Insurance Program Launch Execution Checklist
End-to-end execution checklist for an MGA, MGU, or carrier launching a new insurance program — from risk register through SERFF filings to launch sign-off. Run by the Program Manager with the CUO, Head of Claims, CISO, and filing analysts.
Risk and Compliance Assessment
-
Build the program risk register
Cover underwriting appetite drift, fronting-carrier credit risk, reinsurance recoverable concentration, and regulatory exposures (Anti-Fraud Plan filing gaps, NYDFS Part 500 scope additions, GLBA Safeguards). Attach the register file below — this becomes the artifact reviewed at the biennial Part 500 risk assessment.
Collects file -
Score each risk by severity and likelihood
Use the carrier's 5x5 enterprise risk matrix. Anything scoring above the program's stated risk appetite tolerance requires sign-off from the CUO and Head of Claims before mitigation drafting begins.
-
Draft mitigation plans for high-severity risks
Each mitigation names the control owner, the test cadence, and the SOC 2 / Part 500 control mapping. "Monitor quarterly" is not a control — name the control activity, the evidence captured, and who reviews the evidence.
-
Assign accountable risk owners
One accountable owner per risk — typically Program Manager, CUO, Head of Claims, or CISO. Consulted parties are fine to list separately; multiple accountable owners means nobody is accountable.
-
Schedule the Part 500 risk review cadence
NYDFS Part 500 §500.09 requires biennial risk assessments at minimum; auditors expect annual in practice. Calendar the next review now and identify trigger events (new state, new line, M&A, major vendor change) that force an off-cycle review.
Stakeholder and Carrier Engagement
-
Map fronting carrier, reinsurer, and TPA contacts
Capture the fronting carrier underwriting and credit contacts, treaty and facultative reinsurers, the TPA claims lead, and the bordereau accountant. Add surplus-lines stamping office contacts for any target E&S state.
-
Draft the cedant and producer communication plan
Cedant: monthly bordereaux plus quarterly underwriting reports. Producers: appetite letters and ACORD 125/130 supplemental walk-throughs. Reinsurers: treaty performance against plan. Set the cadence here so renewals don't rebuild it from scratch.
-
Hold the weekly carrier program sync
Standing agenda: SERFF status by state, binding-authority blockers, IT build burn-down, TPA readiness, reinsurance attachment-point sign-off. Keep the agenda short or it turns into status theater.
-
Collect producer feedback on appetite and forms
Test the appetite letter and ACORD supplementals against three to five target wholesale brokers. Common feedback themes: hazard grade carve-outs too narrow, deductible options too thin, surplus-lines tax pass-through unclear.
-
Capture the binding authority decision
The fronting carrier must approve the MGA's binding authority document — line of business, policy limits, hazard grade, premium ceilings, referral triggers — before any binder issues. A Declined or Conditional answer triggers the resubmission step below.
Collects list -
Resubmit the binding authority package
Common carrier-requested revisions: tighter per-risk limits, narrower class codes, additional referral triggers above a premium threshold. Re-run senior underwriting sign-off on the revised package before sending it back to the carrier.
Resource and System Allocation
-
Match underwriting staff to authorized lines
Confirm each assigned underwriter holds an active resident or non-resident producer license with the correct line authority in every state where they will bind. NIPR is system of record — verify NPN status and CE currency, not just the agency-level appointment.
-
Allocate budget across filings and IT build
Line items: SERFF filing fees ($100–$200 per filing per state, typical), policy-admin configuration (PolicyCenter, Britecore, Insurity), bordereau tooling, outside counsel for form drafting, ISO/Verisk data license. Carry a 15% contingency.
Collects number -
Provision PolicyCenter and ClaimCenter sandboxes
Stand up sandboxes with the program's class codes, rating tables, and forms library. Confirm document templates render state-specific forms correctly — FL hurricane mitigation disclosure, CA WC Box 21, NY ANTI-fraud notice, TX Chapter 542 acknowledgement language.
-
Track staffing burn against the bind-date plan
Compare actual hours burned against the staffing plan weekly. Slippage on IT build or filing analyst capacity is the single most common cause of bind-date slip — catch it at week 4, not week 10.
-
Plan contingency staffing for surplus-lines volume
Surplus-lines tax filings and stamping office submissions spike in the first 60 days post-bind. Pre-identify the overflow team or wholesale partner who can absorb that volume — compliance for SL tax remittance ultimately rests with the producer of record.
Launch Timeline and SERFF Filings
-
List SERFF filing milestones per state
Tag each target state with its filing posture: prior-approval (PA), file-and-use (F&U), use-and-file (U&F), or no-file. PA states drive the critical path — typically NY, CA, MA, NJ, NC. Sequence PA filings first.
-
Build the Gantt with form-and-rate dependencies
Form filings depend on rate filings depend on rule filings — but the dependency direction varies by state. Do not build the Gantt without your filing analyst; generic templates routinely miss state-specific sequencing.
-
Assign filing analysts to each state DOI
One analyst per DOI relationship — these are interpersonal. The analyst handling FL OIR objections is rarely the right one for NY DFS. Name a primary and a backup for each state.
-
Record the first prior-approval state's approval
Capture the date of the first PA-state approval letter. This anchors launch communications, the cedant's attachment-point clock, and the producer appetite-letter release.
Collects date -
Adjust the bind date for any lagging state
If a PA state runs past plan, decide between launching in approved states only versus holding for a unified launch. Document the decision rationale and notify the cedant — pushing rates live in a PA state without approval is the exact failure mode that draws an unauthorized-rate market-conduct finding.
Quality Assurance and Audit Readiness
-
Define ACORD form data-quality criteria
Field-level rules: NAIC carrier code populated, FEIN format valid, state-specific class codes (NCCI vs. independent bureau), additional insured fields used correctly on ACORD 25 (Certificate Holder vs. Additional Insured). AMS auto-population is a known drift source over multiple renewal cycles.
-
Build the QA plan covering bind through FNOL
Test paths: ACORD 125/130 intake → bind → policy issuance → first FNOL → first reserve set → first claim payment with OFAC re-screen. Each path runs at least three test policies with realistic insured data.
-
Run the pre-launch market-conduct mock audit
Mock against the NAIC Market Regulation Handbook chapters relevant to your lines. Anticipate findings on: TX Chapter 542 prompt-payment timing, producer commission disclosure (NY Reg 187, CA SB 250), declination notice content, and OFAC re-screening at claim payment.
-
Log defects in the launch issue tracker
Each defect carries severity (blocker, major, minor), the failing control, and the SOC 2 / Part 500 control mapping. Blockers stop launch sign-off — no exceptions absorbed verbally.
-
Sign off on launch readiness
Program Manager, CUO, Head of Claims, and CISO each sign. The decision is Go, Conditional Go (with named exceptions and a remediation date), or No-Go. A No-Go branches into the remediation step below.
Collects list Collects paragraph Collects signature -
Remediate blockers and reconvene the panel
Address each blocker, retest the failing path end-to-end, and reconvene the four-person sign-off panel. Skipping the panel is how unauthorized rates and unfiled forms reach production — discovered later at a market-conduct exam, with statutory penalties.