Situation: a high‑hazard contractor needing a renewal process that lenders, owners, and project teams could trust

A specialized roofing & waterproofing contractor operating across the Metro Vancouver / Lower Mainland region of British Columbia asked Summit to take over an insurance program that had become difficult to manage and harder to justify internally.

The business works on large, multi‑building projects where contractual insurance requirements are strict and time‑sensitive—especially COIs, additional insured wording, and lender requirements. Multiple stakeholders (project delivery, ownership, and finance/admin) needed predictable timelines and clear documentation.

At the point of engagement, the account was experiencing year‑over‑year premium increases without a clear rationale, a renewal process that produced late, single‑option outcomes, and repeated “we’re shopping you” messaging without transparency on markets approached, quotes received, declines, or how the risk was presented.

Summit’s mandate was to:

• Rebuild the underwriting narrative (including hot‑work / hot‑roofing exposure) so it was accurate and consistent

• Create real market options with documented outcomes (quotes and declines)

• Improve renewal execution with a 120‑day timeline, stakeholder communication, and a repeatable process

• Maintain service speed for complex COIs and project insurance requirements

• Reduce premium while maintaining/improving key coverage terms

Client / deal snapshot (anonymized)

• Account type: Roofing & waterproofing contractor (commercial / multi‑building projects)

• Region: BC — Metro Vancouver / Lower Mainland (exact municipalities withheld)

• Stakeholders (roles):

• Project Manager: day‑to‑day insurance point person (COIs, project requirements, questions from site teams)

• Ownership / leadership: risk tolerance, program direction, and renewal decisions

• Finance / admin: payments, financing, certificates tracking, and vendor onboarding requirements

• Core coverages:

• CGL: maintained at $5,000,000

• Property: equipment/contents as applicable to operations

• Project‑driven requirements: COIs, additional insureds, waiver of subrogation, and lender evidence where required

• Complexity drivers:

• Hot‑work / hot‑roofing exposure (torch‑applied systems, welding, cutting)

• Contract structures and job values that vary materially by project type

• Multiple internal decision makers (ops + ownership + finance)

Starting point (what wasn’t working)

1) Premium increases without a defendable underwriting rationale

The expiring premium was approximately $120,000, with prior years trending upward and little clarity on the drivers.

Observed impact: internal distrust (“what are we paying for?”) and limited ability to plan cash flow.

2) Late, single‑option renewals

Renewals were arriving late and largely as a single option. That removed the ability to compare tradeoffs (deductibles, structures, fees, financing terms) and compressed decision time.

3) “We’re shopping you” without transparency

The client was told the account was being marketed, but there was no clear record of:

• Which insurers/markets were approached

• What was submitted (and how hot‑work exposure was framed)

• Which markets quoted vs declined (and why)

• What alternative structures were considered

4) Program / exclusivity ambiguity

There were references to “exclusive program” positioning, but without a clear explanation of what was exclusive, what alternatives existed, or why the process produced only one renewal outcome.

Before vs after (at a glance)

Before (expiring approach)

• Renewal driven by late timelines and limited choices

• Market activity not documented in a decision‑ready way

• Hot‑work exposure not consistently framed for underwriters

• COI and lender requirements handled reactively during peak project periods

• Financing/payment terms not optimized for cash‑flow timing

After (Summit‑managed structure)

• A documented 120‑day renewal plan with scheduled stakeholder touchpoints

• A rebuilt underwriting file based on deep discovery (operations, contracts, values, and controls)

• Transparent market feedback: quotes, declines, and rationale captured

• True competition via a multi‑market structure (used for leverage, not noise)

• Faster COIs and tighter internal coordination for complex project requirements

• Premium reduced to approximately $98,000 (≈ $22,000 reduction) while maintaining/improving key terms

What we did (strategy)

1) Deep underwriting discovery (operations, projects, and values)

We rebuilt the underwriting submission from first principles, focusing on how exposure actually arises on the job:

• Revenue by segment: separated work types to avoid over‑ or under‑weighting high‑hazard segments

• Operations detail: methods, subcontractor use, supervision, and site controls

• Project values & contract structures: typical contract sizes, multi‑building scopes, holdbacks, and the practical drivers behind COI/lender requests

• Loss history: what happened, what changed, and what controls were implemented after any incidents

2) Hot‑work and hot‑roofing controls (make the exposure understandable)

Rather than minimizing the exposure, we documented it clearly and consistently:

• Hot‑work permitting process (when required, who signs off)

• Torch/welding controls, including fire watch practices where applicable

• Extinguisher placement and site housekeeping expectations

• Separation and protection of combustibles

• Use of welding/torch warranties when required by markets

We also clarified how frequently hot‑work is used, in what contexts, and what portion of operations it represents—so underwriters could price and structure the risk based on evidence rather than assumptions.

3) Market strategy: competition with transparency (quotes + declines)

We ran a structured marketing process designed to create options while keeping the story consistent:

• Targeted appropriate markets for contractor/hot‑work exposure

• Maintained consistency in how operations and controls were presented

• Tracked outcomes (quote/decline) so the client could see what the market actually did

Where markets declined, we documented the stated reason (e.g., appetite constraints, hot‑work restrictions, capacity limits) and adjusted the strategy accordingly.

4) Options design: deductibles, fees, and structure choices

Instead of presenting a single take‑it‑or‑leave‑it quote, we built decision options where the market allowed, including:

• Deductible variations and their tradeoffs

• Fee/structure options (where applicable)

• A multi‑market structure to preserve leverage and avoid a “single carrier controls everything” outcome

5) Financing terms negotiated to support cash flow

We negotiated financing terms and timing to better match the client’s cash‑flow reality (project billing cycles and seasonal workload), including:

• Payment cadence options

• Setup aligned with renewal decision timelines

• Clear disclosure of financing costs (where applicable)

6) 120‑day renewal timeline + consistent communication

We set a renewal timeline that stakeholders could plan around and that reduced last‑minute pressure:

• 120 days out: kickoff, data request, and discovery interviews

• 90 days out: draft underwriting narrative and exposure summary; confirm changes

• 60 days out: market feedback review; refine submission; identify decision points

• 30 days out: final options and binding plan; implementation checklist for COIs/lenders

Throughout, we maintained consistent communication and education so ownership and finance could understand what was changing and why.

7) BOR + parallel employee benefits (EB) discovery

To reduce friction and avoid delays:

• We executed the broker-of-record (BOR) transition early enough to run a full renewal process.

• In parallel, we ran an employee benefits discovery and prepared for a potential EB BOR on a separate track (only if fit and timing made sense), without letting EB work distract from the property/CGL renewal.

Execution (what happened during renewal)

• Property placement: structured to reflect how values and exposure actually show up across operations (including extra‑expense needs where appropriate).

• Financing setup: implemented on a timeline that supported decision‑making and cash flow.

• COIs for complex projects: established an intake workflow so the Project Manager could get fast turnaround for certificates and lender evidence.

• Internal coordination: aligned our service team so endorsements, documentation, and stakeholder updates stayed consistent.

Results

Premium outcome (approximate)

• Prior annual premium (expiring): \~$120,000

• New annual premium (placed): \~$98,000

• Approximate reduction: \~$22,000

Coverage and program outcomes (what changed in practice)

• CGL maintained: $5,000,000 CGL maintained.

• Property and extra‑expense alignment: limits matched to operational reality; improved clarity on what was insured and why.

• Better underwriting runway: multi‑market structure preserved leverage and reduced dependence on a single renewal outcome.

• Faster project documentation: COIs and related documentation turned around quickly to support demanding project/lender requirements.

• Improved internal trust: stakeholders could see what markets were approached, what changed in the story, and what tradeoffs drove the final decision.

Why this approach worked

• Transparency: documented markets, outcomes, and rationale—so decisions were evidence‑based.

• Options: built and compared meaningful alternatives (deductibles/structure/financing), rather than a single late quote.

• Process: a 120‑day renewal cadence reduced last‑minute pressure and improved underwriting quality.

• Accuracy: hot‑work exposure and controls were presented clearly—avoiding both understatement and overstatement.

Who this is for

This model fits:

• Roofing and waterproofing contractors with hot‑work / torch‑applied exposure

• Contractors supporting multi‑building or schedule‑compressed projects

• Firms with frequent, high‑stakes COI and lender requirements

• Teams where ops, ownership, and finance all need visibility into renewal decisions

How to replicate this for other hot roofers / high‑hazard contractors (playbook)

1. Start early (120 days). Treat renewal like a project plan, not an email thread.

2. Segment revenue and operations. Don’t collapse fundamentally different work types into one description.

3. Document controls in plain language. Hot‑work is insurable when controls are specific and consistently applied.

4. Build a decision set. Create real tradeoffs (deductible/structure/financing), not a single outcome.

5. Capture market outcomes. Track quotes and declines so the strategy is grounded in reality.

6. Operationalize COIs. Define intake fields, turnaround targets, and escalation paths for lender/project requirements.

Practical checklist (copy/paste)

Use this checklist to run a transparent renewal for hot‑work / high‑hazard contractor risks.

A) Underwriting discovery checklist

• [ ] Current org structure (entities to be insured)

• [ ] Operations summary by segment (what % is hot‑work; where it happens)

• [ ] Top contract types and typical project sizes (range)

• [ ] Subcontractor use and oversight controls

• [ ] 3–5 years of loss history / loss runs (if available) and post‑loss changes

• [ ] Hot‑work controls: permits, fire watch, extinguishers, housekeeping, combustible separation

• [ ] Any required warranties (torch/welding) and how compliance is tracked

B) Marketing transparency checklist

• [ ] Market list agreed in advance (who will be approached and why)

• [ ] Consistent submission used across markets

• [ ] Quote/decline tracker maintained (with stated reasons)

• [ ] Decision options built (deductibles/structure/fees/financing)

C) Renewal execution checklist

• [ ] 120‑day timeline with named owners and internal deadlines

• [ ] Binding plan confirmed 10–15 business days before expiry (where possible)

• [ ] Financing terms confirmed and disclosed before binding

• [ ] COI intake template established (project name, contract party, required wording, lender evidence, turnaround expectation)

• [ ] Escalation path for urgent COIs / lender asks

D) Ongoing service checklist (post‑bind)

• [ ] Quarterly check‑in: material changes (operations, subcontractors, job sizes)

• [ ] COI/endorsement log maintained

• [ ] Any incidents documented early with corrective actions noted

Next step

If you want to compare your current renewal process to this playbook, prepare a high‑level operations/revenue breakdown, your current policy summary, and any lender/project insurance requirements. We can then confirm whether a transparent, options‑based marketing process is feasible for your risk profile and timeline.