Carriers and capacity providers
They lend their paper and need proof the MGA stayed inside it.
- Bordereaux on the agreed schedule and format
- Referrals and breaches visible as they happen
- Evidence for the on-site review
Insurtech / MGA Software
Software for managing general agents that bind on a carrier's paper
An MGA's authority is written in a contract, but it is enforced, or not, at the moment of quote and bind. Agnotic Technologies builds MGA software that checks every quote against each carrier's binding authority, routes referrals, produces the bordereaux and keeps the evidence a carrier asks for at audit.
Authority
Checked at quote and bind
Bordereaux
In each carrier's format
Audit
Evidence ready for review
Trusted by global innovators
Industry Overview
What is software for managing general agents?
Software for managing general agents runs the delegated authority an MGA holds on a carrier's paper. Agnotic Technologies builds it for MGAs and the carriers behind them: binding authority limits checked at quote and bind, referral rules per capacity provider, premium and claims bordereaux in each carrier's format, fiduciary account tracking and carrier audit evidence.
Delegated authority
Who relies on an MGA's software?
Three parties depend on the same records, and each needs a different view of them.
The MGA
It underwrites, binds and often settles claims for several carriers at once.
- One workbench across every capacity provider
- Authority checks that do not slow a clean quote
- Premium funds and remittances reconciled each month
Brokers and producers
They submit risks and expect a fast, consistent answer.
- Quotes that respect each program's appetite
- Clear referral status when a risk needs the carrier
- Documents issued in the carrier's name
Industry Challenges
Where do MGA operations break as capacity grows?
The first carrier is manageable on spreadsheets. The second and third are where the gaps open.
Each carrier's authority sits in a PDF, and underwriters check limits and territories from memory.
A risk binds on the wrong carrier's paper because two programs overlap and nothing routes between them.
Bordereaux are rebuilt by hand every month in a different layout for each carrier, and the totals do not tie to the ledger.
Premium collected for carriers sits in the same account as operating cash, and remittances are late.
Claims that should go to the carrier, such as a coverage dispute or a claim near the settlement limit, are spotted late.
An audit request means weeks of pulling files, because nobody logged which rule allowed which bind.
Authority check table
Which binding authority limits does the software enforce, and where?
Our original element for this page: each limit in a binding authority agreement mapped to the transaction where the software checks it and what it logs for the carrier. The values come from your contracts; the software makes them checkable.
| What the agreement limits | Checked at | What the software does | Logged for the carrier |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lines and classes of business | Quote, bind and endorsement | Offers only the classes in the program; others go to referral or decline | Class code, program and the rule version applied |
| Territories | Quote and bind | Checks the risk location against the permitted states or regions | Location, territory rule and result |
| Maximum limits of liability | Quote, bind, endorsement and renewal | Blocks limits above authority and routes them to the carrier | Requested and permitted limits, referral outcome |
| Maximum policy period | Bind and renewal | Rejects terms longer than the agreement allows | Policy dates and the period rule |
| Aggregate annual premium volume | Every bind | Tracks written premium against the cap and warns before it is reached | Premium to date and headroom at each bind |
| Basis of rates | Quote | Rates from the filed or agreed rating plan for that carrier | Rating plan version and any deviation approved |
| Referral triggers | Quote and endorsement | Sends the risk to the carrier's referral queue with the file attached | Referral reason, carrier decision, decision maker and time |
| Claims settlement authority | Reserve and payment | Escalates claims near the authority amount or in coverage dispute | Reserve history, escalation and carrier response |
Our Approach
How do we turn a binding authority agreement into software?
We build from the contract outwards, so the rules match what each carrier actually signed.
Model each agreement as data
Lines, territories, limits, premium caps, referral triggers and effective dates are stored per carrier and per program, with every amendment versioned.
Route to capacity before rating
When programs overlap, the software picks the eligible capacity provider first, then rates and checks the risk against that carrier's rules.
Log the rule, not only the result
Each check stores which agreement version and rule allowed or stopped it, so an audit answer is a query rather than a file hunt.
Capabilities
What do our MGA software development services cover?
We build the delegated authority layer. Policy record design and in-force conversion are covered on our policy administration system page, and broker CRM and commissions on our insurance agency management system page.
Authority rules engine
Each carrier's limits, territories, classes and caps checked at quote, bind, endorsement and renewal.
Capacity routing
Risks matched to the right program when several carriers write the same class.
Referral queue
Out-of-authority risks sent to the carrier with the file, tracked to a decision and logged.
Bordereaux builder
Premium and claims bordereaux generated from transactions in each carrier's layout and schedule, tied to the ledger.
Fiduciary account ledger
Premium held for carriers tracked separately from operating funds, by carrier and by policy.
Remittance statements
Monthly accounts of all transactions with the amounts due to each carrier and the payment record.
Claims escalation triggers
Rules that send a claim file to the carrier when it nears a limit, enters dispute or stays open too long.
Audit evidence pack
Binds, referrals, breaches, bordereaux and remittances for any period, exportable for the carrier's reviewers.
Engineering Stack
Data standards and tools for delegated authority
Built so each carrier receives data in the form it can load, without manual reshaping.
Data standards
ACORD P&C XML and AL3 where carriers use themCarrier-specific bordereau templatesCSV and spreadsheet outputs with control totals
Core data
PostgreSQL for agreements, policies and transactionsDouble-entry ledger for fiduciary fundsDocument storage for agreements and files
Integration
Rating engines through their APIsCarrier portals and file transferAccounting and banking feeds
Platform and security
SSO and role-based accessAudit logging on every rule and overrideEncryption in transit and at rest
Measured Impact
What should an MGA's leadership watch each week?
Views we build for the MGA and, where agreed, shared with each carrier.
Headroom
Premium against each cap
Written premium to date against each program's aggregate.
Referred
Open referrals
Risks waiting on a carrier decision, by age.
Due
Bordereaux and remittances
Reports and payments due to each carrier this period.
Escalated
Claims sent to carriers
Claims near authority, in dispute or open past the agreed age.
Use Cases
Where do MGA software projects usually start?
First releases we scope, each tied to one carrier relationship.
01
Authority checks for one program
One carrier's binding authority enforced at quote and bind.
02
Bordereaux automation
Premium and claims bordereaux generated from transactions instead of rebuilt by hand.
03
Second carrier onboarding
Capacity routing and a second rule set added without touching the first.
04
Trust account ledger
Premium funds and remittances tracked by carrier and reconciled monthly.
05
Managing general agents for startups
A new MGA's first program on a data model built for more carriers later.
06
Audit evidence
The carrier review pack produced from logged checks for any period.
Integrations
Which systems does MGA software connect to?
The authority layer sits between brokers, rating and each carrier's systems.
New business
Broker portal or submission intake
Premium
Rating engine
Policy records
Policy administration system
Reserves and payments
Claims system
Bordereaux and referrals
Carrier systems and portals
Ledger
Accounting system
Fiduciary funds
Bank accounts
Agreements and files
Document management
What we check
What should be ready before a carrier's on-site review?
Carriers review an MGA's underwriting and claims operations on a schedule. We build the system so each of these is a report, not a project.
Underwriting
- Every bind with the authority rules it passed
- Referrals with the carrier's decision and decision maker
- Any override, who approved it and why
Premium and funds
- Bordereaux tied to the ledger for each month
- Fiduciary account balances by carrier
- Remittances sent against amounts due
Claims
- Reserves and payments against settlement authority
- Claims escalated to the carrier and when
- Open claims by age
Agreements
- Current and past versions of each binding authority agreement
- Effective dates of every amendment
- Producers appointed under each program
Compliance-First Development Services Backed by Global Standards
We build secure, scalable products designed for privacy, interoperability, and regulatory readiness from day one across every sector we serve.
General Data Protection Regulation
Implement lawful consent flows, data minimization, and secure processing for global data privacy.
Service Organization Control 2
Verified controls for security, availability, and confidentiality of enterprise data systems.
Information Security Management
Adhering to the international gold standard for managing information security risks.
Our Edge
Why Global Leaders Choose Us
We combine deep technical expertise with industry-specific knowledge to deliver solutions that aren't just functional, but transformational.
Enterprise-Grade Security
We implement rigorous security protocols and compliance standards (HIPAA, GDPR, SOC2) across all industrial solutions to protect sensitive data.
High-Performance Scaling
Our architectures are built to handle massive data loads and user bases, keeping performance steady whether you're serving ten or ten million.
Accelerated Time-to-Market
Using our suite of internal tools and proven frameworks, we cut setup work so your first release reaches users sooner.
Embedded AI Integration
Beyond simple wrappers, we build deep-learning integrations and predictive analytics directly into the core of your industry-specific workflows.
Engagement Model
How does an MGA software engagement run?
We start with one carrier's agreement and the bind path. We agree a fixed first release on the scoping call.
01
Scoping call
Programs, carriers, the systems in use and the reports each carrier expects.
02
Agreement to rules
One binding authority agreement written as rules your underwriting lead and the carrier confirm.
03
Fixed-scope first release
Authority checks and referrals live for one program, with every check logged.
04
Bordereaux and funds
Reporting and the fiduciary ledger added on the same transactions.
05
More carriers
New agreements added as data, with routing between overlapping programs.
Facts and sources
Which rules shape MGA software?
Short facts we design around, each linked to its primary source. States adopt NAIC models individually and carriers add their own terms, so your counsel confirms what applies.
The NAIC Managing General Agents Act requires the insurer and MGA contract to set underwriting guidelines, including the maximum annual premium volume, the basis of the rates, the types of risks, maximum limits of liability, exclusions, territorial limitations, cancellation provisions and the maximum policy period.
Source: NAIC Model Law 225, Managing General Agents Act, section 4F(1)Under the same model act, the MGA renders accounts detailing all transactions and remits funds due to the insurer at least monthly, and holds funds collected for the insurer in a fiduciary capacity in an FDIC-insured institution.
Source: NAIC Model Law 225, sections 4B and 4CWhere an MGA may settle claims, the model act has it send the claim file to the insurer when a claim may exceed the company's limit, involves a coverage dispute, may exceed the MGA's settlement authority or has been open for more than six months.
Source: NAIC Model Law 225, section 4I(2)The model act requires the insurer to conduct an on-site review of the MGA's underwriting and claims processing operations periodically, and at least semi-annually.
Source: NAIC Model Law 225, section 5CACORD describes its Property and Casualty XML and AL3 standards as also relevant for delegated authority, and lists delegated authority among its multi-functional standards.
Source: ACORD, Data Standards
Voice of success
We don't just build products; we forge lasting partnerships. See how we've helped industry leaders transform their vision into technical reality.
“I can clearly see how Agnotic has a unique way of handling end-to-end development. They are always active on quick chat and provide support quickly.”
Aaron Phelan
Founder, Benchmark
“Agnotic combines deep technical expertise with strong domain knowledge. They understand the business context, anticipate challenges, and make collaboration smooth and effective.”
John Pasmore
Founder, Latimer
“Agnotic is the best technical team we evaluated. Their engineering excellence made our work dramatically easier and allowed us to stay focused on what matters most for maternal care outcomes. They took full ownership of the technical execution, and we are always happy to continue working together.”
Kim Smith
Founder, My Lauren
Related pages
Related insurance software services
This page covers delegated authority. These pages cover the insurance systems around it.
Policy administration system development
The policy record, transactions and in-force conversion.
Underwriting automation software
Intake, prefill and referral rules for submissions.
Insurance agency management system
Broker CRM, renewals and commission tracking.
Property and casualty insurance software
Rating, forms and filings for P&C lines.
Insurtech software development
Our wider insurance practice for carriers, MGAs and startups.
More in Insurtech
More Insurtech Solutions
Explore other production-grade engineering platforms we deliver across insurtech.
Cross-Industry Reach
The Same Engineering Patterns, Across Other Industries
The technical patterns behind this platform translate naturally into adjacent verticals.
Frequently Asked Questions
A managing general agent manages all or part of an insurer's business under a written contract, often underwriting and binding policies on the insurer's paper and sometimes settling claims. The NAIC model act defines the term by the activities and volumes involved, so check your state's version with counsel.
Yes. Each check runs before the bind is issued, and a risk outside a carrier's lines, territories, limits or premium cap goes to referral or decline. Any override needs a named approver and is logged with the reason.
Bordereaux are generated from the same transactions using a template per carrier, with control totals that tie to the ledger. Adding a carrier means adding its template and schedule, not rebuilding the reports.
In a ledger kept separate from operating funds, by carrier and by policy. Collections, return premium, commissions and remittances post as entries, so the amount due to each carrier is known at any time and reconciles to the bank account.
The number of carriers and programs, how different their agreements and bordereau formats are, whether you settle claims, the rating and policy systems to connect and how much history must be loaded. We size these with you before any estimate.
Yes. A new MGA usually starts with one carrier and one program, so the first release covers authority checks, bordereaux and the fiduciary ledger for that program, on a model that takes more carriers without rework.
Industries