Skip to content
All workInsurance
Alderstone RiskCommercial insurance underwriting
Insurance

Turn a messy submission into a defensible underwriting decision.

A middle-market underwriting workbench that preserves source documents while structuring exposure, loss history, appetite, authority, pricing, and broker communication.

126 this weekNew submissions
81Cleared
27Need info
18Referred or declined

Scale and interface figures on this page are illustrative.

Operating thesis

Preserve judgment. Structure the evidence.

Underwriting remains a professional decision; the software makes source facts, assumptions, appetite logic, authority, and version history inspectable.

01

Fragmented context

ACORD forms, schedules of values, loss runs, emails, supplemental applications and broker notes arrive as one submission but not one dataset.

02

Decision logic

Appetite and authority rules should guide judgment without pretending underwriting is deterministic.

03

Operational handoff

Pricing changes as limits, deductibles, attachments, credits and assumptions change; every version needs lineage.

Product model

One risk file, many source documents.

The workbench turns an unstructured broker package into a governed decision record without hiding provenance.

M01

Submission intake

Email ingestion, clearance, extraction, document provenance and completeness checks.

M02

Risk workspace

Locations/exposures, operations, controls, loss history, catastrophe context and narrative.

M03

Appetite

Rule evaluation with explainable pass/refer/decline outcomes and override path.

M04

Pricing scenarios

Rate, exposure basis, modifiers, limits, deductible, premium and version comparison.

M05

Authority

Referral thresholds, approver chain, exception rationale and bind permissions.

Workflow logic

Quote versions must be defensible.

Every commercial scenario carries assumptions, authority state, referral history, and the evidence used to support it.

01ReceiveBroker package ingested from email
02ClearInsured/FEIN/location duplicate check
03ExtractSOV + loss runs + ACORD linked to source pages
04EvaluateAppetite + catastrophe + loss analysis
05QuoteScenario approved within authority and issued
Product surfaces

Representative application states.

Representative application states from the product. Figures shown on screen are illustrative.

SCREEN 01 · SUBMISSION DESK

New business

Property · Northeast

Underwriting / Property · Northeast

Submission desk

126 received this week 42 expiring < 30 days
Cleared 81Need info 27Referral 9Declined 9
Insured · brokerClassTIVDocumentsStatusUWExpires
Hearth & Mill Foods
Marsh & Rowe
Food manufacturing$42.8m92%ReferralMK22d
North Coast Plastics
Delaney Brokerage
Plastics$18.4m71%Need infoJT35d
Vera Hospitality
Marsh & Rowe
Hotels$61.0m84%Need infoMK19d
Brightwater Cold Storage
Corvo Partners
Cold storage$27.6m100%ClearedAL41d
Kessler Auto Group
Delaney Brokerage
Auto dealers$33.1m96%ClearedJT28d
Ridgeline Logistics
Corvo Partners
Warehousing$52.3m100%ClearedAL16d
Pell Street Apartments
Marsh & Rowe
Multifamily$24.9m58%Need infoMK12d
Oakmoor Steel
Delaney Brokerage
Metals$70.2m100%ReferralAL30d
SCREEN 02 · RISK FILE

Hearth & Mill Foods

Property package

Submissions / Hearth & Mill Foods

Risk file

11 locations Cat score: moderate
TIV$42.8m
5-yr incurred$186k
Largest location31% of TIV
LocDescriptionTIVProtection
04Riverside cold storage
Masonry non-combustible
$13.3mESFR
01Main plant & offices
Joisted masonry
$6.2mWet sprinkler
02Ambient warehouse
Masonry non-combustible
$4.8mWet sprinkler
03Blast freezer annex
Non-combustible
$4.1mESFR
05Distribution hub
Masonry non-combustible
$3.5mWet sprinkler
06Packaging line
Non-combustible
$2.9mPartial
07–11Five smaller locations$8.0m
Loss history
DateCauseIncurred
2025-03Freezer compressor fire$118k
2023-08Frozen pipe water damage$41k
2022-11Theft$27k
Source ACORD 140 · p.3
04 Riverside cold storage TIV $13,300,000ACORD 140 · page 3 of 7

Every extracted value links back to its source page.

SCREEN 03 · PRICING

Structure scenarios

Compare before referral

Submissions / Hearth & Mill Foods

Pricing scenarios

Technical premium $195.4k Target $176k
Scenario A
$188.0k$100k deductible · Blanket limit
Credit
3.8% credit
vs target
+$12.0k
Within authority
Scenario BLocked for referral
$171.0k$250k deductible · Location schedule
Credit
12.5% credit
vs target
−$5.0k
Exceeds 10% authority
Scenario C
$181.3k$100k deductible · Layered wind option
Credit
7.2% credit
vs target
+$5.3k
Wind layer needs referral
Scenario B build-up $ thousands
050100150200128.0Loss cost41.2Expenses18.6Cat load7.6Profit195.4Technical−24.4Credit 12.5%171.0Scenario BTarget 176
SCREEN 04 · APPETITE

Rule evaluation

Hearth & Mill Foods

Submissions / Hearth & Mill Foods

Appetite

Outcome: refer 22 rules · 19 pass · 3 refer
Rule groupRulesPassRefer
Class & occupancy550
Geography & catastrophe431
Construction & protection541
Loss experience431
Limits & structure440
Coastal wind TIVRefer
$7.9m$5.0m authority threshold
Roof age over 25 yearsRefer
2 locations26 and 31 years old
Open loss control recommendationRefer
1 openRoof electrical thermography

Each outcome is explained. An underwriter can override any rule with a written reason, which routes to referral.

SCREEN 05 · AUTHORITY

Referral packet

REF-2841

Referrals / REF-2841

Referral packet

Pending Requested Sep 24
Approval chain
  1. Underwriter · M. KesslerSubmitted with scenario B locked
    Sep 24
  2. Referral manager · D. OrtizRequested updated roof inspection
    Sep 25
Rationale

Preferred broker, strong protection at the largest location and a clean five-year record apart from one closed fire loss. Credit above authority is requested for the deductible structure.

Credit against authority
Authority 10%Requested 12.5%
Packet
ACORD 140 and SOV
Five-year loss runs
Pricing scenario B (locked)
Roof inspection update
Edge-state design

Failure states are part of the product model.

The cases below are intentionally modeled because real operating software is defined by what happens when data, people, or dependencies do not line up.

EDGE 01

Broker sends revised SOV

Create a new document/exposure version and show which pricing scenarios became stale.

EDGE 02

Authority changes mid-quote

Existing approved quote preserves its authority evidence; new scenarios evaluate against current rules.

EDGE 03

Extraction confidence is low

Require human validation and keep the exact source page visible beside the field.

System logic

The data model behind the interface.

The interface follows the domain relationships and rules below.

Canonical objects

SubmissionInsuredBrokerDocumentExposure/locationLossAppetite resultPricing scenarioAuthority referralQuote version

Domain rules

✓Extracted facts always retain source-document/page provenance.
✓Clearance precedes quoting so duplicate/conflicting submissions can be handled explicitly.
✓Every bound quote is tied to an approved pricing scenario and authority state.
Alderstone Risk · Case studyInterface figures are illustrative

Contact

Have something like this to build?

Tell us what you're trying to build and who it's for. If it isn't a fit, we'll say so and point you somewhere better.