Placement StructuresApplied

Binding Authority

Delegated underwriting

A delegated contract letting a coverholder bind risks on an insurer's behalf within agreed limits, without referring each one back first.

Open the interactive version → definition, quiz, structure diagram and progress tracking

Definition

A binding authority (or "binder") is an agreement under which an insurer delegates the power to accept risks and issue cover on its behalf to a coverholder — often a managing general agent — within pre-agreed limits on class of business, sum insured, territory and rate. It speeds up placement because the coverholder can bind a risk immediately rather than referring every submission back to the insurer, and reinsurers writing business that flows through binders need to understand the delegated authority's limits as closely as they understand the insurer's own underwriting appetite.

The coverholder acts as the insurer's agent, so every risk bound within the authority's terms is fully on risk for the insurer, whether or not the insurer reviewed that specific risk.
Reinsurers covering a binder-driven account rely on bordereaux from the coverholder, since the insurer itself may never see the individual risk details before a claim.
A binder written outside its own limits (a "binder breach") can create real coverage disputes about whether the insurer — and its reinsurers — are even on risk for that policy.

Worked example

A managing general agent holds a binding authority to write coastal homeowners business up to $2M per risk. It binds 400 policies over the year without referring any of them individually back to the insurer, and the insurer's quota-share reinsurer picks up its usual share of every one of those 400 policies automatically.

Scenario · figures in USD

A binder breach creates a coverage gap

A coverholder's binding authority caps individual risks at $2M. Under pressure to keep a large client, it binds a $3.5M warehouse risk without referring it back to the insurer first.

Binder's per-risk limit	$2M
Sum insured actually bound	$3.5M
Amount clearly within the binder's authority	$2M
Amount bound outside the binder's authority	$1.5M
Insurer's position on the $1.5M excess	Contested — may not be on risk for it at all

So whatA binder breach does not just risk the coverholder's relationship with the insurer — it can leave a real gap in exactly how much of the risk the insurer, and its reinsurers, are actually on the hook for.

Check your understanding

What does a binding authority let a coverholder do?

Accept and bind risks on the insurer's behalf within agreed limits. A binder delegates underwriting authority — the power to accept risks and issue cover — within pre-agreed limits, without referring each one back to the insurer first.

Why do reinsurers covering binder-driven business rely heavily on bordereaux?

The insurer itself may never see the individual risk details before a claim, so the bordereaux is the record of what was actually bound. Because the coverholder binds risks directly, the periodic bordereaux listing is often the first detailed record the insurer — and its reinsurers — have of exactly what was written.

Word problem

A coverholder's binder caps commercial property risks at $2M each. It binds a $2.8M risk under pressure from a broker relationship, then a covered loss of $2M occurs on that policy. Is the insurer's quota-share reinsurer automatically on risk for its usual share of that $2M loss?

Show a hint

Ask whether the policy itself was validly bound within the coverholder's delegated authority before asking whether the reinsurance responds to it.

Reveal the worked answer

The binder's authority is capped at $2M per risk; the coverholder bound $2.8M, exceeding that limit.
Because the underlying policy was written outside the coverholder's delegated authority, whether the insurer is even on risk for it is a live question, separate from the loss amount.
If the insurer is found not to be on risk for a binder breach, its reinsurance treaty — which only responds to risks the insurer is validly on risk for — would not respond either.
So the reinsurer's exposure to the $2M loss depends first on resolving whether the $2.8M policy was validly bound at all, not simply on doing the usual quota-share math.

Not automatically — because the risk was bound outside the coverholder's $2M authority, whether the insurer (and therefore its reinsurer) is even on risk for the policy has to be resolved first. A binder breach can put the whole recovery in question, not just the amount above the authority limit.