Colorado Surplus Lines study materials
Colorado Surplus Lines study resources

The "Exempt Commercial" Claim on a Pueblo Fabricator

Colorado Surplus Lines · Put your knowledge to work in context.

All case studies

The "Exempt Commercial" Claim on a Pueblo Fabricator

A Front Range metal fabricator has 480 employees, $62 million in annual revenue, and a $35 million net worth. It placed $340,000 of commercial insurance premium in the last 12 months and buys all of its insurance through an unaffiliated independent broker. Its Pueblo plant carries $22 million in total insured value, and the risk manager wants a $10 million limit with a broad pollution buy-back. Three admitted carriers can write the account, but only at roughly 40 percent more premium and with a $250,000 pollution sublimit. The surplus lines broker tells the client that no diligent search is needed because the account is "exempt commercial" and binds the non-admitted policy on Monday. On Tuesday the risk manager asks for the documentation supporting that statement.

1. Test the exempt commercial purchaser claim against each element of the definition. Does the exemption apply here?

Read the worked answer

The exemption applies only if every element is met. Element by element:

Element Standard This account
Net worth Exceeds $20 million $35 million - met
Size More than 500 employees or revenue over $50 million 480 employees fails, but $62 million revenue - met (the tests are alternatives)
Premium volume More than $100,000 of commercial premium in the preceding 12 months $340,000 - met
Broker Uses an unaffiliated broker to procure Met

Conclusion: the account qualifies as an exempt commercial purchaser for this transaction, so the diligent search requirement does not apply to this placement. The broker's conclusion is correct - but the reasoning has to be in the file, not just the label. Note that the status is transactional and time-bound: it is measured as of the placement, so the broker should record the financial and premium figures relied on, the date they were verified, and note that the determination must be refreshed for renewals rather than carried forward indefinitely.

2. Even with the exemption, what must the broker still do and document before binding?

Read the worked answer

The exemption removes the diligent search, not the other obligations:

  1. Written disclosure to the purchaser that the coverage may be available from authorized insurers at a lower premium, with different terms or conditions. That is exactly the situation here - admitted markets will write it, at more premium and with a $250,000 pollution sublimit. The disclosure must state both the premium and the coverage difference honestly.
  2. Eligibility of the insurer. The carrier must still be an eligible unauthorized insurer under Colorado standards at the time of placement. The exemption does not license the use of an ineligible carrier.
  3. Financial verification of the carrier and a check against the Division's current eligibility list, dated.
  4. The non-admitted disclosures - that the insurer is not admitted and that the Colorado Insurance Guaranty Association does not stand behind the claim.
  5. Documentation of ECP status: the financial statement or revenue figure, the 12-month premium figure, the broker relationship, and the date of the determination.

A file that says only "ECP - no search needed" is a citation waiting to happen, because the broker cannot later prove the elements were met.

3. The risk manager says revenue will drop to $40 million next year but headcount will rise to 520. Does the exemption survive?

Read the worked answer

Yes. The size element is satisfied by either more than 500 employees or revenue over $50 million. With 520 employees, the employment test is met even though revenue of $40 million fails the revenue test. Net worth, the $100,000 premium threshold, and the unaffiliated-broker element must still be re-verified.

The judgment point is procedural: ECP status is determined fresh for each transaction using current figures. A broker who simply renews last year's ECP notation without re-running the numbers is relying on a conclusion that may no longer be true - and if the exemption fails, the diligent search requirement snaps back with full force.