Facultative Reinsurance Placement Request Form

This form is used to document a single facultative reinsurance submission for an oversized, unusual, or otherwise non-standard exposure. It captures the risk details, the terms being requested, and the supporting materials needed for underwriting review. It is not meant for treaty reinsurance or broad portfolio reporting. Use it when a specific account needs individual placement consideration.

Submit it as soon as the underwriting team identifies that the exposure may exceed appetite, require special terms, or need external capacity. Early submission gives reviewers time to assess the account, request missing documents, and align on structure before binding. It is especially useful when the risk has unusual location, catastrophe, or loss characteristics. Waiting until the last minute often leads to incomplete terms and avoidable delays.

The primary submitter is usually an underwriter, broker, or reinsurance operations specialist who knows the account and can assemble the submission package. An underwriting manager or ceded reinsurance reviewer typically approves or rejects the request before it moves forward. If your workflow includes a broker, the broker_name field helps track the external placement path. The form works best when one owner is clearly responsible for completeness.

The most important fields are the account name, policy number, line of business, risk location, risk description, and the reason facultative placement is needed. Exposure metrics such as total insured value, requested limit, attachment point, and loss history summary help reviewers judge severity and structure. Supporting documentation is also critical because missing schedules, statements, or loss runs can stall review. Keep the submission focused on what the reinsurer actually needs to evaluate the risk.

The template supports data minimization by asking only for risk and placement details that are relevant to the submission. That aligns with GDPR Article 5 principles and reduces unnecessary PII collection. If any personal data appears in the submission package, the confidentiality acknowledgment and routing controls help reinforce access discipline. Keep sensitive attachments limited to what is needed for underwriting and placement.

Common mistakes include leaving the placement reason vague, mixing policy details with unrelated account notes, and omitting the requested attachment point or term. Another frequent issue is attaching documents without labeling them clearly, which makes review slower. Some teams also forget to state whether the submission is confidential or who approved it. A clear, complete submission reduces back-and-forth.

Yes. You can tailor the risk description, exposure metrics, and requested terms fields to property, casualty, marine, energy, or specialty lines. Conditional logic can show catastrophe fields only when the line of business or location makes them relevant. You can also add line-specific document requirements, such as engineering reports or claims triangles. The core structure should stay the same so routing remains consistent.

An ad hoc email usually leaves out key fields, buries attachments, and makes it hard to track approvals or version history. This template creates a consistent submission record, which is easier to review, audit, and route. It also makes it clearer what happens after submission and who owns the next step. For teams that place facultative reinsurance regularly, the template reduces missed details and inconsistent submissions.

Useful integrations include document storage for the submission package, email or workflow routing for approvals, and underwriting systems that already hold policy and account data. If your process supports it, auto-filling policy number, account name, and submitter details reduces manual entry. An audit trail is also helpful for tracking who reviewed the request and when. Keep integrations focused on routing and recordkeeping rather than collecting extra data.