Selecting a Broker for High-Risk Industries: What to Ask About Carrier Appetite and Claims Support

High-risk industries — construction, transportation, manufacturing, cannabis, large-scale hospitality, and many technology and cyber-exposed firms — require a broker who can do more than "get a price." You need a partner who can access the right carriers, structure unusual programs, and deliver decisive claims advocacy when losses occur. This ultimate guide walks procurement teams, risk managers, and CFOs through exactly what to ask, how to evaluate answers, and what contractual protections to insist on when buying commercial insurance for high-exposure accounts.

Table of contents

Why the broker choice matters for high-risk industries
Key concepts: carrier appetite, binding authority, admitted vs. non-admitted markets
How to evaluate broker market access and underwriting relationships
Claims support: what real advocacy looks like (and how to measure it)
The exact questions to ask — appetite, placement, and claims (RFP-ready)
Sample RFP / scoring rubric and procurement language
Contractual clauses, SLAs and “must-haves” in broker agreements
Red flags, negotiating fees, and ongoing evaluation KPIs
Case scenarios and example outcomes
Appendix: comparison tables, templates, further reading

Table of Contents

Why the broker choice matters for high-risk industries

When risk is routine, price and carrier A.M. Best ratings might be enough. For high-risk firms, however, the broker’s role expands to:

Securing access to specialty markets and surplus lines carriers that will consider complex or volatile exposures.
Understanding nuanced policy forms, exclusions, and endorsements that determine whether a claim will pay.
Delivering claims advocacy — immediate, technical, and persistent support that can materially affect settlement timing and amounts.

In short: with complex exposures, insurer selection and claims handling often determine the real value of insurance — not just the premium. That’s why procurement must ask about both carrier appetite (can the market write this risk?) and claims support (will the broker and chosen carrier stand behind you when it matters?).

Key concepts you must understand (and confirm with your broker)

Carrier appetite

Carrier appetite describes the types of risks, industries, geographies, and exposures an insurer is willing to underwrite. Appetite is dynamic — it changes with loss experience, reinsurance arrangements, and market cycles — so you should expect a broker to demonstrate current, specific appetite for your industry and size.

Binding authority (why it matters)

A broker or coverholder that holds binding authority from a carrier (or Lloyd’s managing agent) can bind coverage and issue policies without seeking underwriter approval every time — speeding placement and enabling program continuity. Binding authority can also create faster FNOL escalation routes but requires oversight and clarity on limits and delegation. A binding authority is a formal delegation between insurer and intermediary that defines the scope and limits of what the broker/MGA can commit. (lloyds.com)

Admitted vs non-admitted (surplus lines) carriers

High-risk placements frequently require non-admitted / surplus lines carriers because admitted insurers may not offer coverage or the flexibility needed. Non-admitted carriers offer greater form and pricing flexibility but do not participate in state guaranty funds; admitted carriers do and are subject to rate and form filings. Your broker must be transparent about why they are using surplus lines capacity and explain solvency, tax compliance and disclosure implications. (content.naic.org)

How to evaluate broker market access and underwriting relationships

Market access for high-risk accounts is not only about name recognition; it’s about meaningful underwriting relationships, delegated authority, and creative program design.

What to verify:

Which carriers will the broker approach for your specific risk (names and underwriting contacts).
Does the broker have binding authority or delegated authority with any of those carriers or MGAs? If so, obtain the written scope and limits of that authority. Binding authority shortens placement time and can be critical during a hard market. (insuranceopedia.com)
Does the broker use wholesale brokers, MGAs, or London market wholsesalers — and how do those relationships affect pricing and claims escalation?
Has the broker placed similar accounts in the last 12–24 months? Ask for three recent placements (redacted) in your industry with the same carrier types.

Practical due diligence steps:

Ask for underwriting contact names and the last date they placed business for your broker with each carrier.
Request copies of binding authority agreements or MGA delegations that affect your account — at least redacted extracts showing scope and limits.
Confirm capacity lines (primary, excess, umbrella) and whether carriers will follow form on excess layers.

Why this matters: a broker who relies on “one-off” introductions — instead of established delegated relationships — will struggle to negotiate special terms and to escalate claims quickly when a complex loss occurs.

Claims support: what real advocacy looks like (and how to measure it)

When a large or complex claim occurs, time and technical expertise matter more than price. Brokers with mature claims advocacy functions go beyond simple claim reporting: they proactively manage FNOL, monitor reserves, coordinate experts, challenge inappropriate coverage denials, and negotiate for full policy value.

What modern claims advocacy teams do:

Provide FNOL triage and verify coverage within hours.
Coordinate with carriers, adjusters, and TPAs — and escalate disputes to senior underwriters quickly.
Manage external vendors: forensic accountants, engineers, appraisers, and counsel.
Maintain internal claims specialists or a “claims advocacy” unit that reviews reserves, strategy, and litigation posture. Large brokers often staff claims teams with former adjusters or lawyers to strengthen negotiations. (ajg.com)

KPIs and service benchmarks to demand

Time to first contact (FNOL acknowledgment) — target: within 4 hours for major losses; same-day for less critical claims. (Best-in-class operations aim even lower with automated FNOL.) (getstrada.com)
First Contact Resolution (FCR) — percent of claims where coverage/next steps are clarified on first engagement. Industry aims for 70–80% across channels; claims can be more complex, but transparency here is critical. (getstrada.com)
Claim status cadence — weekly written updates for complex claims; monthly for smaller but open matters.
Time to closure / indemnity — benchmarks vary by line, but require the broker to set reasonable targets and report trends.

Table — Claims advocacy features (what to expect)

Feature	Why it matters	What to require
Dedicated claims advocate/team	Deep technical advocacy speeds fair outcomes	Named advocate, contact details, hours of operation
FNOL SLA	Rapid engagement prevents missed coverages	Acknowledge FNOL within X hours; initial coverage review within 24–48 hours
Escalation path to underwriter	Needed when carriers take adverse positions	Written escalation matrix and escalation response time
Reserve/review reports	Helps control loss development	Quarterly reserve reviews for open losses > $X
Vendor management	Ensures credible expert support	Ability to nominate/approve vendors and counsel

Caveat: benchmarks are achievable only when the broker has relationships and capacity to escalate claims. Ask for concrete examples where the broker overturned a carrier denial or recovered material additional value on behalf of a client.

The exact questions to ask a broker (appetite, placement, and claims — RFP-ready)

Below is an exhaustive list of procurement-grade questions you can drop into an RFP or use in interviews. Group them into sections for appetite, placement mechanics, claims, and governance.

Appetite & underwriting

Which carriers or MGAs will you approach specifically for our account? Please list carrier names, publishing their admitted/non-admitted status, and the contact underwriter(s) you will use.
Have you placed risks like ours (industry, revenue band, payroll, fleet size) in the last 24 months? Provide three redacted placement examples with dates and high-level results.
Do any of those carriers have binding authority or delegated authority with your firm, an MGA you use, or a Lloyd’s coverholder? If yes, provide the scope and limits in writing (redacted if needed). (lloyds.com)
Are there common endorsements, exclusions, or retention structures these carriers require for our industry? Please list likely endorsements and explain why they are used.
If a carrier declines, what is your escalation pathway (E.g., panel presentation, appetite letter to reinsurance, Lloyd’s syndicate submission)?

Placement mechanics & compliance
6. Will any part of this program be placed on a non-admitted/surplus lines basis? If yes, explain why and confirm tax/disclosure compliance processes. (Surplus lines are typical for specialized risk but require specific producer licensing and tax filings.) (content.naic.org)
7. Which layers will be admitted vs surplus lines? Who files the surplus lines taxes and evidence of placement?
8. Do you or your wholesaler/MGA hold binding authority that affects our policy issuance or endorsements? Provide a redacted copy of the delegation or a summary of its limits.
9. If a carrier becomes insolvent, how will you support our claim and what protections exist when using non-admitted capacity? (Insist on an explanation of guaranty fund limits and implications for non-admitted carriers.) (bostonbarinsurance.com)

Claims support & advocacy
10. Describe your claims advocacy/service model. Do you maintain a separate claims advocacy team or function? Provide bios for claims leads who will be assigned to our program. (ajg.com)
11. What are your FNOL procedures? SLA targets for acknowledgment, initial coverage analysis, and escalation? (Example targets: acknowledgment within 4 hours, initial coverage assessment within 24–48 hours.)
12. How do you communicate with clients during a complex claim (frequency & format)? Provide sample templates of claim status reports.
13. Provide three examples (redacted) where you negotiated coverage positions or additional indemnity for clients in our industry, including the outcome.
14. Do you run post-loss analyses and lessons-learned sessions? If so, provide a sample post-claim review report.
15. If the carrier denies coverage, what escalation options will you pursue (reconsideration, external mediation, appraisal, litigation support)?

Commercial terms & conflicts
16. What are your fees, commissions, and any contingent compensation associated with placements for our account? How will you disclose and invoice those fees?
17. Do you accept contingent commission / profit-share arrangements with carriers who underwrite our program? If yes, please disclose carriers and general terms.
18. Provide your errors & omissions (E&O) insurance details (carrier, limits, retro date) and a copy of your E&O certificate.

Governance & transparency
19. Provide your service-level KPIs for claims and servicing (FCR, FNOL time, client satisfaction, renewal hit rate).
20. What is the escalation path inside your firm if service or claims handling falls short?

Use these questions verbatim in an RFP or ask them in a shortlisted-broker interview.

Sample RFP scoring rubric (procurement-ready)

Use a weighted scoring model where claims advocacy and carrier access carry more weight for high-risk accounts.

Criterion	Weight
Demonstrated carrier appetite & recent placements in industry	20%
Binding authority / delegated relationships and speed of placement	15%
Claims advocacy capability & FNOL SLA commitments	20%
Pricing & program structure (net of fees)	15%
Transparency on commissions, conflicts, & E&O	10%
Service KPIs and reporting capability	10%
References & case studies	10%

Scoring tip: require a minimum pass-threshold for claims advocacy and carrier appetite (e.g., 70% of available points in these categories) — otherwise the broker is disqualified even if price is competitive.

Contractual clauses and SLAs to insist on

Insist these clauses are in your broker engagement (or make them conditions in the placement letter):

FNOL SLA: broker to acknowledge and provide initial coverage analysis within specified hours for material losses (e.g., acknowledge within 4 hours, initial coverage analysis within 48 hours).
Named claims advocate: identify the person/team with contact details and fallback contacts.
Escalation matrix: written procedure that commits the broker to escalate disputes with carriers to named underwriting leaders within specified timeframes.
Reporting & transparency: quarterly service reports including open claims > $X, reserve positions, and claims turnaround metrics.
Right to audit: ability to audit broker placement files and communications related to your account (redacted as necessary for confidentiality).
Fee transparency: all broker fees and contingent compensation required to be disclosed quarterly.
Indemnity limitation and E&O representation: broker maintains E&O insurance with specified limits and agrees to notify you of coverage changes.
Termination for service failure: defined triggers for remediation and right to terminate fees-based services if agreed SLAs are breached repeatedly.

These clauses turn promises into enforceable obligations and create leverage in performance reviews.

Red flags: answers that should worry you

Vague carrier lists (“we have access to all major carriers”) without names and underwriter contacts.
Refusal to produce redacted recent placement examples in your industry.
No documented binding authority or a refusal to summarize its scope.
No named claims advocate or an outsourced, anonymous TPA with no escalation path.
Evasive answers about surplus lines use, tax filings, or solvency implications.
Unwillingness to disclose fee arrangements or contingent commission details.

If you encounter two or more of these red flags, pause the procurement process and request references and documentation immediately.

Negotiating broker fees and commissions (brief tactics)

Ask for a split between commission and service fee; tie service fee to measurable KPIs and SLAs.
Require fee clawbacks or remediation credits if SLAs are missed for consecutive quarters.
For captive or captive-like structures, request transparent sharing of program data and audit rights.
When contingent commissions exist, require disclosure of carrier names and types of arrangements; prefer flat service fees for independence.

For more on negotiating fees and how to review commissions, see our related guide: Negotiating Broker Fees and Commissions: Tactics to Improve Transparency and Lower Costs.

How to evaluate performance after selection (ongoing KPIs)

Track these KPIs quarterly and include them in renewal negotiations:

Renewal hit rate: percent of target carriers who returned acceptable terms by renewal date.
Time to bind: average days from submission to binder for each renewal layer.
FNOL acknowledgement time and initial coverage analysis time.
Claim outcome measures: average time to indemnity, percent of claims with carrier denial overturned, reserves movement after broker intervention.
Client satisfaction (CSAT) for claims handling.

Case scenarios (examples and what to expect)

Scenario A — Construction general contractor, large fire loss

Problem: carrier delays coverage position due to disputed subcontractor scope.
What a top broker does: immediately assigns a claims advocate; retains fire forensics and construction estimator; escalates to carrier senior underwriter; presses for advance payments to mitigate cashflow pain while coverage is being negotiated.
Outcome (example): carrier issued partial advance payment within 10 days, full coverage position resolved within 90 days after mediation and factual demonstration. Post-loss analysis recommended broader sublimit and additional endorsements to address subcontractor risk.

Scenario B — Fleet operator with repeated large third-party liability exposure

Problem: carrier wants to impose onerous endorsement and raise retention significantly.
What a strong broker does: markets to multiple specialty and surplus lines fleets markets, presents loss control action plan, negotiates a layered program (admitted primary, surplus excess) and secures a performance-based retention reduction linked to telematics deployment.
Outcome: client accepts modest premium increase in exchange for improved cover structure and substitute driver management program.

These examples highlight why both appetite and claims advocacy matter: appetite secures placement; claims advocacy preserves indemnity and cashflow in a loss.

Appendix A — Comparison: Broker appetite vs claims support (quick reference)

Dimension	Strong broker (what to expect)	Weak broker (warning signs)
Appetite transparency	Named carriers + recent redacted placements	"We have access to everyone" with no specifics
Delegated authority	Provides redacted binding authority scope	Denies existence or scope of delegation
Claims advocacy	Dedicated claims team, named advocates, SLAs	Claims "we'll call the carrier" with no SLA
FNOL responsiveness	4-hour acknowledge; 24–48 hr coverage assessment	Days to acknowledge; no updates
Vendor management	Can nominate and coordinate credible vendors	Leaves vendor selection entirely to carriers
Fee transparency	Discloses commission & fee schedule, periodic statements	Fees bundled into premium with no disclosure

Appendix B — Sample RFP snippets (copy/paste)

Appetite & Placement section:

"Please provide the names of the carriers and MGAs you will approach for this account. For each entity, indicate (A) admitted or non-admitted status, (B) the primary underwriter contact, (C) whether your firm has any delegated/binding authority with that entity, and (D) a redacted placement example within the last 24 months for a materially similar risk."

Claims section:

"Provide the name, title, and contact details for the claims advocate or advocacy team assigned to this account. Provide sample SLAs for FNOL, initial coverage review, weekly status reporting for complex losses, and escalation timelines. Provide three redacted claim outcomes where advocacy altered the carrier's position."

Service-level terms:

"We require quarterly service reports containing open claims > $50,000, claim status, reserves, and a summary of actions taken by the broker on each claim."

External references (authoritative sources)

The NAIC’s surplus lines overview — why surplus lines exist and how they are governed (useful when brokers propose non-admitted capacity). (content.naic.org)
Lloyd’s explanation of binding authority and the role of delegated authorities — essential when a broker or coverholder claims delegated binding power. (lloyds.com)
Insuranceopedia’s practical definition of binding authority and typical constraints; helpful to interpret delegation documents. (insuranceopedia.com)
Comparison of admitted vs. non-admitted carrier implications (consumer protections, rate/form filings) — important when surplus lines are proposed. (bostonbarinsurance.com)
Industry resources on claims KPIs (FNOL, First Contact Resolution, and response-time benchmarks) — use these when setting SLAs and measuring advocacy performance. (getstrada.com)
Examples of broker-held claims advocacy practices from major brokerages (how structured claims advocacy works in practice). (ajg.com)

Final checklist — immediately actionable items (procurement)

Require named carrier lists and three redacted placement references before final selection.
Ask for redacted binding authority documentation or a written summary of delegated limits.
Insist on a named claims advocate and written FNOL and escalation SLAs in the broker engagement.
Build appetite and claims capability weight into your RFP scoring (claims should be ≥20% weight).
Add a quarterly reporting clause and right to audit placement files.
Negotiate a clear fee and commission disclosure clause with remediation credits tied to missed SLAs.

Selecting the right broker for a high-risk business is a procurement exercise that blends underwriting intelligence, contractual rigor, and an insistence on measurable claims advocacy. Use the RFP questions, SLA language, and scoring rubric above to separate brokers who can truly deliver from those who offer only talk. When the loss occurs, the difference will be measurable in speed of recovery, amount recovered, and — ultimately — your company’s ability to stay in business.

If you’d like, I can:

convert the RFP questions into a downloadable Word or Google Doc,
supply an editable contract SLA clause package tailored to your state(s),
or build a custom scoring template weighted for your organization’s exposures. Which would help most?