Captive Insurance & Captive Insurance Company Services by WMS,LLC  Captive Insurance Management , Captive Insurance Taxation , Captive Insurance Feasibility Studies , Captive Insurance Risk Pools , Captive Reinsurance , Captive Insurance Underwriting , Captive Insurance Accounting , IRS Letter Rulings, Turnkey Captive Insurance Services

Contact Us | Captive Insurance Costs | Captive Insurance Benefits | WMS Captive Insurance Services | Marketing Partners | Risks a Captive can Insure | IRC Section 831(b) Captives | Captive  Tax Benefits | IRS Letter Rulings

Home
What is Captive Insurance?
Captive Insurance Programs
Captive  Insurance Benefits
Captive Tax Benefits
WMS Captive Services
Captive Feasibility Study
Captive Management
Captive Reinsurance
Captive  Risk Pools
Captive Policies & Limits
Captive Insurance Costs
Estate Planning Benefits
Retirement Benefits
Asset Protection Benefits
Captive  Eligibility
WMS Advantages
Free Consultation
About WMS
Captive  Domiciles
Captive  Taxation
IRS Captive Tax Rulings
IRS Letter Rulings
Captive Tax Scams
Captive Tax Articles
Captive Glossary
IRC Section 831
IRC Section 953(d)
IRC Section 1563
Insurance  News
Sitemap
Legal Disclaimer
Marketing Partners

 

 

IRS Captive Insurance Private Letter Rulings,IRS Determination Letters for Captive Insurance Companies, Captive Insurance Letter Rulings, IRS Letter Rulings for Captive Insurance Companies, IRS Captive Insurance Letter Rulings

IRS Private Letter Rulings are written determinations issued by the National Office of the Internal Revenue Service. Private Letter Rulings dealing with matters involving insurance are specifically issued by the Office of Associate Chief Counsel for Financial Institutions & Products, located in Washington, DC. IRS Private Letter Rulings interpret and apply tax law to a taxpayer's specific set of facts.

IRS Private Letter Rulings deal with pre-return filing transactions and are issued directly to individual taxpayers at their request.       http://www.wmsolutionsnow.com

These written determinations are completely binding on the IRS with regard to the taxpayer who requested the ruling. An IRS Private Letter Ruling guarantees the tax treatment the taxpayer will receive on the covered transaction. This absolute protection is however, limited to the taxpayer who obtained the Private Letter Ruling.  Pursuant to IRC section 6110(j)(3), a Private Letter Ruling may not be used or cited as precedent. This means that every taxpayer must individually request their own Private Letter Ruling from the IRS even if their fact pattern is virtually identical to the fact pattern of a taxpayer who has already received a Private Letter Ruling from the IRS.

IRC section 6110 also provides that all names, addresses and taxpayer identification numbers are required to be deleted from the copy of the Private Letter Ruling that will be open to public inspection.

On December 30, 2002  in  Internal Revenue Bulletin 2002-52  the IRS issued Rev. Proc. 2002-75, which indicated that the IRS will provide guidance through ruling letters on captive insurance companies relating to:

i. Whether there is requisite risk shifting and risk distribution necessary to constitute insurance for purposes of determining the deductibility of premiums as ordinary and necessary business expenses: and

ii. Whether the requisite risk shifting and risk distribution are present for determining whether an entity is an insurance company for federal income tax purposes.

Listed below are three Private Letter Rulings (PLR's) which have been issued to taxpayers who have Captive Insurance Companies.  You can also click on any of the Private Letter links for additional information concerning IRS Private Letter Rulings, IRS Determination Letters and IRS Written  Determinations.

IRS PRIVATE RULING 200402001  (PDF version)

"This document may not be used or cited as precedent. Section 6110(j)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code."

Section 831 -- Tax on Other Insurance Companies

DATE: October 1, 2003

REFER REPLY TO:  [*1]  Refer Reply To: CC:FIP:4 -- PLR-135615-03

Release Date: 01/09/2004
 
Legend:
Taxpayer = * * *
State = * * *
Subsidiary = * * *
Company = * * *
Equipment A = * * *
Equipment B = * * *
Equipment C = * * *
Plan D = * * *
Plan E = * * *
Plan F = * * *
Amount 1 = * * *
Amount 2 = * * *
Amount 3 = * * *

Dear * * *:

[1] This is in reply to your letter of June 3, 2003, requesting rulings that the contracts issued by Taxpayer's wholly owned subsidiary qualify as insurance contracts for federal income tax purposes and that the subsidiary is taxable under section 831 of the Internal Revenue Code as an insurance company other than a life insurance company.

 FACTS

[2] Based on the representations made by Taxpayer, the relevant facts are as follows. Taxpayer is a corporation chartered under the laws of State. Taxpayer uses the calendar year as its taxable year and uses the accrual method of accounting for both its financial records and for federal income tax purposes. Pursuant to section 1362(a), Taxpayer has elected to be an S corporation.

[3] Taxpayer produces Equipment A and Equipment B. Taxpayer provides Equipment A and  [*2]  Equipment B to dealers in automobiles. These dealers install Equipment A and Equipment B on automobiles they sell to retail customers. Taxpayer has caused to be formed Subsidiary in State. The purpose of Subsidiary is to offer extended service protection plans to customers purchasing Equipment A and B, as well as offering an extended service protection plan covering Equipment C, which is not produced by Taxpayer.

[4] With respect to Equipment A, Subsidiary will offer Plan D. If, while Plan D is in force, Equipment A fails in the manner described in Plan D, Subsidiary will pay the contract holder either Amount 1 or Amount 2, depending upon the result of the failure. Subsidiary will reimburse the contract holder for expenses incurred by the contract holder for travel (meals and lodging; airfare; car rental) and for notification to family, business associates, and insurance companies necessitated by the failure. Plan D also provides for a credit of Amount 2 with the retail dealer who sold the contract holder the affected automobile to be used by the contract holder towards the purchase of a replacement automobile from that dealer.

[5] With respect to Equipment B, Subsidiary will offer [*3]  Plan E. If, while Plan E is in force, Equipment B fails in the manner described in Plan E, Subsidiary will cause to have the resulting damage done to the automobile repaired; however, Subsidiary's liability for damage done to the exterior of the automobile is limited to the current value of the automobile as reflected in the National Automobile Dealers Association Official Used Car Guide.

[6] With respect to Equipment C, Subsidiary will offer Plan F. If, while Plan F is in force, Equipment C fails in the manner described in Plan F, Subsidiary will cause to have Equipment C repaired or replaced, including installation. In connection with this, Subsidiary will also provide, if appropriate, immediate "roadside" assistance in an amount not to exceed Amount 3. Plan F excludes coverage for more than one event during a seven day period.

[7] For all of the plans, the customer/contract holder pays only the consideration agreed to at the time the plan is issued, and the consideration is not returned to the customer/contract holder if no claim is made. Plan D is non-cancelable and non-refundable. Plan F may be cancelled and if it is cancelled a portion of the consideration will be returned to [*4]  the contract holder with the amount depending on how long the plan had been in force. Plan E is silent regarding cancellation. None of the plans cover any consequential or other damages suffered by the contract holder, except to the extent stated. The coverage provided by the plans is not a substitute for any warranty made by the manufacturer or seller of the equipment. Subsidiary will not perform any of the repair work contemplated by the plans.

[8] All of the plans are administered and marketed by Taxpayer. Through representatives of Taxpayer, Subsidiary will enter into arrangements with automobile dealers under which the dealers offer for sale Plans D, E, and F. Regardless of the price charged the contract holder for the plan, the dealer must remit to Taxpayer a predetermined amount for each plan sold. Taxpayer will retain a fee as compensation for its services and will remit the balance to Subsidiary. Taxpayer will investigate and process all claims made under the plans. When a claim under Plan E or F is approved by Taxpayer, Subsidiary will reimburse the dealer or other authorized service provider for the parts and labor required to perform the appropriate repair or replacement.  [*5]  When a claim under Plan D is approved by Taxpayer, Subsidiary will pay the appropriate benefit to the contract holder.

[9] In order to comply with applicable state regulation, and to facilitate the conduct of its business, Subsidiary has entered into an agreement with Company, a licensed insurance company, by which Company indemnifies Subsidiary in the event Subsidiary is unable to perform its obligation(s) under the plans.

[10] Subsidiary will generate almost all of its revenue from the sale of the plans since issuing the plans is its primary and predominant business activity.
 
LAW AND ANALYSIS

[11] Section 831(a) provides that taxes, as computed under section 11, will be imposed on the taxable income (as defined by section 832) of each insurance company other than a life insurance company.

[12] Section 1.831-3(a) of the Income Tax Regulations provides that, for purposes of sections 831 and 832, the term "insurance companies" means only those companies that qualify as insurance companies under the definition in section 1.801-3(a)(1).

[13] Section 1.801-3(a)(1) provides that the term "insurance company" means a company [*6]  whose primary and predominant business activity during the taxable year is the issuing of insurance or annuity contracts or the reinsuring of risks underwritten by insurance companies. Section 1.801-3(a)(1) further provides that though the company's name, charter powers, and subjection to state insurance laws are significant in determining the business that a company is authorized and intends to carry on, it is the character of the business actually done in the taxable year that determines whether the company is taxable as an insurance company under the Code. See also, Bowers v. Lawyers Mortgage Co., 285 U.S. 182, 188 (1932) (to the same effect as the regulation); Rev. Rul. 83-172, 1983-2 C.B. 107 (holding taxpayer was an insurance company as defined in section 1.801-3(a)(1), notwithstanding that taxpayer was not recognized as an insurance company for state law purposes).

[14] Neither the Code nor the Regulations thereunder define the terms "insurance" or "insurance contract". The accepted definition of "insurance" for federal income tax purposes relates back to Helvering v. LeGierse, 312 U.S. 531, 539 (1941), [*7]  in which the Court stated that "[h]istorically and commonly insurance involves risk-shifting and risk-distributing." Case law has defined "insurance" as "involve[ing] a contract, whereby, for an adequate consideration, one party undertakes to indemnify another against loss arising from certain specified contingencies or perils. . . It is contractual security against possible anticipated loss." Epmeier v. United States, 199 F.2d 508, 509-10 (7th Cir. 1952). In addition, the risk transferred must be risk of economic loss. Allied Fidelity Corp. v. Commissioner, 572 F.2d 1190, 1193 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 835 (1978).

[15] Risk shifting occurs when a party facing the possibility of an economic loss transfers some or all of the financial consequences of the potential loss to the insurer. See
Rev. Rul. 92-93, 1992-2 C.B. 45 (while parent corporation purchased a group-term life insurance policy from its wholly owned insurance subsidiary, the arrangement was not held to be "self- insurance" because the economic risk of loss was not that of the parent) modified [*8]  on other grounds, Rev. Rul. 2001-31, 2001-1 C.B. 1348. If the insured has shifted its risk to the insurer, then a loss by the insured does not affect the insured because the loss is offset by the insurance payment. See Clougherty Packing Co. v. Commissioner, 811 F.2d 1297, 1300 (9th Cir. 1987).

[16] Risk distribution incorporates the statistical phenomenon known as the law of large numbers. Distributing risk allows the insurer to reduce the possibility that a single costly claim will exceed the amount taken in as a premium and set aside for the payment of such a claim. Insuring many independent risks in return for numerous premiums serves to distribute risk. By assuming numerous relatively small, independent risks that occur randomly over time, the insurer smoothes out losses to match more closely its receipt of premiums. See
Clougherty Packing Co., 811 F.2d at 1300.

[17] Based on the representations concerning Plans D, E, and F, we conclude that, for federal income taxes, Plans D, E, and F are insurance contracts. The plans are aleatory contracts under which Subsidiary is obligated to  [*9]  indemnify the contract holders for economic loss arising from the mechanical breakdown of a piece of equipment that is not covered by the manufacturer's warranty. The plans are not prepaid service contracts because Subsidiary does not perform any repair services. By accepting a large number of risks, Subsidiary has distributed the risk of loss under the contracts so as to make the average loss more predictable.

[18] Based on the representations concerning its business activities, we conclude that Subsidiary will qualify for purposes of section 831 as an insurance company other than a life insurance company so long as its primary and predominant business activity is issuing the plans.
 
CONCLUSIONS

1. Plans D, E, and F are insurance contracts for federal income tax purposes.

2. Subsidiary will qualify as an insurance company for purposes of section 831 so long as issuing Plans D, E, and F is its primary and predominant business activity.
 
CAVEATS

1. Except as expressly provided herein, no opinion is expressed or implied concerning the tax consequences of any aspect of any transaction or item discussed or referenced in this [*10]  letter.

2. No ruling has been requested, and no opinion is expressed, concerning whether Subsidiary's gross premiums written include the entire amount the purchasers of Plans D, E, and F pay to the Taxpayer for the contracts.

3. No opinion is expressed concerning the purpose and motive of the transaction or the application of sections 482 or 845 to the transaction.

[19] Section 6110(k)(3) of the Code provides that this letter may not be used or cited as precedent. A copy of this letter must be attached to any income tax return to which it is relevant.

[20] In accordance with the Power of Attorney on file with this office, a copy of this letter is being sent to the first listed representative.
 
                                  Sincerely,
 
                                  THOMAS M. PRESTON
                                  Senior Counsel, Branch 4
                                  Office of Associate Chief Counsel
                                  (Financial Institutions &  Products)

 

PRIVATE RULING 200416006  ( PDF Version )

"This document may not be used or cited as precedent. Section 6110(j)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code."

Section 832 -- Other Insurance Firm Income;
Section 831 -- Tax on Other Insurance Companies

DATE: January 6, 2004

REFER REPLY TO:  [*1]  Refer Reply To: CC:FIP:4 - PLR-143639-03

Release Date: 4/16/04

Legend
 
Individual A = * * *
Individual B = * * *
Network = * * *
State A = * * *
State B = * * *
Taxpayer = * * *
Administrator = * * *
Date m = * * *
Year 1 = * * *

Dear * * * :

[1] This is in reply to your letter of July 1, 2003, requesting rulings, principally, that the contracts issued by Taxpayer qualify as insurance contracts for federal income tax purposes and that Taxpayer is taxable under section 831 of the Internal Revenue Code
as an insurance company other than a life insurance company.
 
FACTS

[2] Individual A owns all the stock of the four of the seven auto dealerships within the Network, and Individual B owns all of the stock of the remaining dealerships. Beginning in Year 1, these dealerships sold vehicle service agreements in which the selling dealer was the primary obligor to the purchaser of the contract. Taxpayer, which was incorporated on Date m of Year 1, will be responsible for the issuance and administration of the vehicle service agreements issued to customers and will be the primary obligor on the agreements. In addition,  [*2]  Taxpayer states that it will assume for arms-length consideration, the outstanding risks on the dealer obligor vehicle service agreements issued by the individual dealers within the Network. All of the stock of Taxpayer is owed by Individual A.

[3] The vehicle service agreements issued by Taxpayer provide purchasers with protection against economic loss for certain expenses related to the repair of vehicles not covered by the manufacturer's warranty. In the event that the manufacturer's warranty duplicates coverage under the contract, the contract will not apply and the vehicle owner can only recover under the manufacturer's factory warranty. The agreements under the vehicle service program typically cover repairs made necessary by the failure of major systems or components; but also include coverage of some incidental items caused by the failure of other components such as tire repair and replacement, lockout, and trip interruption. On the other hand, the agreements do not cover any preventative or routine maintenance such as engine tune ups, or oil or other fluid changes unrelated to a covered mechanical breakdown.

[4] The vehicle service agreements on new vehicles are renewable  [*3]  in that a purchaser may purchase a vehicle service agreement for additional time and mileage provided the purchaser makes a request within 30 days and 1,000 miles prior to the expiration of the original agreement. On the other hand, the purchaser may cancel a vehicle service agreement contract and receive a refund of a portion of amounts paid as consideration for the agreement.

[5] Taxpayer's only business activity is the issuance and administration of the vehicle service agreements offered by the Network whereby the selling dealer acts as Taxpayer's agent. Under the vehicle service agreements Taxpayer will be obligated to pay for the cost of labor and parts required for covered repairs, even though, Taxpayer does not perform any repairs.

[6] While Taxpayer is not licensed as an insurance company under the laws of State A, other State A law and administrative practices regarding the sale of the contracts are applicable to Taxpayer. For example, State A law requires that the obligor of the contract such as Taxpayer must secure its obligations under the contract in an acceptable manner provided in the statute. Taxpayer will purchase indemnity insurance from a licensed insurance company,  [*4]  which, under the laws of State A, is one of the accepted methods available to Taxpayer to secure its obligations. Under such an arrangement the contract obligor remains liable to the customer, but its obligations under the contracts are indemnified by the licensed insurer. Also, Taxpayer has entered into a program administration agreement with Administrator, an unrelated State B limited liability company whereby Administrator serves as program administrator for Taxpayer's business with respect to the contracts and will conduct many of the day-today record keeping and claims administration functions.

[7] Taxpayer represents as follows:
 
    (1) As permitted by State A law, Taxpayer will be the administrator and the named obligor on the vehicle agreements and is directly liable to the purchaser under the terms of the vehicle service agreements,
 
    (2) The predominant source of revenue collected by Taxpayer will be derived from the issuance of vehicle service agreements with Taxpayer as obligor.
 
    (3) Taxpayer does not perform any repair services covered pursuant to the vehicle service agreements.
 
LAW AND ANALYSIS

 [*5]  [8] Section 831(a) of the Internal Revenue Code
provides that taxes, as computed in section 11, are imposed for each taxable year on the taxable income of each insurance company other than a life insurance company.

[9] Insurance companies subject to tax under section 832 of the Code are required to determine gross income under section 832(b)(1). Section 832(b)(1)(A) provides that one of the items taken into account is the combined gross amount earned during the taxable year from investment income and from underwriting income computed on the basis of the underwriting and investment exhibit of the annual statement approved by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. Section 832(b)(3) defines "underwriting income" as premiums earned on insurance contracts during the taxable year less losses incurred and expenses incurred. Section 832(b)(4) provides that "premiums earned on insurance contracts during the taxable year" is the amount generally computed as follows: (1) from the amount of gross premiums written on insurance contracts during the taxable year, deduct return premiums and premiums paid for reinsurance; and (2) to the amount determined [*6]  in (1) add 80% of the unearned premiums on outstanding business at the end of the preceding taxable year and deduct 80% of the unearned premiums on outstanding business at the end of the taxable year.

[10] Section 1.831-3(a) of the Income Tax Regulations
provides that, for purposes of sections 831 and 832 of the Code, the term "insurance companies" means only those companies that qualify as insurance companies under the definition in former section 1.801-1(b) (now section 1.801-3(a)(1)) of the regulations.

[11] Section 1.801-3(a)(1) of the regulations provides that the term "insurance company" means a company whose primary and predominant business activity during the taxable year is the issuing of insurance or annuity contracts or the reinsuring of risks underwritten by insurance companies. Section 1.803-3(a)(1) further provides that though the company's name, charter powers, and subjection to state insurance laws are significant in determining the business that a company is authorized to carry on, it is the character of the business actually done in the taxable year that determines whether the company is taxable as an insurance company under [*7]  the Code. See also Bowers v. Lawyers Mortgage Co., 285 U.S. 182, 188 (1932)
(to the same effect as the regulation); Rev. Rul. 83-172, 1983-2 C.B. 107 (holding that the taxpayer was an "insurance company," as defined in section 1.801- 3(a)(1), notwithstanding that the taxpayer was not recognized as an insurance company for state law purposes).

[12] Neither the Code nor the regulations define the terms "insurance" or "insurance contract." The accepted definition of insurance for federal income tax purposes relates back to Helvering v. LeGierse, 312 U.S. 531, 539 (1941),
in which the Supreme Court stated that "[historically and commonly insurance involves risk-shifting and risk distributing. Case law has defined "insurance" as "involve[ing] a contract, whereby for valuable consideration, one party undertakes to indemnify another against a loss arising from certain specified contingencies or perils. . . [I]t is contractual security against possible anticipated loss." See Epmeier v. United States, 199 F.2d 508, 509-510 (7th Cir. 1952). In addition, the risk transferred [*8]  must be risk of economic loss. Allied Fidelity Corp. v. Commissioner, 572 F.2d 1190, 1193 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 835 (1978).

[13] Risk shifting occurs when a person facing the possibility of an economic loss transfers some or all of the financial consequences of the potential loss to the insurer. See Rev. Rul. 92- 93, 1992-2 C.B. 45, 45,
as modified by Rev. Rul. 2001-31, 2001-1 C.B. 1348 (while parent corporation purchased a group-term life insurance policy from its wholly owned insurance subsidiary, this did not cause the arrangement to be "self-insurance" because the economic risk of loss was not that of parent). If the insured has shifted its risk to the insurer, then a loss by the insured does not affect the insured because the loss is offset by the insurance payment. See Clougherty Packing Co. v. Commissioner, 811 F.2d 1297, 1300 (9th Cir. 1987).

[14] Risk distribution incorporates the statistical phenomenon known as the law of large numbers. Distributing risk allows the insurer to reduce the possibility [*9]  that a single costly claim will exceed the amount taken in as a premium and set aside for the payment of such a claim. Insuring many independent risks in return for numerous premiums serves to distribute risk. By assuming numerous relatively small, independent risks that occur randomly over time, the insurer smoothes out losses to match more closely its receipt of premiums. See Cloughtery Packing Co., 811 F.2d at 1300.


[15] Based on the information submitted, we conclude that, for federal income tax purposes, the vehicle service agreements are insurance contracts, not prepaid service contracts. Unlike prepaid service contracts, the contracts are aleatory contracts under which Taxpayer, for a fixed price, is obligated to indemnify the purchaser of the contract for economic loss not covered by warranties provided by a manufacturer, arising from the mechanical breakdown of, and repair expense to, a purchased motor vehicle. Thus, the contracts are not prepaid service contracts because Taxpayer's liability is limited to indemnifying the vehicle service agreement contractholder for losses in the event a mechanical breakdown occurs. Taxpayer does not provide any [*10]  repair services itself and does not provide reimbursement for any obligations that are properly the obligations of the manufacturer. Further, by accepting a large number of risks, Taxpayer has distributed the risk of loss under the vehicle service contracts so as to make the average loss more predictable.

[16] Based on Taxpayer's representations concerning its business activities, we find Taxpayer's "primary and predominant activity," is issuing vehicle service agreements that are insurance contracts for federal income tax purposes. Thus, Taxpayer qualifies as an "insurance company" for purposes of section 831 of the Code.
 
CONCLUSIONS

  1. The vehicle service agreements issued by Taxpayer, as described above, are considered insurance  contracts for federal  tax purposes.

  2. Taxpayer is taxable under section 831(a) as an insurance company other than a life insurance company.

  3. Taxpayer is entitled under section 832(b)(4) to deduct premiums paid to a licensed insurance company for a contract protecting Taxpayer against losses incurred with respect to its obligations to purchasers under the Taxpayer's vehicle [*11]  service agreements.
     
    CAVEATS

  • Except as expressly provided herein, no opinion is expressed or implied concerning the tax consequences of any aspect or item discussed or referenced in this letter.

  • No ruling has been requested, and no opinion is expressed, concerning whether Taxpayer's gross premiums include the entire amount the purchasers of the vehicle service agreements pay to  the dealers within the Network for their contracts.

  • No opinion is expressed as to the federal tax treatment of the proposed arrangements whereby Taxpayer will assume the outstanding risks from the individual dealers in the Network that those dealers assumed under their respective dealer obligor contracts.

    [17] The rulings contained in this letter are based upon information and representations submitted by Taxpayer. While this office has not verified any of the material submitted in support of the request for rulings, it is subject to verification on examination.

    [18] The ruling is directed only to the taxpayer requesting it. Section 6110(k) of the Code provides that it may not be used or cited [*12]  as precedent. A copy of this letter must be attached to any income tax return to which it is relevant.

    [19] Pursuant to the power of attorney on file with this office, a copy of this letter is being sent to your authorized representative.
     
                                    Sincerely,
                                    /S/
                                    THOMAS M. PRESTON
                                    Senior Counsel, Branch 4
                                    Office of Associate Chief Counsel
                                    (Financial Institutions & Products)

 

PRIVATE RULING 200138010  ( PDF Version )

My Google Pagerank


Contact WMS today to learn more about how we can customize a Captive Insurance Solution for you! Please provide us with your contact information for all (*) fields below and we will promptly respond to your information request. All information you provide is confidential and WMS does not  share, sell or disclose any information you provide to any other parties.  

Request additional information or a  Free Consultation

Please provide us with your contact information for all (*) fields below and we will promptly respond to your information request. All information you provide is confidential and WMS does not  share, sell or disclose any information you provide to any other parties.  

Select the items that apply, and then let us know how to contact you.

Email Literature regarding the services offered by WMS
Have a Client Services Consultant contact me for a Free Consultation

Name*
Title*
Company*
Address1*
Address2*
City*
State*

 

Zip*

E-mail*

Phone*
Extension 

Best Time to Call
Industry Description
Total # of Locations*
Total # of Employees*
Annual Sales $(Millions)*
Total Net Income before Tax*

Which of these Coverages do you currently have? (Optional)

 

Business Owners

  Professional Liability      

Business Interruption 

  General Commercial      

Commercial Auto

  Employment Practices   

Commercial Property

  Directors & Officers        

Commercial Umbrella

  Crime and Fidelity          

Do  you, or any members of your family, or any of your businesses              own any stock in a privately held insurance company?