A hotel group hosts events with a convention partner, and the partner’s contract requires additional-insured status on the hotel’s general liability policy. The broker bound it. The issued policy’s list of additional insureds does not include the partner. The first person to notice would otherwise be the partner’s risk manager, asking for a certificate — or their lawyer, after a slip at an event.
This post follows the whole loop: the check that finds it, the request that asks for it, the corrective endorsement that fixes it, the re-proof that confirms it, and the delivery summary that tells the client the carrier corrected it. The hotel group, the partner, the carrier and the figures are invented Illustrative.
| Insured | Sablewood Hotels LLC — a small hotel and events group (illustrative) |
|---|---|
| Line | General liability, renewal |
| Documents | Expiring policy, quote, binder, issued policy, then a corrective endorsement |
| Agents involved | Proofing checker, discrepancy drafter, client delivery writer, supervisor |
| The difference | Additional insured “Madison Convention Partners” on the binder, not stated on the policy |
| Decisions | Raise it with the carrier (account manager), send the request (account manager), sign and deliver (account executive) |
| Outcome | 51 of 51 checks match after the endorsement; delivered with a summary that says one item was corrected before delivery |
How an additional insured is checked
Additional insureds are a list, not a field. The engine folds each name’s punctuation and legal suffix (“L.L.C.”, “LLC” and “Limited Liability Company” are not differences) and then matches the binder’s list against the policy’s.
| Where the name is | Outcome | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| On the binder and the policy | Pass | Info |
| On the binder, missing from the policy | Fail — “Bound as an additional insured, missing from the policy” | Medium |
| On the policy, not the binder | Needs review | Low |
A medium-severity failure does not block delivery the way a high-severity one does. It still has to be corrected or waived before the delivery writer will draft the summary: the delivery is not ready while any failure is unresolved.
The loop
Step by step
One failure: the additional insured on the binder is not on the policy. Everything else matches.
Accepts the prepared decision to raise it; a correction request is created with the binder citation.
A short, courteous request to the carrier’s underwriter: one sentence of context, then the correction exactly as found. The model may rewrite the opening; it may not add a name, a form or a number.
Sent with a due date (a dry run in this build). The check moves to With carrier.
The corrective endorsement is uploaded as an endorsement. Its additional-insured list is overlaid on the policy; each value keeps the citation of the document that set it.
The policy as endorsed now matches the binder. The request is marked corrected; nothing is left open.
The client paragraph, what changed at renewal (premium and total cost up, nothing narrower), and the line “Corrected by the carrier before delivery”.
Signs on the decision record. The check moves to Delivered.
What the screen shows
The summary is written for the client: the coverage, what changed, and what was corrected. Under it, the coverage schedule as checked, with the page every value was read from. The banner records who delivered it, and says plainly that in this build delivery is a dry run.
What the agents prepared
| Agent | What it prepared | What it cites | Who decides |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proofing checker | Raise 1 failed check with the carrier | Binder p.4 (additional insureds) | Account manager |
| Discrepancy drafter | The correction request | The failed check | Account manager sends |
| Client delivery writer | The client summary, with the correction named | The checked policy and renewal changes | Account executive signs |
The decision record
| Section | Hit | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Prepared decision | Raise 1 failed check — accepted | proceed |
| Correction | Additional insured — requested, then corrected by endorsement | pass |
| Proofing control | A high-severity check failed and is unresolved | pass |
| Delivery | Signed by the account executive | proceed |
For the account team
The certificate request from the partner can be answered with confidence, because the policy now says what the binder said.
For broker IT
Endorsements are overlaid on the policy before proofing; a correction closes only when the re-proof passes, not when someone says so.
For practice leadership
The proofing record shows the failure, the request, the endorsement and the re-proof — the whole loop, replayable.
Questions we get asked
Can the agent send the request itself?
No. Sending a correction request is capped at ask first. The agent drafts; the account manager sends.
What if the endorsement arrives with something else changed?
It is read like any document and overlaid on the policy; the re-proof shows every difference, not only the one asked about.
Keep reading
A $5M gap in an excess tower
Layer 3 attaches at $15M where layer 2 ends at $10M.
Read article
Where InsightProofing sits in the broker suite
Placement hands it the binder; Xtract reads the PDFs; Pulse knows the client; Advocate inherits the policy.
Read article
The first ninety days, and how to measure it
One team, one renewal month, every action at ask first.
Read article