Insurance Underwriting Vetting Report

Overview

An Insurance Underwriting Vetting Report is a paginated, twelve-section due-diligence document on a person (D&O / Key Person / E&O insured) or an entity (Cyber / Property / Liability insured) being underwritten for insurance. It is generated on demand from public registry filings, SEC filings, regulator enforcement records, sanctions lists, breach-notification databases, and the applicant’s own enriched profile. It takes three to five minutes to produce, costs 50 credits (about $20 USD), and is delivered as a shareable HTML report with a printable PDF view.

It is intended for an underwriter at a carrier, MGA, or insurance broker deciding whether to bind, refer to senior underwriter, request additional information, or decline.

The report is not a binding decision. It is a structured presentation of the public record across four NAIC-aligned underwriting axes — identity verification, financial integrity, loss-history signal, governance/control posture — for the underwriter to evaluate themselves in the context of carrier-internal underwriting guidelines.

The Six Frameworks We Adopt

NAIC Underwriting Standards

The U.S. National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) is the standard-setting body for state insurance regulation. The NAIC’s underwriting model standards inform the four axes that anchor every Insurance Underwriting Vetting Report: identity verification (knowing the applicant), financial integrity (capacity to pay premium + capacity to be a stable insured), loss-history signal (claims experience), and governance / control posture (signals of operational risk). State-level rules layer additional jurisdiction-specific requirements on top of the NAIC baseline.

ICD 203 — Analytic Standards (Office of the Director of National Intelligence)

The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Directive 203 defines nine tradecraft standards: properly described sources, proper expression of uncertainty, distinction between intelligence and assumptions, incorporation of alternative analysis, judgement of consequences, customer-relevant focus, logical argumentation, accurate reflection of source content, and clear language. We treat these as binding for every Insurance Underwriting Vetting Report.

D&O Underwriter Risk Framework

Directors-and-officers liability insurance underwriters at Chubb, AIG, Allianz, Travelers, and the major reinsurers evaluate executives along a multi-axis risk framework before binding policies. The framework emphasises: tenure pattern, Form 4 stock-sale timing relative to material announcements, related-party transactions disclosed in 10-K and proxy filings, prior litigation naming the executive personally, regulatory enforcement actions, board-resignation patterns under stress. Section 5 (Governance / Control Posture) of every Insurance Underwriting Vetting Report applies this framework directly when the line is D&O or Key Person.

UK PHIA Probability Yardstick (UK Defence Intelligence)

The Professional Head of Intelligence Assessment publishes a seven-band probability yardstick — Remote chance (under 5%) / Highly unlikely (10-20%) / Unlikely (25-35%) / Realistic possibility (40-50%) / Likely (55-75%) / Highly likely (80-90%) / Almost certain (over 95%). Every probabilistic claim — loss-frequency inferences, sanctions-exposure projections, stability claims — is expressed using these seven bands paired with an analytical-confidence rating (High / Moderate / Low).

AML/KYC + OFAC Sanctions Compliance

Anti-Money-Laundering and Know-Your-Customer compliance plus OFAC sanctions screening. Section 9 (Sanctions Screening) screens the applicant against publicly-available portions of OFAC SDN, UN Consolidated, EU Financial Sanctions, and UK HMT lists. Sanctions exposure is typically a hard-decline trigger for most carriers; we surface it as such with PHIA confidence.

NIST CSF 2.0 (Cybersecurity Framework)

The National Institute of Standards and Technology Cybersecurity Framework version 2.0 (2024) defines six functions for organisational cybersecurity: GOVERN, IDENTIFY, PROTECT, DETECT, RESPOND, RECOVER. Section 6 (Cyber Security Posture) of every Insurance Underwriting Vetting Report maps the applicant’s observable posture to these six functions when the underwritten line is Cyber, Tech E&O, or any liability with material cyber-component. Where the line is non-cyber-relevant on an individual subject, the section is retained for completeness with a notice.

The Twelve Sections of an Insurance Underwriting Vetting Report

D&O Underwriter Risk Framework — How We Apply It

Directors-and-officers liability insurance pricing is one of the most demanding executive risk-evaluation processes in the U.S. economy. Underwriters at Chubb, AIG, Allianz, Travelers, and the major reinsurance markets evaluate every named officer against a multi-axis framework before binding new D&O policies, raising premiums, or excluding individuals from coverage.

Section 5 (Governance / Control Posture) of every Insurance Underwriting Vetting Report applies this framework along five axes when the underwritten line is D&O or Key Person:

1. Compensation pattern. Cash-vs-equity mix where disclosed in proxy filings. Repricing events. Golden-parachute trigger structure. Perks materially above peer median.
2. Form 4 timing. Stock sales within the 30-day window before negative material announcements. Cluster patterns of executive selling around predictable events. Pledging or hedging of company stock where company policy bans it.
3. Related-party transactions. 10-K and proxy disclosures of business arrangements between the named officer (or their family / affiliated entities) and the company.
4. Litigation exposure. Civil suits naming the officer personally as defendant. Securities class actions where the officer is named.
5. Regulatory enforcement. SEC, FTC, DOJ, FINRA, state-AG enforcement actions. Wells notices. Consent decrees.

NIST CSF 2.0 — How We Apply It

The NIST Cybersecurity Framework version 2.0 (2024) defines six high-level functions:

• GOVERN — cybersecurity risk-management programme, board-level oversight, written policies, role accountability.
• IDENTIFY — asset and data inventory, third-party-risk programme, regulatory-context mapping.
• PROTECT — access control, encryption, data-at-rest + data-in-motion protections, security training programme.
• DETECT — continuous monitoring, anomaly detection, log-analytics capability.
• RESPOND — incident-response capability, breach playbooks, communications plan.
• RECOVER — business continuity, disaster recovery, post-incident hardening.

Section 6 (Cyber Security Posture) maps the applicant’s observable posture to these six functions, citing public evidence: SOC 2 Type II reports, ISO 27001 certifications, prior breach disclosures (SEC 8-K material-cybersecurity-incident filings since 2023, state-AG breach-notification databases), public bug-bounty programme posture, security-team size signals from LinkedIn, public security blog or RFC publication.

Where data is thin: "Cyber posture not assessable from public record; recommend underwriter request SOC 2 Type II / ISO 27001 / pen-test attestations directly from applicant."

AML/KYC + OFAC Sanctions Compliance

Section 9 (Sanctions Screening) of every Insurance Underwriting Vetting Report screens against four publicly-available consolidated lists:

• OFAC Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) list — U.S. Treasury / OFAC.
• UN Security Council Consolidated Sanctions List.
• EU Financial Sanctions consolidated list.
• UK HMT Consolidated List of financial sanctions targets.

Sanctions exposure is typically a HARD-DECLINE trigger for most carriers; we surface it as such with PHIA confidence. We do not access subscription consolidated-screening tools (World-Check, LexisNexis WorldCompliance, Dow Jones Risk & Compliance, ComplyAdvantage). When binding requires CRA-tier sanctions screening, the carrier should commission that separately.

Honest Limits — what we do not do

Corrections Policy

Three commitments modeled on the BBC editorial corrections process:

1. Identification window. Errors flagged within thirty days of report generation are corrected on the canonical view URL within five business days.
2. Re-publication, not silent edit. Corrections preserve a redline diff between the original and corrected text, time-stamped, with a one-line explanation.
3. Subject right of reply. The applicant named in any Vetting Report may submit a one-paragraph factual rebuttal to corrections@mentionfox.com. Verifiable rebuttals attach to the report alongside the original section.

Data integrity floor — ALCOA. Every Insurance Underwriting Vetting Report carries an ALCOA Methodology footer: each factual claim is Attributable to a cited source, presented in Legible plain language, marked with the date it was Contemporaneously verified, sourced from the Original primary record where available, and Accurately reflects the underlying evidence.