Put the same facts in view
Confirm each proposal is based on the same operations, revenue, payroll, project values, locations, and loss information. Differences in input can look like differences in coverage.
Compare the policy architecture
Line up limits, deductibles or retentions, named insureds, policy dates, scheduled locations, and endorsements before comparing cost.
Read exclusions and conditions
Ask what each exclusion removes, whether an endorsement changes it, and which contract request it affects. Record unanswered questions rather than inferring a match.
Make a decision record
Save the comparison, forms reviewed, contract exhibit, and outstanding items. Ask what has to happen before a certificate or project requirement can be addressed. Policy wording, declarations, and endorsements control.
Check how the insurer views subcontracted work
A contractor that subcontracts most field work may find a proposal with a subcontractor warranty, certificate condition, or exclusion triggered by uninsured subcontractors. Compare that language with the company’s real contract and certificate workflow. Who collects proof, who follows up on an expired certificate, and who checks that the subcontractor’s legal entity matches the signed agreement? The lowest premium may assume controls the contractor does not consistently perform.
Ask each market to explain in writing how the described subcontracting model was considered. Retain a sample subcontract, insurance exhibit, and tracking report with the quote comparison. This is a process question, not an assertion that a subcontractor’s policy will respond to every allegation.
Normalize the facts before comparing price
A general contractor may receive two quotes with very different premiums because one underwriter assumed only tenant improvements while the other included residential renovations and design-assist work. Before comparing coverage, create a common submission sheet: legal entities, trade activities, self-performed and subcontracted percentages, revenue, payroll, geography, project types and values, vehicles, equipment, property, and loss history. Give each market the same version and record any later correction.
Ask whether each proposal is firm or subject to inspection, application, contract review, payroll adjustment, or another condition. A proposal with an unresolved subjectivity is not equivalent to a fully documented option. Keep written answers and dates so the final decision is based on the offer actually available.
Build a coverage comparison by project scenario
Choose three representative jobs: for example, an occupied commercial renovation, a subcontracted specialty installation, and a design-assist project. For each, list the contracting entity, work scope, site conditions, client insurance exhibit, and likely exposures. Compare general liability, auto, workers’ compensation, umbrella, property or inland marine, and professional liability where proposed against those facts. This scenario method is more useful than comparing policy names alone.
The exercise does not predict how an insurer will handle a claim. It identifies terms and questions that matter to actual work: completed operations, professional-services exclusions, damage to the contractor’s own work, equipment in transit, subcontractor conditions, and contract-based additional-insured requests. Cite the form and endorsement rather than relying on a marketing summary.
Read limits, retentions, and defense costs together
Record each occurrence or claim limit, aggregate, project aggregate if any, umbrella attachment, deductible or self-insured retention, and whether defense expenses reduce the available limit. A higher nominal limit can be less useful if it applies to a narrower operation or shares an aggregate with other coverages. Ask whether the contractor can fund the initial retention if several allegations arise at once.
Compare policy periods, retroactive dates on claims-made lines, newly acquired property terms, and any sublimit for equipment or transit. A project that spans renewal or completion may expose a timing issue a premium table does not reveal. Use issued documents after binding to confirm the terms quoted.
Test the contract exhibit against endorsements
Extract the client’s requested limits, named additional insureds, completed-operations duration, waiver, primary-and-noncontributory wording, notice provision, and certificate deadline. For each proposal, mark the form or endorsement that may address the request and flag items needing a written answer. Do not assume that the presence of a certificate means the contract language is satisfied.
A provider should explain who will issue the certificate and obtain any endorsement after binding. If the proposal cannot meet a contract term, the contractor may need to negotiate that obligation with counsel and the client. Treat that as a visible business decision, not a hidden footnote on a comparison sheet.
Compare operational service, not promises
Ask who handles a new jobsite, vehicle, subcontractor, equipment purchase, certificate request, and incident notice. Note the handoff, expected documents, and how changes will be recorded. A contractor with frequent project starts needs a practical midterm process as well as a competitive annual quote. A service claim is only useful if the people and steps are identifiable.
Retain the final submission, quote matrix, market answers, selected proposal, bind confirmation, declarations, endorsements, and open-item log. Separate documented terms from assumptions and revisit the comparison when project work changes. Policy wording, declarations, endorsements, and the event facts control any future outcome.
A decision checklist for the owner
Before selecting an option, ask whether every market quoted the same operations and payroll; whether the most important projects and contract requirements were tested; whether limits and retentions fit the company’s financial capacity; whether claims-made dates remain continuous; and whether any exclusion changes the proposal’s apparent value. Assign an owner to each unresolved question and a deadline before the bind date.
After choosing, write a short rationale in ordinary language: what difference was accepted, what requirement remains open, and what documents will be checked when issued. This helps future managers understand the decision without mistaking an annual premium comparison for a guarantee of coverage.
Decision checklist for your commercial insurance review
Use these questions with your current policy, contracts, and business records. They help identify details to raise before requesting or comparing contractor insurance terms.
- Are all proposals based on the same construction operations and payroll?
- Which limits, deductibles, entities, and policy dates differ?
- What exclusion or endorsement requires a form-level answer?
- Which contract obligation remains unresolved after comparison?
Turn the questions into a working coverage review
Set the current declarations, applicable endorsements, relevant construction contracts, and the latest business records beside this guide. The aim is not to decide coverage from a summary page; it is to identify the facts and policy terms that deserve a document-level answer. For a contractor, those records commonly include the signed scope, project schedule, certificate request, subcontractor agreement, payroll detail, equipment list, or change order connected to the question.
Write down the date of the review, the project or operating change involved, the form or endorsement reviewed, and any item that remains unanswered. This creates a usable record when a client asks for proof of insurance, a project changes, a renewal approaches, or a different person takes over the account. It also helps separate a contract requirement from the insurance term that may—or may not—address it.
Bring the completed record to Fort Mason Partners with the underlying documents. We prepare the commercial insurance submission, take the account to market, and compare available terms against the contractor’s operations and project requirements. We can explain the differences that appear in proposals, but the issued policy wording, declarations, and endorsements control.