Bordereaux reference: the field groups, the cadence, and where it breaks
Premium and claims bordereaux for coverholders and MGAs — the field groups that recur across almost every template, how reporting cadence is set, how far requirements vary between capacity providers, and the reconciliation checks worth running before a file leaves your building.
There is no universal bordereau field list, and anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something
Bordereaux requirements are set by the binding authority agreement between the coverholder and the managing agent. Lloyd's publishes minimum standards and template guidance, and most capacity providers layer their own template on top of it. Two binders in the same class with two providers will not want the same file.
So the useful thing is not a required-field list — it is knowing which groups recur everywhere, which ones vary the most, and where the reconciliation actually breaks. That is what this page is. The agreement governs; treat everything below as the shape you should expect, not the specification you should build to.
What the premium file carries
One row per risk per transaction. New business, renewals, endorsements and cancellations all appear as movements against the same risk reference, which is why that reference has to be stable for the life of the risk.
| Field group | Typical fields | Why the provider wants it | Varies |
|---|---|---|---|
| Risk identity | Unique risk reference, policy or certificate number, insured name, insured address or risk location | Ties every later movement — endorsement, cancellation, claim — back to one risk across periods. | Low |
| Binder and section | Binding authority reference, section or coverage code, class of business, UMR where applicable | Tells the managing agent which authority the risk was written under, and which section of it. | Low |
| Period | Inception date, expiry date, transaction effective date, transaction type (new, renewal, endorsement, cancellation) | Drives earned-premium calculation and tells the provider whether a row is new business or a movement on an existing risk. | Low |
| Premium and money | Gross written premium, brokerage, commission, fees, taxes and levies, net to underwriter, settlement currency, rate of exchange | The reconciling part. This is what has to agree with the cash actually settled. | Medium |
| Exposure | Sum insured or limit, deductible or excess, exposure basis, peril or coverage indicators | Feeds the provider’s aggregate and catastrophe modelling. Frequently the group with the most provider-specific extras. | High |
| Territory and regulatory | Country and state or province of risk, tax jurisdiction, situs, regulatory class codes | Drives premium-tax treatment and regulatory reporting on the provider’s side. Gets stricter for US surplus lines. | High |
What the claims file carries
One row per claim per period, reported as movement rather than as a fresh snapshot. The claims file is the one that has to tie back to the premium file — a claim on a risk the provider has never seen a premium for is the most common serious break.
| Field group | Typical fields | Why the provider wants it | Varies |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claim identity | Claim reference, matching risk or policy reference, binder reference, claimant name | The risk reference has to match the premium bordereau exactly. Where the two disagree, the claim cannot be tied to the premium that supports it. | Low |
| Loss detail | Date of loss, date reported, cause or peril, loss location, brief description, catastrophe code where applicable | Catastrophe coding matters disproportionately — it is how the provider aggregates an event across all its coverholders. | Medium |
| Financials | Paid indemnity, paid expenses, outstanding reserve indemnity, outstanding reserve expenses, incurred total, currency, movement since last period | The movement column is what the provider actually reads. Absolute figures without movement force them to diff two files. | Medium |
| Status | Claim status (open, closed, reopened), date closed, denial or repudiation indicator and reason, litigation indicator | Reopened claims are a common reconciliation break, because a closed claim reappearing looks like a duplicate unless the status carries it. | Low |
| Recovery | Salvage, subrogation, reinsurance recoveries, third-party recoveries | Often reported net when the agreement says gross, or the reverse. Worth confirming explicitly rather than assuming. | High |
How often, and what changes it
Monthly
Most binders, both premium and claims. The default for active binders with meaningful volume. Usually due within 15 to 30 days of month end, per the agreement.
Quarterly
Low-volume or run-off binders. Agreed where volume does not justify a monthly cycle. Quarterly reporting on a live binder is unusual and generally has to be negotiated.
Event-driven
Catastrophe response. A provider may ask for interim claims reporting during a catastrophe, outside the normal cycle, so it can aggregate exposure early.
Ad hoc
Audits and regulatory requests. Coverholder audits and regulatory queries pull data outside the cycle, usually with a shorter deadline than the standard cadence.
Deadlines are set in the agreement rather than by convention. Late submission is one of the most commonly cited findings in coverholder audits, and it is almost never because the data did not exist — it is because assembling it took longer than the window allowed.
Six checks worth running before the file leaves
Every one of these is cheaper to catch in your own building than in the provider's. The last one is different in kind from the others: it does not cause a resubmission, it causes a finding.
Completeness
Every mandatory column present and populated for every row, per that provider’s template.
Where it usually fails: Blank exposure or territory fields on a minority of rows — usually risks bound outside the normal flow.
Referential integrity
Every claims row resolves to a risk that appears on a premium bordereau for the same binder.
Where it usually fails: A claim on a risk that was bound but never made it onto a premium bordereau, or a reference formatted differently between the two files.
Period integrity
Transaction effective dates fall inside the binder period, and the reporting period has no gap or overlap with the last file.
Where it usually fails: A risk bound after the binder expired, or a month reported twice after a resubmission.
Financial reconciliation
Bordereau totals agree with the cash settled and with the coverholder’s own ledger.
Where it usually fails: Rounding on per-row currency conversion instead of on the total, or brokerage calculated on a different base than the agreement specifies.
Movement consistency
Claims movement columns reconcile against the prior period’s outstanding figures.
Where it usually fails: Reopened claims, and reserve movements posted to the wrong period after a late adjustment.
Aggregate and authority
Written risks sit inside the limits, territories and classes the binder actually grants.
Where it usually fails: Discovered at audit rather than at bind. This is the failure that costs a binder rather than a resubmission.
Regure generates premium and claims bordereaux from the book itself, on each capacity provider's own template and cadence, rather than compiling them by hand each period — and because binding runs against the binder's authority terms with the check recorded at the point of decision, the last row in that table stops being an audit discovery. See the MGA operating scope for the full lifecycle, or coverholder bordereaux for the Lloyd's-specific view.
What coverholders ask about bordereaux
What is a bordereau in insurance?
A bordereau is a periodic data file a coverholder or MGA sends to the capacity provider, listing the risks written or the claims handled under a binding authority. A premium bordereau reports risks and money; a claims bordereau reports claims and their movement. It is how a provider sees a book it has delegated but does not administer.
Are bordereaux field requirements standardised?
No. Requirements are set by the binding authority agreement. Lloyd's publishes minimum standards and template guidance, and most capacity providers add their own template on top. Certain field groups recur almost everywhere — risk identity, binder reference, period, premium — but exposure, territory and recovery fields vary considerably between providers.
What is the difference between a premium bordereau and a claims bordereau?
The premium bordereau reports risks written under the binder and the money associated with them — one row per risk per transaction, including endorsements and cancellations. The claims bordereau reports claims under those risks and how the paid and reserved figures moved during the period. The claims file has to tie back to the premium file by risk reference.
How often do bordereaux have to be submitted?
Monthly for most active binders, with quarterly agreed for low-volume or run-off arrangements. The deadline is set in the agreement, commonly 15 to 30 days after period end. Providers may also request interim claims reporting during a catastrophe so they can aggregate exposure early.
What causes most bordereaux reconciliation breaks?
In order: claims rows referencing a risk that never appeared on a premium bordereau; risk references formatted differently between the two files; reserve movements posted to the wrong period after a late adjustment; reopened claims read as duplicates; and currency conversion rounded per row rather than on the total.
Can bordereaux be generated automatically?
Yes, where the underlying book is held as structured data rather than assembled from spreadsheets. Regure generates premium and claims bordereaux from the book on each provider's own template and cadence. The difficulty is rarely the reporting logic — it is that the source data is usually spread across several systems and a shared drive.
Send us a bordereau you actually had to produce
Your template, your capacity provider, your last reporting period. We will show you the same file generated from the book instead of assembled by hand, and where the reconciliation checks would have caught a break.