive plan, I model large-deductible options, confirm collateral, and align aggregate stop-loss attachments with NAIC filing allowances. I set the loss cost multiplier at 0.96 with an experience mod of 0.89, keep limits at $1.5M CSL with $5M excess tower, honor Arizona Form E filings, UM/UIM selection, and ADOT dust-storm safety attestations., and ensure Louisiana Form E with UM rejection updated annually. Garaging factors (desert depot with dust storms, flash floods, and limited hydrants in Phoenix/Tucson I-10 corridor) layered with desert heat, monsoon dust storms, and border inspections keep theft/CAT surcharges active.
|
[
"https://www.naic.org/industry"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.naic.org/industry",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate products liability for a medical device distributor operating in Virginia.
|
Cover product design controls, UL or NRTL testing, supply-chain oversight, limits, pricing rationale, ISO class code 45650, and gross sales rating basis, and Virginia's contributory negligence regime rewards meticulous maintenance logs and warning signage.
|
I scope Products Liability for the medical device distributor in Virginia because electrical assemblies paired with warehouses implantable devices, supports surgeons, and arranges demos invite fire and shock allegations, especially where Virginia's contributory negligence regime rewards meticulous maintenance logs and warning signage. Exposure identification: Battery failures, overheating PCBs, and firmware defects can generate cascading losses. The operation faces failed sterilization, mislabeling, and inadequate instructions for use along with Products-Completed Operations Aggregate considerations. Control evaluation: I expect UL 1998 or UL 60730 certifications, rep credentialing, and lot tracking systems. Without certification and configuration management, subrogation stalls and severity balloons. Severity view: Severity rises because fires can total structures and trigger subrogation battles with utilities. Frequency view: Frequency correlates with rapid design changes and outsourced assembly lines. Rating: ISO class code 45650 on a gross sales basis. Validate unit counts against ISO schedules and convert to an equivalent gross sales exposure for trending. This ensures gross sales reflect consigned hospital inventory and drop shipments. Disposition: Preferred when UL or CSA listing reports align with every shipped configuration; otherwise hold a +0.15 LCM when suppliers decline to share PPAP files. Recommend $2M/$4M plus $15M excess for smart-home electronics and keep Products-Completed Operations Aggregate engaged because Maintain a Products-Completed Operations Aggregate no less than twice the occurrence limit for nationwide tech launches. If firmware is validated through HALT testing, severity moderates; if updates ship without regression testing, claim frequency accelerates. Teaching note: Coach analysts to align engineering change orders with policy term dates so coverage matches the actual design at risk. Because contributory negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how Virginia's contributory negligence regime rewards meticulous maintenance logs and warning signage will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.nist.gov/standards"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.nist.gov/standards",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Recommend excess attachment strategy for logistics platform.
|
Phoenix, Arizona logistics platform seeks 30M umbrella over 2M GL/Auto, WC statutory. Severity drivers include contractual risk transfer gaps; rolling 5-year loss ratio 16% with several large-auto events.
|
Aggregate view must align umbrella terms with underlying 2M attachments and contractual obligations. Contractual risk transfer gaps warrants buffer layers plus corridor deductibles to shield from severity creep. Model clash scenarios and confirm auto and GL frequency align with the 30M ask. Decision: Decline limit increase provided facultative review for high-hazard jobs. Guidance is illustrative only; refer to filed forms.
|
[
"https://www.iii.org/"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.iii.org/",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Compare deductible options for captive-eligible chemical plant operators WC program.
|
Kansas City, Missouri captive-eligible chemical plant operators; payroll USD 61.1M with experience mod 0.88. WC exposure centers on motor vehicle accidents; 4-year loss ratio 84% from one shock loss at 1.2M but stable otherwise.
|
Class mix with motor vehicle accidents requires scrutiny of job task segregation, crew supervision, and medical networks. Loss ratio of 84% (one shock loss at 1.2M but stable otherwise) is deteriorating and requires corrective action, supporting a rate near USD 5.75 per 100 payroll plus potential large deductible. Promote job rotation plan and validate mod drivers against OSHA logs in Missouri. Decision: Quote captive option while requiring documented RTW metrics. Guidance is illustrative only; refer to filed forms.
|
[
"https://www.osha.gov/"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.osha.gov/",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Strategic lens: assess hired/non-owned and contractor controls for company vehicle fleets in Ohio.
|
Account: regional HVAC contractor covering port-adjacent industrial band in Ohio. Fleet: 77 units of F-150 pickups and midsize SUVs (model years 2018-2024) with F-150 pickups and midsize SUVs with backup cameras and idle shutdown. Operations: 24/7 rooftop service and capital projects on daily hub-and-spoke runs (statewide loops with rare 500-mile relief runs). Territory: Ohio - OH is tort with optional med-pay but tough winter storms.. Loss history: hail total plus several fender benders with loss ratio 36% and $98k hail comp loss. Controls/tech: monthly ride-alongs and LMS refreshers plus OEM telematics feeds. Maintenance & yard: OEM PM every 5k miles and quarterly brake checks and client sites with roaming patrols. Contracts/filings: health system agreements needing $1M CSL proof with state Form E evidence; no federal filing. Focus: Describe gig partners, certificate tracking, and waiver wording. and coverage goal needs $1M CSL, UM/UIM match, and $2,500 collision ded.
|
Link account impact to portfolio goals by Clarify how 24/7 rooftop service and capital projects depend on non-owned units and what health system agreements needing $1M CSL proof demand. HNOA frequency jumps during summer construction surge when extra drivers join. Without COI audits, severity can mirror $98k hail comp loss while coverage gaps remain. Blend exposure bases into ISO/AAIS fleet relativities and state-filed deviations and enforce OH is tort with optional med-pay but tough winter storms. documentation. Mandate HNOA endorsements, vetting proof, and $1k comp/$2.5k collision. Spot check contractor files before promising credits.
|
[
"https://www.irmi.com"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.irmi.com",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Recommend pricing strategy for dedicated utility contractor fleet vehicles.
|
New Orleans, Louisiana dedicated utility contractor fleet; fleet of 56 power units running dedicated retail routes with sleeper tractors, logging 16.2M miles. Auto exposure faces rear-end frequency with 4-year loss ratio 30% from improving trend with no large losses.
|
Route mix (dedicated retail routes) plus rear-end frequency drives severity, so underwriting must align lanes, garaging, and driver pools. Loss ratio of 30% from improving trend with no large losses is stable and within appetite; target premium near USD 5,428 per power unit with a USD 100,000 retention. Mandate speed governor enforcement and analytics on telematics exceptions across Louisiana corridors. Decision: Accept with telematics credit contingent on subcontractor vetting. Guidance is illustrative only; refer to filed forms.
|
[
"https://www.iii.org/"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.iii.org/",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate completed operations for a concrete foundation subcontractor operating in Virginia.
|
Cover commissioning evidence, warranty management, risk transfer, limits, pricing of run-off exposure, ISO class code 91585, and payroll rating basis, and Virginia's contributory negligence regime rewards meticulous maintenance logs and warning signage.
|
I scope Completed Operations for the concrete foundation subcontractor in Virginia because complex building systems tied to performs excavation, forms, reinforcing steel, and pours for mid-rise projects cause latent water intrusions where Virginia's contributory negligence regime rewards meticulous maintenance logs and warning signage. Exposure identification: Improper flashing, HVAC condensate, or plumbing joints lead to mold and BI claims months after completion. The operation faces rebar impalements, forming collapses, and completed operations water intrusion along with Products-Completed Operations Aggregate considerations. Control evaluation: I expect engineering sign-off on formwork, contractual limitation of liability clauses, and photos of concealed work. Without commissioning packets, plaintiffs claim negligent installation and insurers pay to open walls. Severity view: Severity mounts because water damage implicates mold, tenant displacement, and reputational loss. Frequency view: Frequency mirrors project volume and the mix of multifamily vs. commercial shells. Rating: ISO class code 91585 on a payroll basis. Align payroll and subcontract values with ISO class code 91585 and trend completed ops claims per project. This ensures payroll basis reflects onsite labor and incidental equipment rental. Disposition: Preferred when commissioning packets and photo logs are archived per project; otherwise carry +15% on completed ops charges until commissioning is digitized. Recommend $2M/$4M primary with $10M excess when projects exceed $25M and keep Products-Completed Operations Aggregate engaged because Maintain a Products-Completed Operations Aggregate equal to at least twice the largest contract. If QC photos exist for every concealed joint, disputes resolve quickly; if not, experts default against the installer. Teaching note: Teach developing underwriters to ask for commissioning packages—it is the quickest proxy for future severity. Because contributory negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how Virginia's contributory negligence regime rewards meticulous maintenance logs and warning signage will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Outline the evaluation steps for ongoing/completed operations hazards for this account.
|
Account: small medical device assembler located in Pennsylvania (joint-and-several liability attaches above 60% fault).
Industry Classification: ISO 11054 / NAICS 339112 rated on gross sales with hybrid payroll/sales audit.
Financial Basis: $15M in receipts and $11M payroll.
Premises Exposure: multi-level showroom with polished concrete floors near escalators with limited public access but high contractor turnover throughout the day.
Operations Exposure: coordinates multiple locations through centralized scheduling and mobile supervisors and uses only insured subs but hold-harmless wording is inconsistent.
Products Exposure: offers private-label merchandise through wholesalers and direct channels with QC supported by executes vendor hold-harmless reviews quarterly.
Completed Operations: closes punch-lists based on subcontractor signoff only.
Contractual / Additional Insured: service calls rely on emailed scopes without signed contracts.
Claims History: umbrella untouched but underlying aggregate eroded twice.
Limits & Deductibles: $2M / $2M occurrence/aggregate with $5K med pay and $5M umbrella and separate $250K defense endorsement purchased.
Risk Controls: executes vendor hold-harmless reviews quarterly.
Regulatory Compliance: OSHA 1926 fall protection plans updated annually.
Scenario: insured negotiating wrap-up carve-out for residential work.
|
Benchmark AAIS CGL filings for comparable device manufacturer risks before applying schedule rating. Field supervision must align with coordinates multiple locations through centralized scheduling and mobile supervisors while warranty practice of closes punch-lists based on subcontractor signoff only drives completed operations load; confirm job file audits. Trend umbrella untouched but underlying aggregate eroded twice against Pennsylvania severity expectations and modified comparative negligence statutes while validating exposure shifts from insured negotiating wrap-up carve-out for residential work. Reinforce OSHA 1910.22 housekeeping protocols to manage multi-level showroom with polished concrete floors near escalators hazards. Attach per-project aggregate endorsement to keep $2M / $2M occurrence/aggregate with $5K med pay and $5M umbrella from collapsing under insured negotiating wrap-up carve-out for residential work expansion. Underwriting decision: Accept with risk control follow-up.
| null |
[
{
"url": "https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1910/1910.22",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Leadership Level – guide a portfolio leader to demonstrate how to analyze the provided loss history before pricing Trucking & Logistics risks in New Jersey?
|
Leadership Level – guide a portfolio leader to demonstrate how to analyze the provided loss history before pricing Trucking & Logistics risks in New Jersey?
|
Start by explaining the key underwriting logic behind the scenario: 'Leadership Level – guide a portfolio leader to demonstrate how to analyze the provided loss history before pricing Trucking & Logistics risks in New Jersey?'. Highlight why alignment with regulatory expectations and operational fleet realities is essential. Emphasize step-by-step reasoning, referencing the source material from https://content.naic.org/ to ensure compliance, risk visibility, and defensible coverage structure selection. Conclude with how a trainee should document exposures, justify decisions, and align risk characteristics with filed guidance.
|
[
"https://content.naic.org/"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://content.naic.org/",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "HTTP 200"
}
] |
valid
|
As a Georgia builders risk underwriter managing a mid-term endorsement file for a marine construction contractor (NAICS 237990) located in Augusta, explain how you assess construction phase hazards, protective safeguards, and soft cost coverage and recommend pricing and terms. Detail risk controls, loss experience, regulatory considerations, and pricing recommendation.
|
underwriting_decision: Bind builders risk with water damage deductible and hot work compliance. Process endorsement with revised pricing.
underwriting_reasoning: Because overall controls align with peers but catastrophe aggregation warrants monitoring, the account requires disciplined terms. Apply +12% property schedule load with protective safeguards warranty. Align with CISA cyber hygiene minimum control expectations.
rating_logic: ISO Builders Risk Manual; NFPA 241; NFIP flood tables for construction; GA DOI ISO loss cost memo
rating_focus: construction phase hazards, protective safeguards, and soft cost coverage
citation: https://www.osha.gov; https://www.verisk.com
|
[
"https://www.osha.gov",
"https://www.verisk.com"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.osha.gov",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "HTTP 200"
},
{
"url": "https://www.verisk.com",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "HTTP 200"
}
] |
valid
|
|
Explain how accept, modify, or decline frameworks shapes the call on the cloud SaaS provider cyber submission opportunity.
|
Cloud Saas Provider near Seattle, Washington holds 4.7M sensitive records. Threat focus: supply-chain compromise. Prior 3 reported incidents with lessons learned around incident response tabletops.
|
Every submission should end with a clear action supported by required controls, pricing, or declination language. Decision-level mentoring stresses appetite, authority, compliance, and broker negotiation. Scenario application: Data volume 4.7M records, threat vector supply-chain compromise, control maturity centered on incident response tabletops. Practice: Guide the learner to list pros, cons, and conditions for the described account before choosing the path forward. Validate control evidence, external scans, and incident response playbooks before modeling severity. Key Takeaway: Structured decision notes protect both the carrier and the relationship.
|
[
"https://content.naic.org/"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://content.naic.org/",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Training Stage: Advanced (complex modifiers). As a trainee commercial underwriter learning General Liability, evaluate the submission for a medical device manufacturer in Los Angeles, CA. Provide step-by-step judgement like a mentor. Emphasize the priority: Integrate additional insured requirements and contractual risk transfer. Mentor yourself on how to tie bureau loss costs, state deviations, and account specifics into a composite rate.
|
learning_goal: Reconcile endorsements, territorial nuances, and large account considerations with bureau filings. Integrate additional insured requirements and contractual risk transfer.
training_stage: Advanced
line_of_business: General Liability
state: California
underwriting_reasoning: Start by Integrate additional insured requirements and contractual risk transfer. Because this account operates in California, reference CA DOI wildfire mitigation surcharge bulletin to stay compliant. Balance premises, operations, and products hazards with loss history debits. Apply ISO Commercial General Liability Manual (Verisk, 2025) to anchor rate selections, and document how deviations align with filed guidance.
pricing_decision: Offer terms with 6.0% schedule modification and products-completed ops aggregate of 1M.
loss_control_recommendation: Deploy slip-resistance program and document incident investigations monthly.
rating_reference: ISO Commercial General Liability Manual (Verisk, 2025)
citation: https://www.verisk.com/insurance/; https://www.aaisonline.com
mentor_tip: Document how complex modifiers insights support pricing and regulatory defensibility.
|
[
"https://www.verisk.com/insurance/",
"https://www.aaisonline.com"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.verisk.com/insurance/",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "HTTP 200"
},
{
"url": "https://www.aaisonline.com",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "HTTP 200"
}
] |
valid
|
|
Explain how to evaluate contract risk for a management consulting seeking E&O coverage.
|
Explain how to evaluate contract risk for a management consulting seeking E&O coverage.
|
Start by explaining the key underwriting logic behind the scenario: 'Explain how to evaluate contract risk for a management consulting seeking E&O coverage.'. Highlight why alignment with regulatory expectations and operational fleet realities is essential. Emphasize step-by-step reasoning, referencing the source material from https://www.nist.gov to ensure compliance, risk visibility, and defensible coverage structure selection. Conclude with how a trainee should document exposures, justify decisions, and align risk characteristics with filed guidance.
|
[
"https://www.nist.gov"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.nist.gov",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "HTTP 200"
}
] |
valid
|
Detail the liability and comp-collision assessment steps for Missouri energy hauling operations amid a post-FMCSA compliance review.
|
Scenario: post-FMCSA compliance review | State: Missouri (St. Louis/Kansas City freight triangle).
Fleet: 89 units (Company Vehicle Fleet, private fleet) - corporate-owned pickups, SUVs, and pool sedans supporting employees and field technicians. Ownership mix: 90% owned with 10% seasonal rentals for peak demand. Radius/use class: dedicated energy corridor runs between well pads and rail terminals inside 250 miles (energy hauling).
Vehicles & Cargo: medical supplies with controlled substances (Schedule-listed cargo); operations rely on dedicated energy corridor runs between well pads and rail terminals inside 250 miles with contracts spanning St. Louis/Kansas City freight triangle.
Drivers: Avg age 50, 13 years CDL, 93% clean records; MVR violation rate 1.2 per driver; training: Telematics-triggered micro-learning delivered to driver tablets.
Safety & Tech: OSHA-compliant driver ergonomics refresh plus quarterly Smith System ride-alongs; Telematics: Lytx video analytics plus distracted-driving detection; Maintenance: EV battery health diagnostics and 6k-mile tire rotations.
Loss history: 3 liability / 3 comp-collision claims over 5 years, loss ratio 73%, one severity loss at $344K tied to a hazmat spill during unloading, trend: flat due to consistent severity.
Garaging/CAT: Midwest riverfront terminal within tornado warning polygons in St. Louis/Kansas City freight triangle.
Regulatory: FMCSA rating not rated (new entrant), DOT/BASIC status a HOS Compliance BASIC alert at the 72nd percentile, HOS/ELD: Perfect roadside results on HOS for 24 months, filings: Washington UTC permits and federal docket MC number, state requirements: Missouri Form E filings, UM/UIM offer, and intrastate 750K CSL minimum..
Limits & coverages: $1.5M CSL with $5M excess tower with UM/UIM, PIP, and filings handled per state rule.
|
I benchmark the company vehicle fleet exposures against ISO/Verisk commercial auto loss costs for the St. Louis/Kansas City freight triangle territory where tornado alley exposures and Mississippi River bridges. I triangulate ISO/Verisk commercial auto loss costs with FMCSA BASIC measures, DOT inspection trends, NHTSA crash severity guidance, OSHA fleet safety advisories, and NAIC filing guardrails enforced by the Missouri Department of Commerce and Insurance. Operating dedicated energy corridor runs between well pads and rail terminals inside 250 miles under the energy hauling use class while hauling medical supplies with controlled substances (Schedule-listed cargo) means hazmat designation Schedule-listed cargo heightens severity and regulatory scrutiny. With 1.2 violations per driver I tighten ride-alongs and lean on Telematics-triggered micro-learning delivered to driver tablets to reduce spikes. Although OSHA-compliant driver ergonomics refresh plus quarterly Smith System ride-alongs, Lytx video analytics plus distracted-driving detection, and EV battery health diagnostics and 6k-mile tire rotations exist, I treat them as developing controls until KPIs improve. Loss performance at 73% shows adverse development that must be corrected, so Recent deterioration triggers a +8% schedule debit and stricter deductibles until telematics metrics recover. FMCSA status is not rated (new entrant) with a HOS Compliance BASIC alert at the 72nd percentile; I document that Perfect roadside results on HOS for 24 months and confirm Washington UTC permits and federal docket MC number stay synchronized with DOT, NHTSA, and the Missouri Department of Commerce and Insurance. Because this is a post-FMCSA compliance review, I validate corrective steps after the audit, upload documentation to SAFER, and keep the policy on watch until BASIC alerts clear. I set the loss cost multiplier at 1.11 with an experience mod of 1.09, keep limits at $1.5M CSL with $5M excess tower, honor Missouri Form E filings, UM/UIM offer, and intrastate 750K CSL minimum., and ensure Washington UTC permits and federal docket MC number. Garaging factors (Midwest riverfront terminal within tornado warning polygons in St. Louis/Kansas City freight triangle) layered with tornado alley exposures and Mississippi River bridges keep theft/CAT surcharges active.
|
[
"https://www.naic.org/industry"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.naic.org/industry",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Training Stage: Foundation (baseline exposure discovery). As a trainee commercial underwriter learning Inland Marine, evaluate the submission for a fine arts gallery transit in Flagstaff, AZ. Provide step-by-step judgement like a mentor. Emphasize the priority: Clarify property schedule, transit routes, and valuation basis. Mentor yourself on how to walk through COPE data capture and fit with filed manuals.
|
learning_goal: Identify core exposure, protection, and occupancy elements that drive initial underwriting screens. Clarify property schedule, transit routes, and valuation basis.
training_stage: Foundation
line_of_business: Inland Marine
state: Arizona
underwriting_reasoning: Start by Clarify property schedule, transit routes, and valuation basis. Because this account operates in Arizona, reference AZ DOI brush hazard circular to stay compliant. Weigh property schedule dispersion against theft controls and deductibles. Aggregation in flood requires storage segregation. Apply AIMU Loss Control Guidelines (2024) to anchor rate selections, and document how deviations align with filed guidance.
pricing_decision: Schedule rate at 35 cents per $100 with deductible 9700.
loss_control_recommendation: Secure off-shift storage with surveillance and layered access control.
rating_reference: AIMU Loss Control Guidelines (2024)
citation: https://www.irmi.com; https://www.aimu.org
mentor_tip: Document how baseline exposure discovery insights support pricing and regulatory defensibility.
|
[
"https://www.irmi.com",
"https://www.aimu.org"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.irmi.com",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "HTTP 200"
},
{
"url": "https://www.aimu.org",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "HTTP 200"
}
] |
valid
|
|
As a California general liability underwriter managing a new business file for a university research laboratory (NAICS 611310) located in San Francisco, explain how you assess premises and operations hazards, products liability, and med pay considerations and recommend pricing and terms. Detail risk controls, loss experience, regulatory considerations, and pricing recommendation.
|
underwriting_decision: Accept with 10% premises liability debit; require updated COI management. Quote with disciplined underwriting guardrails.
underwriting_reasoning: Because community fire protection is weaker (PPC 7); recent loss pattern shows 2 claims including $75K cyber extortion event contained in 2022; earthquake exposure requires deductible management, the account requires disciplined terms. Increase wind deductible to 5% and apply +20% windstorm factor. Document FMCSA compliance and MCS-90 endorsement obligations.
rating_logic: AAIS Commercial GL Program; ISO GL rating plans; OSHA hazard communication standards; CA DOI wildfire surcharge bulletin
rating_focus: premises and operations hazards, products liability, and med pay considerations
citation: https://www.osha.gov; https://www.aaisonline.com
|
[
"https://www.osha.gov",
"https://www.aaisonline.com"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.osha.gov",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "HTTP 200"
},
{
"url": "https://www.aaisonline.com",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "HTTP 200"
}
] |
valid
|
|
Lay out a pricing rationale for an experienced accounting firm account.
|
Lay out a pricing rationale for an experienced accounting firm account.
|
Start by explaining the key underwriting logic behind the scenario: 'Lay out a pricing rationale for an experienced accounting firm account.'. Highlight why alignment with regulatory expectations and operational fleet realities is essential. Emphasize step-by-step reasoning, referencing the source material from https://www.iii.org to ensure compliance, risk visibility, and defensible coverage structure selection. Conclude with how a trainee should document exposures, justify decisions, and align risk characteristics with filed guidance.
|
[
"https://www.iii.org"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.iii.org",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "HTTP 200"
}
] |
valid
|
Discuss how statutory nuances affect pricing for a hospitality management group running resorts headquartered in Columbia, SC.
|
Workers' Compensation | {"operations": "hospitality management group running resorts", "class_codes": ["8017", "8039"], "total_payroll_millions": 130.0, "experience_mod": 0.95, "loss_ratio_3yr": 0.53, "return_to_work_program": "ad hoc assignments", "medical_panel": "open access state rules", "safety_committee": "employee led with quarterly meetings", "state_wc_coordination": "Department of Insurance tracks coastal filings and earthquake deductibles very closely.", "loss_history_5yr": {"claim_count": 3, "largest_loss": 632486}, "occupational_disease_focus": "ergonomic assessments scheduled annually"}
|
Hospitality management group running resorts in Columbia, SC carries class codes 8017, 8039 driving base loss costs. Experience mod at 0.95 and loss ratio 0.53 calibrate credibility. Department of Insurance tracks coastal filings and earthquake deductibles very closely. Return to work program status: ad hoc assignments. Key disease or cumulative trauma watch: ergonomic assessments scheduled annually. | Price using loss cost multiplier aligned with 0.95 and apply flat rating. Require quarterly stewardship with focus on ergonomic assessments scheduled annually.
|
[
"https://www.osha.gov"
] |
[] |
valid
|
Outline environmental underwriting stance on soil remediation contractor.
|
Boston, Massachusetts soil remediation contractor; revenue USD 59.0M with field crews working brownfield and active sites. Pollution exposure centers on soil vapor intrusion; 5-year loss ratio 54% with one cleanup reimbursement.
|
Site access, waste manifests, and transporter vetting must align with soil vapor intrusion to avoid long-tail liabilities. Loss ratio 54% supports CPL limits near 10M excess of USD 100,000 retention plus completed ops coverage. Coordinate with broker on mold, transportation, and non-owned disposal site endorsements. Decision: Quote CPL with manuscript endorsement provided stormwater sampling records. Guidance is illustrative only; refer to filed forms.
|
[
"https://www.naic.org/"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.naic.org/",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Training Stage: Advanced (complex modifiers). As a trainee commercial underwriter learning Cyber, evaluate the submission for a cloud data center in Macon, GA. Provide step-by-step judgement like a mentor. Emphasize the priority: Align MFA, segmentation, and vendor management with pricing models. Mentor yourself on how to tie bureau loss costs, state deviations, and account specifics into a composite rate.
|
learning_goal: Reconcile endorsements, territorial nuances, and large account considerations with bureau filings. Align MFA, segmentation, and vendor management with pricing models.
training_stage: Advanced
line_of_business: Cyber
state: Georgia
underwriting_reasoning: Start by Align MFA, segmentation, and vendor management with pricing models. Because this account operates in Georgia, reference GA DOI ISO loss cost memo to stay compliant. Tie control maturity and incident frequency to retention and pricing levers. Apply Cyber Risk Quantification Guide (NIST, 2024) to anchor rate selections, and document how deviations align with filed guidance.
pricing_decision: Set base rate with ransomware surcharge of 29% and 490000 retention.
loss_control_recommendation: Harden privileged access with PAM solution and test incident response playbooks.
rating_reference: Cyber Risk Quantification Guide (NIST, 2024)
citation: https://www.cisa.gov; https://www.naic.org
mentor_tip: Document how complex modifiers insights support pricing and regulatory defensibility.
|
[
"https://www.cisa.gov",
"https://www.naic.org"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.cisa.gov",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "HTTP 200"
},
{
"url": "https://www.naic.org",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "HTTP 200"
}
] |
valid
|
|
As a Texas commercial auto underwriter managing a post-catastrophe inspection file for a roofing contractor yard with fleet (NAICS 238160) located in Austin, explain how you assess fleet safety, radius of operation, and MCS-90 compliance and recommend pricing and terms. Detail risk controls, loss experience, regulatory considerations, and pricing recommendation.
|
underwriting_decision: Renew with 8% rate hike and quarterly driver training compliance. Keep coverage subject to remediation plan.
underwriting_reasoning: Because community fire protection is weaker (PPC 8); recent loss pattern shows 3 claims including $90K auto liability loss involving rear-end collision in 2023, the account requires disciplined terms. Bind subject to signed indemnity agreement and financial review. Reflect NCCI assigned risk surcharge for high experience mod.
rating_logic: ISO Commercial Auto Manual; FMCSA CSA basic scores; state financial responsibility filings; TX DOI coastal wind deductible bulletin
rating_focus: fleet safety, radius of operation, and MCS-90 compliance
citation: https://www.verisk.com; https://www.osha.gov
|
[
"https://www.verisk.com",
"https://www.osha.gov"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.verisk.com",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "HTTP 200"
},
{
"url": "https://www.osha.gov",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "HTTP 200"
}
] |
valid
|
End of preview. Expand
in Data Studio
README.md exists but content is empty.
- Downloads last month
- 51