How Spot Score Works

Authority to solicit, negotiate and place the assessed lines in the assessed jurisdictions, held by the named brokerage entity.

1. 0The named brokerage entity is verified as unable to place the assessed lines.
2. 1Material current restrictions affect the brokerage entity’s ability to place in the assessed scope.
3. 2Verified active producer authority carries documented restrictions within the assessed activity and jurisdiction; unresearched jurisdictions are not restrictions.
4. 3Current producer authority for the assessed placement activity and jurisdictions is verified for the named entity.
5. 4Current producer authority is verified together with the applicable firm licence, designated responsible producer and carrier appointments for the assessed scope.

The carrier and market relationships the brokerage evidences for placements in the assessed scope. A carrier’s own strength counts only where the relationship is named and evidenced; it never transfers from a logo. Capacity evidenced for one program is evidence about that program only. It never establishes the panel behind another program, and the assessed scope must name the programs the evidence covers.

1. 0Verified failure of the placement or capacity arrangements the brokerage relies on in the assessed scope.
2. 1Documented material instability in, or loss of, the brokerage’s carrier and market arrangements in scope.
3. 2Named carrier or market relationships are documented for part of the assessed scope, with material limits on breadth, lines covered or evidenced share; unnamed markets are not counted.
4. 3Current evidence names the carriers and markets supporting placements across the assessed scope and supports their stability.
5. 4Multi-period evidence supports a named, stable and appropriately broad panel across the assessed scope, including the terms of the material appointments or binding arrangements.

Current and historical findings against the brokerage entity within a documented regulatory search, including placement, compensation and fiduciary-handling conduct.

1. 0A current severe final finding threatens the brokerage’s lawful operation in scope.
2. 1Repeated or material unresolved final findings affect the assessed placement activity.
3. 2Material historical findings against the brokerage have documented remediation.
4. 3Findings are minor or resolved without a current material unresolved issue in the defined search.
5. 4Completed required searches find no material findings against the named brokerage entity in the defined five-year window; this does not establish a universal clean record.

Whether the brokerage makes its own role, its compensation and the insurer behind a placement traceable to the buyer.

1. 0Reviewed disclosures are verified as materially misleading about the brokerage’s role, compensation or the insurer behind a placement.
2. 1Material contradictions about role, compensation or placement responsibility remain unresolved.
3. 2Core disclosures are usable but leave the brokerage’s role, compensation basis or the issuing insurer materially ambiguous.
4. 3Role, compensation basis and placement responsibility are clear and consistent across the reviewed disclosures.
5. 4Entity, role, compensation including contingent arrangements, issuing insurer and servicing responsibility are consistently traceable across the reviewed disclosures.

Authority to write the assessed lines in the assessed jurisdictions: a certificate of authority for an insurer, or the delegated underwriting and binding authority and its appointments for a managing general agent.

1. 0The named entity is verified as unable to write or bind the assessed lines.
2. 1Material current restrictions affect the authority to write or bind in the assessed scope.
3. 2Verified active authority carries documented restrictions within the assessed lines and jurisdictions; unresearched jurisdictions are not restrictions.
4. 3Current authority to write or bind the assessed lines and jurisdictions is verified for the named entity.
5. 4Current authority is verified together with the appointments, delegation instruments and responsible-producer requirements the assessed programs depend on.

Resources appropriate to what the entity actually carries. For an insurer this is the issuing entity’s own capital, surplus and results. For a managing general agent it is the ability to sustain its own operations: the risk sits with the issuing carrier, not the MGA, and an MGA must never be scored as if it held an insurer’s balance sheet.

1. 0Verified failure to meet relevant financial obligations.
2. 1Documented material financial or capacity stress.
3. 2Resources support the current role with evidenced material financial or capacity constraints; missing records are not constraints.
4. 3Current evidence supports adequate resources and stable material arrangements.
5. 4Multi-period evidence supports sustained strength and resilience of material arrangements without unresolved material stress.

Where underwriting, issuance, servicing and claims responsibility sits between the assessed entity, its carriers and any third-party administrator, and how it is escalated and sustained.

1. 0Verified breakdown of required servicing or claims responsibility.
2. 1Material evidenced gaps or unresolved servicing failures.
3. 2Responsible parties and basic processes are documented with material limitations.
4. 3Responsibilities, access and escalation are clearly supported by current evidence.
5. 4Responsibilities and escalation are clear with independently evidenced oversight, continuity and remediation effectiveness.

The capacity standing behind the assessed programs: who issues the paper, which reinsurers or fronting carriers support it, on what terms, and how durable the arrangement is evidenced to be. Programs are backed by different panels and different backers, and a panel can change. Capacity evidenced for one program is evidence about that program only. It never establishes the panel behind another program, and the assessed scope must name the programs the evidence covers.

1. 0Verified failure or withdrawal of the capacity an assessed program depends on.
2. 1Documented material instability in, or loss of, the issuing-carrier, fronting or reinsurance arrangements for an assessed program.
3. 2Issuing carriers or reinsurers are named for part of the assessed scope, with material limits on the evidenced terms, lines, states or durability; unnamed capacity is not counted.
4. 3Current evidence names the capacity behind each assessed program and supports the arrangements’ stability.
5. 4Multi-period evidence supports named, stable capacity across the assessed programs with disclosed material terms, including the reinsurance or fronting arrangements each relies on.

Current and historical findings within a documented regulatory search.

1. 0A current severe final finding threatens lawful operation in scope.
2. 1Repeated or material unresolved final findings affect the assessed activity.
3. 2Material historical findings have documented remediation.
4. 3Findings are minor or resolved without a current material unresolved issue in the defined search.
5. 4Completed required searches find no material findings in the defined five-year window; this does not establish a universal clean record.

Consistency and clarity of the material disclosures reviewed.

1. 0Reviewed disclosures are verified as materially misleading.
2. 1Material contradictions in reviewed disclosures remain unresolved.
3. 2Core reviewed disclosures are usable but materially ambiguous.
4. 3Relevant reviewed disclosures are clear and consistent.
5. 4Entity, product, authority and financial responsibilities are consistently traceable across the reviewed disclosures.