Making the Intangible Tangible: A 2026 Underwriting Framework for UK Mid-Market MGAs
For UK mid-market companies, the balance sheet is an increasingly unreliable guide to what can be lost. A manufacturer's value may sit in process know-how; a software business in code and customer data; a professional firm in reputation and a handful of senior relationships. Traditional property and liability programmes were not designed around those dependencies. In 2026, with capacity providers asking harder questions about accumulation, dependency and conduct, MGAs that can make intangible risk legible will be better placed to defend delegated authority.
This framework is not a template for a new product. It is a repeatable underwriting discipline for specialist portfolios where intangible exposures sit alongside conventional ones.
Begin with an exposure register, not a policy wording
The first task is to identify where revenue and enterprise value actually depend. For a UK mid-market account, that means asking four questions: what would stop the business trading tomorrow; what would stop customers buying; what would stop the business proving what it owns; and what would stop it replacing a critical individual?
Build a simple register covering intellectual property, reputation, data and key-person dependency. Record the asset, the trigger event, the business function affected and the likely period of disruption. This register should sit alongside the property schedule and liability summary, not in a separate workstream.
Useful evidence sources include Companies House filings, the Intellectual Property Office register, the Information Commissioner's Office register, FCA and PRA public records where relevant, court lists and published judgments. For smaller accounts, broker submissions and a structured management interview will often provide more insight than a lengthy questionnaire. The aim is not to collect everything; it is to collect what changes the underwriting view.
Score the four exposures on a common scale
A common scoring scale allows underwriters to compare dissimilar risks without pretending they are identical. A five-point scale is usually sufficient, with weights agreed by portfolio. The following questions are a starting point.
| Exposure | Core scoring questions |
|---|---|
| Intellectual property | Are registered rights owned by the insured entity? Are assignments complete? Is there reliance on open-source software or licensed third-party content? Has the business been involved in infringement disputes? |
| Reputation | Is revenue concentrated in a small number of customers or channels? Are there contractual brand or conduct requirements? Has the business experienced a public relations incident or regulatory criticism? |
| Data | What personal or commercial data is held? Is the business registered with the ICO? Does it hold Cyber Essentials or a comparable control certification? Has it suffered a reportable incident? |
| Key-person dependency | Which individuals are irreplaceable in the next twelve months? Are there succession plans, non-compete agreements and key-person insurance? How quickly could the business recruit a replacement? |
Scores should be evidenced, not asserted. If a business claims strong data controls, ask for the certification scope and the last penetration test summary. If it claims IP ownership, ask for the assignment schedule. A score without evidence is simply a narrative.
Build an evidence pack that capacity providers recognise
Delegated authority works best when the MGA can show a consistent underwriting trail. For intangible risk, that trail should include the exposure register, the scoring rationale, the principal evidence relied upon and any conditions or exclusions applied.
Capacity providers are likely to focus on three areas in 2026: aggregation, moral hazard and exit. Aggregation matters where many insureds rely on the same cloud provider, payment processor or professional adviser. Moral hazard matters where a business has little financial incentive to protect an intangible asset. Exit matters where cover is written on a claims-made basis and the run-off position is unclear.
The evidence pack should therefore identify shared dependencies, confirm whether the insured retains a meaningful deductible or co-insurance, and state the run-off arrangements. For key-person cover, include the employment contract, succession plan and any related life or critical illness policy. For data risk, include the incident history and the business continuity plan.
Price for frequency and severity, not just limit
Intangible risk is often priced as if it were a single severe event. In practice, frequency matters. Reputational harm, data incidents and key-person disruption can occur more than once in a policy period, and each event may erode value in different ways.
A practical approach is to separate the limit into sub-limits: one for defence costs, one for remediation and restoration, and one for business interruption or loss of profit. Apply a waiting period that reflects the likely time to detect and respond. Use co-insurance where the insured has control over the mitigation. For key-person cover, consider a short elimination period and a definition that ties the trigger to a measurable reduction in revenue or a defined corporate event.
The pricing model should also reflect the quality of the evidence. A well-documented IP register and a tested incident response plan reduce the expected severity of a loss. An account with no succession plan and no data certification should carry a higher rate or a more restrictive structure.
Word cover with clarity and controlled ambiguity
Intangible cover fails when the wording tries to be too broad. A reputation policy that promises to protect brand value without defining the trigger, the measurement method and the exclusions will create dispute. A data policy that covers remediation but not regulatory investigation costs may leave the insured exposed to the very event it feared.
Use affirmative triggers where possible. Define the insured asset, the event, the loss and the measurement period. Exclude known circumstances, prior litigation and uninsured contractual penalties. Where cover depends on a third-party valuation, state the valuation method and the evidence required. For key-person cover, define the individual by role and name, and set out what happens if the role changes.
The wording should also address the interaction with conventional policies. If a property policy responds to physical damage that causes business interruption, the intangible policy should not duplicate that response. A clear non-duplication clause protects both the insured and the capacity provider.
Make the framework repeatable
The value of this approach lies in repetition. A specialist MGA that scores intangible exposures consistently can compare accounts across a portfolio, identify accumulation points and explain its underwriting to capacity providers. It can also give brokers a clearer view of what evidence will improve terms.
In 2026, the UK mid-market will not reward underwriters who simply add an intangible extension to a conventional product. It will reward those who can show, account by account, where the value sits, how it can be lost and what the insured is doing to protect it. That is the practical route to pricing and wording intangible risk with confidence.
