Reinsurance Treaty Compliance Tracking
Reinsurance treaties come with specific cession terms, retention limits, aggregate caps and reporting cadences that vary by treaty and by line of business, and tracking which policies and claims cede where, at what percentage, and whether cumulative cessions are approaching a treaty's aggregate limit is typically done through spreadsheets maintained by whoever inherited the process. A breach — ceding above a treaty's per-risk limit, missing a quarterly bordereaux deadline, or a facultative cession that wasn't properly documented — often surfaces only when the reinsurer's own audit catches it, at which point the dispute over who's liable for the gap is far more expensive than catching it internally would have been.
STARTING PRICE
From €799
Complex tier · Multi-system orchestration, custom logic, and higher-volume or higher-risk processing.
Get a quote →Saves roughly 8-14 hrs/week of manual treaty tracking and bordereaux preparation.
How the automation works
We track cessions against each treaty's actual terms — retention, per-risk and aggregate limits, reporting deadlines — as policies and claims are written and paid, and flag anything approaching a limit or a reporting deadline before it's breached, not after a reinsurer audit finds it. Bordereaux reports are generated in the format and cadence each treaty specifies, pulling from the same underlying claim and premium data rather than a manually rebuilt spreadsheet, cutting the chance of a transcription error between systems. Nothing gets ceded, and no bordereaux gets submitted to a reinsurer, without a reinsurance accountant or ceding manager reviewing and approving the report first — the tool tracks compliance and drafts the reporting, a person still owns the relationship with the reinsurer.
Process flow
- 01
Policy or claim cedes to treaty trigger
Tracking updates automatically whenever a policy or paid claim cedes to a treaty under its terms.
- 02
Pull treaty terms integration
The specific treaty's retention, per-risk limit, aggregate cap and reporting cadence are pulled to check the cession against, rather than a generic assumption applied across treaties.
- 03
Track cumulative cession against limits ai
Running totals per treaty are tracked against aggregate caps, flagging when cessions approach a limit well before it's actually breached.
- 04
Draft bordereaux report ai
A bordereaux report is drafted in the format and on the schedule each treaty requires, pulling from the underlying claim and premium data directly.
- 05
Accountant reviews and approves output
A reinsurance accountant or ceding manager reviews the draft report and any limit-approach flag before anything is submitted to the reinsurer — no report goes out unreviewed.
- 06
Log submission and confirm receipt output
Submitted bordereaux and any reinsurer acknowledgment or query are logged against the treaty for audit trail.
Inputs
- Treaty terms and retention/limit schedules
- Ceded policy and claim data
- Bordereaux reporting templates per treaty
- Historical cession records
Outputs
- Cumulative cession tracking by treaty
- Limit-approach and breach alerts
- Drafted bordereaux reports
- Submission and acknowledgment log
Works with
Prefer a fully custom build instead of an off-the-shelf integration? We scope both options during your free consultation — most jobs like this one work fine on standard connectors, but higher-volume or non-standard systems sometimes need bespoke API work, reflected in the complex tier.
Where this goes wrong if you get it wrong
- Aggregate treaty limits accumulate across an entire underwriting year or treaty period, not per transaction, so a system that only checks each cession against a per-risk limit without tracking the running cumulative total will miss an aggregate breach that only becomes visible in hindsight — both checks need to run together.
- Facultative cessions outside the standard treaty structure are easy to under-document because they're exceptions handled manually, and a compliance tracker built only around the automatic treaty terms will simply not see them — facultative placements need their own explicit tracking path, not an assumption they'll show up in the standard feed.
- Bordereaux formats and reporting cadences genuinely differ treaty by treaty, and reusing one template across treaties to save drafting time produces reports the reinsurer's own systems reject or flag for reconciliation — the draft needs to match each treaty's specified format, not a house-standard shortcut.
- No bordereaux or cession report should go to a reinsurer without a ceding manager's review, because an error in a submitted report becomes the basis for a dispute over who's liable for a coverage gap later — catching it internally before submission is categorically cheaper than correcting it after the reinsurer has relied on it.
Frequently asked questions
Does this submit reports to reinsurers automatically?
No. It drafts bordereaux reports and flags limit or deadline issues, but a reinsurance accountant or ceding manager reviews and approves every report before it's submitted.
How does this catch a treaty limit breach before the reinsurer does?
It tracks cumulative cessions against each treaty's actual retention and aggregate limits continuously, flagging when a treaty is approaching a limit rather than only discovering the breach at audit time.
Does it handle facultative cessions outside the standard treaty?
Facultative placements are tracked on their own path since they're exceptions to the standard treaty structure and won't show up correctly if the system assumes everything follows the automatic treaty terms.
Can it handle multiple treaties with different reporting formats?
Yes, each treaty's specific bordereaux format and reporting cadence is pulled and applied individually rather than reusing one template across treaties.