Life SciencesLiability
Get a quote

TL;DR

A program review is for established life-sciences operators whose insurance has become load-bearing: multi-entity structures, high-limit products and D&O towers, portfolios of GPO and hospital contracts, and companies heading into a financing round, acquisition, or IPO. A specialist reads the entire program clause by clause against every obligation it has to satisfy - contract, regulatory, investor, and future diligence - and rebuilds what does not pass. Complimentary, end-of-business-day turnaround.

For established & scaled operators

Your program grew one policy at a time. Nobody has read the whole thing against every contract you signed.

Established operators rarely have a coverage problem on any single policy. They have a coordination problem: a products tower that does not match the strictest GPO schedule, a claims-made line with no tail plan, a D&O structure that is not exit-ready, entities that are not all named insureds. These surface at claim or at diligence, not at renewal.

The program review reads every line against every obligation - sponsor MSAs, GPO and hospital contracts, investor covenants, regulatory triggers, and the diligence a future buyer or underwriter will run - and returns a clause-by-clause map of where the program stands and what to rebuild.

Request a program reviewOr run the free tools first

Where scaled programs fail 01 · Multi-entity coordination

Related entities share one program but carry different obligations.

An operating company, a manufacturing subsidiary, an IP-holding entity, and foreign affiliates frequently sit under a single program while each faces different products, contract, and regulatory exposure. The structural questions - which entities are named insureds, whether the tower responds per-entity or in aggregate, and how intercompany indemnity is coordinated - determine whether a claim against one entity erodes cover for the rest.

The failure surfaces at claim or at diligence, not at binding. The review maps the corporate structure against the program and flags entities that are exposed, limits that are silently shared, and indemnity that runs the wrong direction.

Where scaled programs fail 02 · Tower adequacy at portfolio scale

The products tower has to satisfy the strictest contract you hold, not the average one.

A mid-market operator with a portfolio of GPO supplier agreements and hospital purchase contracts is bound by the union of every schedule, not any single one. Implantable and high-risk device categories, large 503B hospital contracts, and multi-sponsor CDMO relationships push products and aggregate limits well past the standard floors, and the layering decision - admitted vs specialty markets, per how the ILF curve behaves past $10M - is a structural one.

The review reconciles every active contract schedule to a single required tower and identifies where the current structure is short, mis-layered, or paying for limit it does not need.

Where scaled programs fail 03 · Exit and diligence readiness

A program that runs fine operationally can fail M&A or IPO diligence.

Buyers and underwriters scrutinize inadequate limits, coverage gaps against outstanding contracts, missing tail on claims-made lines, and D&O structure ahead of a transaction. Occurrence-form products maintained throughout company life, a run-off and tail plan, and transactional D&O (representations and warranties) structure are what make a program exit-ready rather than a diligence finding that reprices the deal.

The review anticipates the diligence a future buyer or underwriter will run and closes the findings before they become leverage on the other side of the table.

Where scaled programs fail 04 · Alternative-risk economics

Captives are an economics decision, not a default.

When premium spend, retained risk, and program stability reach scale, financing risk inside a captive or group captive can be more efficient than paying full market premium. It depends on loss history, cash position, and the specific lines - and for most operators the economics do not justify it. It is never a starting point.

The review assesses whether the numbers actually support an alternative-risk structure rather than assuming they do, and models the retained-risk and stability tradeoffs honestly.

Carrier access

We place scaled programs through specialty life-sciences markets with real tower and structure appetite.

A generalist program built one renewal at a time drifts out of alignment with the contracts it is supposed to satisfy. Rebuilding a multi-entity, multi-tower program requires markets that write life-sciences structure - dedicated products and D&O underwriting, surplus-lines capacity for high-risk device and biologics categories, and carriers that coordinate across lines so a cyber-induced product failure or a multi-entity claim does not fall into a coverage gap.

The review is agency-neutral. It starts from what the program has to do and works backward to the market structure that satisfies it - not from a single carrier's appetite.

Programs anchored in Texas with broader placement across the major US life-sciences clusters - including the New Jersey pharma corridor and the North Carolina (RTP) cluster.

Frequently asked

Common questions about the program review

What is a life-sciences insurance program review?

A clause-by-clause read of an established operator's entire insurance program against its actual contract, regulatory, and exit obligations. It looks across all lines - general liability, products, professional/E&O, D&O, cyber, property, clinical trial, and specialty extensions - and identifies where the program meets, partially meets, or fails the requirements imposed by sponsor MSAs, GPO and hospital contracts, investor covenants, and future diligence. It is a structural review of the whole program, not a single-policy quote.

Which operators is the program review built for?

Scaled and established operators whose programs have become load-bearing: multi-entity corporate structures, high-limit products or D&O towers, portfolios of GPO and hospital purchase contracts, companies approaching a financing round, acquisition, or IPO, and operators evaluating a captive or other alternative-risk structure. Earlier-stage operators are usually better served by the free tools first.

How is a multi-entity program structured across related companies?

Related life-sciences entities - an operating company, a manufacturing subsidiary, an IP-holding entity, foreign affiliates - frequently share a program but carry different exposures and different contract obligations. The structural questions are which entities are named insureds, how limits are shared or dedicated, whether the tower responds per-entity or in aggregate, and whether intercompany indemnity is coordinated. Getting this wrong surfaces at claim or at diligence, not at binding.

How does insurance diligence work for an M&A or IPO event?

Buyers and underwriters scrutinize the target's program for inadequate limits, coverage gaps against outstanding contracts, missing tail on claims-made lines, and D&O structure ahead of a transaction. A program that was adequate operationally can fail exit diligence. The review anticipates that scrutiny - occurrence-form products maintained throughout company life, run-off/tail planning, and transactional D&O (representations and warranties) structure - so the program is exit-ready rather than a diligence finding.

When does a captive or alternative-risk structure make sense?

When premium spend, retained risk, and program stability reach a scale where financing risk inside a captive or group captive is more efficient than paying full market premium. It is a mid-market-and-up decision that depends on loss history, cash position, and the specific lines involved. The review assesses whether the economics justify it rather than assuming they do; most operators do not need one, and it is not a starting point.

What does the review cost, and what is the turnaround?

The review itself is complimentary. Send the program - current policies, the sponsor and hospital contracts driving requirements, and any diligence context - and a specialist returns a clause-by-clause read by end of business day. There is no obligation to move the placement.

Next steps

Keep going.

Why operators choose this practice

  • Life sciences only

    Every placement passes through specialty life-sciences underwriters - not a general manufacturer or healthcare desk.

  • All 50 US states

    Programs placed nationally with deep practice content for the 16 states anchoring the major US life-sciences clusters.

  • End-of-day SLA

    Coverage review requests come back the same business day. MSA reads are typically half an hour or less.

  • Decoder + glossary

    Free MSA Decoder, 49-clause glossary, 60+ Q&A library. Designed for CFOs, GCs, and Quality leaders.

Related deep-dives

Go deeper on the specific clauses and decisions that show up most.

Complimentary program review

Send the program. A specialist reads the whole thing by end of business day.

Current policies, the sponsor and hospital contracts driving your requirements, and any diligence context. A specialist returns a clause-by-clause read of the entire program - no obligation to move the placement.

Request the review

A specialist will reach out by end of business day.

Programs placed through A-rated specialty markets. Your specialist handles unlimited certificates of insurance, annual coverage reviews, and claims advocacy.