Category: Specialist underwriting · Reviewed by Taylor Watts, Broker · New Business · Last reviewed May 2026
A personal-lines MGA writing approximately £55m of household and small-commercial GWP was told in February that its capacity provider was withdrawing from the UK at the next anniversary, with no replacement carrier in place. The board pivoted quickly — a successor capacity arrangement was structured with a Lloyd’s-led panel, and the existing book was transferred under a portfolio transfer at the renewal date. The PI consequences were not immediately obvious. The existing PI policy responded to acts committed during its currency, but the run-off treatment of acts committed under the original capacity provider’s binder, advanced as claims after the binder ended, was contested. The wording predated the capacity provider’s notice and had not been drafted with portfolio transfer in mind. Three months of broker work resolved the position. The episode is typical: MGA PI sits at the intersection of underwriting, regulation, contract and commercial pressure, and the wording must anticipate events that standard professional firm PI does not contemplate.
The Managing General Agents’ Association defines an MGA, in functional terms, as an intermediary with binding authority granted by one or more insurers to underwrite, and frequently also to handle claims, within agreed parameters. The MGAA’s working definition captures the substance, but the regulatory and PI treatment of MGAs depends on a sharper set of distinctions.
An MGA underwrites — that is, it binds risks on behalf of one or more insurers. It does not carry insurance risk on its own balance sheet (with limited exceptions for some hybrid structures). It is paid by commission, profit share, or both, and its capital base is operational rather than underwriting.
This distinguishes the MGA from:
For PI purposes, the MGA’s distinctive feature is the binding authority. Standard professional firm PI is built around advisory exposure; MGA PI is built around binding authority exposure. The products are not interchangeable.
A generalist underwriter writing accountants’ and solicitors’ PI will rarely write MGA PI. The exposures differ in kind, not just degree.
A professional firm — an accountant, surveyor, solicitor — provides advice or services to a client, and the principal risk is that the advice produces a loss for the client. The client typically pays the firm; the firm’s PI responds to a claim by the client.
An MGA, by contrast, exercises binding authority on behalf of an insurer. The principal risks are:
The “claimant” in a typical MGA PI claim is often the capacity provider, not the policyholder. The cause of action is typically breach of the binder, breach of fiduciary duty as agent, or negligent performance of underwriting or claims authority. The applicable wording must respond to that pattern.
Insurers willing to underwrite this exposure form a discrete sub-market, with distinct appetite, pricing methodology, and wording conventions. Generalist insurers writing professional firm PI are not, in most cases, present in this sub-market.
The exposures that drive MGA PI underwriting can be grouped into four categories.
The MGA’s binder defines what it can bind — class, territory, limit, deductible, occupancy, term, target market. Risks bound outside these parameters produce a contested position. The capacity provider can decline to indemnify policyholders, leaving the MGA as the de facto risk-bearer for that risk. The PI policy is asked to respond.
This exposure is the most common driver of MGA PI claims, and the most contested. Insurers carefully test wordings against this scenario at placement.
An MGA’s policy wordings are its product. A construction error — an ambiguous exclusion, an unintended carve-back, a defective endorsement — can produce coverage the capacity provider did not anticipate. The capacity provider pays the claim and seeks recourse from the MGA.
This exposure tends to be aggregated: a single wording error replicated across thousands of policies produces a set of linked claims. Aggregation language in the MGA PI wording determines whether these are treated as one claim or many.
Under delegated claims authority, the MGA handles claims notification, reserving, payment and recovery. Errors include:
Premium accounting is administrative-looking but financially material. Errors include bordereaux mistakes, misallocated premium between capacity providers, IPT misreporting, late settlement breaching binder accounting clauses, and float held in error. HMRC IPT enquiries reaching back several years are not uncommon. PI wordings should respond to defence costs and, to the extent insurable, civil liability.
UK MGAs sit within a defined regulatory framework that shapes both their operational requirements and their PI exposures.
Most UK MGAs hold permission for arranging (and frequently dealing in) insurance contracts, together with claims management permissions where claims authority is delegated. The specific permission set varies by activity. A purely commercial MGA may have a lean permission set; one writing retail business carries broader obligations.
MGA-written retail business sits within the FSCS protection regime through the capacity provider’s authorisation. The MGA does not, itself, give rise to FSCS exposure as an underwriter — but its operational failures can produce capacity provider losses that flow back through PI.
MGAs hold limited regulatory capital relative to the GWP they bind. The FCA’s prudential expectations are framed by the firm’s permission set and risk profile. Conduct obligations — Consumer Duty for in-scope retail business, ICOBS for distribution conduct, SYSC for governance — flow through to MGAs both directly and indirectly via the capacity provider’s oversight.
For wider treatment of the delegated authority framework that underlies MGA operations, see the delegated authority PI explainer.
The Managing General Agents’ Association is the UK trade body for MGAs. Membership is voluntary, but the MGAA Code of Conduct, audit framework and published best-practice materials are widely treated by PI underwriters as positive risk features.
For larger MGAs, MGAA membership is effectively a baseline. For smaller MGAs, membership signals operational discipline and access to peer-group best practice. PI underwriters writing this sub-market routinely ask whether the MGA is an MGAA member and whether it engages with the published audit standards.
The capacity supporting MGA PI is concentrated in specialist syndicates and company-market carriers. A typical placement architecture is:
Smaller MGAs (£5m–£20m GWP): primary layer of £1m–£5m placed with a single specialist insurer, frequently in the company market, sometimes at Lloyd’s, on a bespoke MGA wording.
Mid-tier MGAs (£20m–£100m GWP): primary layer of £5m–£10m, with one or two excess layers stacking to £15m–£25m total programme limit. Primary is often Lloyd’s-led for the wording flexibility; excess layers may be company-market following-form, or Lloyd’s subscription.
Substantial MGAs (£100m+ GWP): layered programmes to £25m–£50m or higher, with multiple subscription markets at each excess layer, frequently dual-stamp. Wordings are heavily bespoke. The broker’s placement strategy mirrors that of a corporate D&O placement.
The mechanics of excess layering are not interchangeable with standard professional firm PI; see the PI excess structures deep dive for the structural detail.
The operative differences between MGA PI and professional firm PI cluster in a handful of clauses.
A professional firm wording defines the insured’s business by reference to advisory or service activity. An MGA wording defines the business by reference to underwriting, claims handling, premium accounting and related activity performed under delegated authority. The definition should be specific enough to capture all binders held — including any sub-binders or schemes — and broad enough to absorb new authority granted during the policy period.
MGA PI wordings explicitly capture activity performed under delegated authority. Standard professional firm wordings frequently exclude it, or are silent — leaving the position contested. This is the single most important wording difference.
MGA PI wordings typically include a sub-limit for regulatory and disciplinary investigation costs. The sub-limit reflects both the higher likelihood of regulatory engagement for an FCA-authorised firm operating across multiple capacity providers, and the practical cost of responding.
MGA PI is frequently written on an aggregate basis with a reinstatement, rather than on each-and-every claim terms. The reason is the aggregation pattern: a single underwriting or wording error can produce a set of linked claims that, on each-and-every terms, would consume the policy limit at a single claim. Aggregate treatment provides certainty for both insurer and insured. The trade-off is that a substantial single claim can erode the limit available for subsequent unrelated claims.
Excess layers in MGA PI typically follow form to the primary, with limited exceptions for specific exclusions or sub-limits negotiated separately. The broker’s job is to test the following-form language carefully — small variations can produce coverage gaps at higher layers.
The MGA gives the capacity provider an indemnity under the binder. Standard PI wordings exclude liability assumed under contract. The MGA PI wording should carve back the exclusion so that the binder indemnity remains within cover.
The capacity provider relationship is the operational heart of an MGA’s business. The binder defines the rights and obligations of both parties, including (typically) an indemnity from the MGA in respect of breaches of the binder, conduct failures and certain regulatory liabilities.
This indemnity must be reflected in the PI wording. Specifically:
Where the MGA holds binders with multiple capacity providers, each binder’s indemnity must be considered. Some capacity providers require sight of the MGA’s PI wording and may impose minimum cover requirements as a binder condition.
MGAs face several scenarios in which run-off cover becomes critical.
Capacity withdrawal. A capacity provider’s notice that it will not renew the binder is a recurring event. The MGA’s existing PI continues to respond to acts committed during the binder’s currency, but the wording must contemplate claims advanced after the binder has ended.
Book transfer. Where a book is transferred to a successor MGA or to direct carriage by the capacity provider, the PI position depends on the wording’s treatment of the transferred book.
Novation. Portfolio transfers under Part VII of the FSMA can produce wording complications, particularly where the original MGA’s PI policy did not anticipate the novation.
MGA acquisition or merger. Acquisitions trigger continuity considerations: the acquirer’s PI may or may not respond to acts of the acquired MGA, depending on the wording’s change-of-control language.
A specific consequence: an MGA whose capacity is withdrawn often faces a multi-year tail during which claims continue to be notified. Run-off PI placed in advance, on continuous wording terms, is the conventional solution. The run-off cover deep dive sets out the broader mechanics.
Generally, yes — though the comparison is not like-for-like. MGA PI is rated against GWP bound, capacity provider concentration, claims experience and operational maturity, not against fee income. Rate per £m of cover is typically higher than for a clean professional firm placement, reflecting the broader and more concentrated exposure profile.
Some markets offer combined wordings, particularly for smaller MGAs. Larger MGAs typically separate PI and D&O, partly for capacity reasons and partly because the underwriters are different. A combined wording can produce limit-aggregation efficiency but reduces the flexibility to optimise each cover separately.
Both. The MGA’s PI must respond to claims by capacity providers (breach of binder, underwriting error, claims-handling error) and by policyholders (where the MGA’s activity in handling or wording the policy produces a direct claim). The wording should not be narrowed to only one set of claimants.
The MGAA provides published best-practice materials, an audit framework and a Code of Conduct. PI underwriters treat MGAA membership and engagement as positive risk features, but membership is not a precondition for cover. The MGAA does not place insurance and does not act as a regulator.
Capacity providers frequently impose minimum PI cover requirements as a binder condition — typical thresholds reflect the GWP bound and the capacity provider’s risk appetite. Some capacity providers require sight of the MGA’s PI wording before granting authority; some require certificates of insurance evidencing cover annually.
The FCA Handbook requires regulated firms to hold appropriate PI cover where mandated by their permissions and activity. For most UK MGAs, the practical requirement is driven by capacity provider expectations rather than by a fixed FCA limit. Larger MGAs hold cover materially in excess of any regulatory minimum.
A TPA holding claims-only delegated authority needs a wording specifically capturing claims-handling activity, missed limitations, payment errors and Consumer Duty exposure. Underwriting authority extensions are not required and should not be paid for. The policy is typically narrower in scope and lower in premium than a full underwriting-plus-claims MGA wording.
The MGA’s PI continues to respond to acts committed during its own policy period, regardless of the capacity provider’s status. However, claims patterns shift: a capacity provider in run-off may be more aggressive in pursuing recoveries against MGAs to maximise its exit position. The MGA’s PI may face increased claim notifications as a result.
Apex Insurance Brokers Ltd is an independent UK insurance broker based in Bristol, advising professional services firms on professional indemnity insurance and related covers. The firm is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (firm reference 724952) and registered at Companies House (company number 07014570).
This commentary reflects market conditions as at May 2026 and is provided for general information. Insurance market conditions, policy wordings and regulatory positions change frequently; firms should obtain advice specific to their circumstances rather than rely on general commentary.
Apex Insurance Brokers serves UK professional services firms and commercial businesses. Call 0117 325 0027, email hello@apexinsurancebrokers.co.uk, or request a quotation.
Get a quote