This article was produced in partnership with Victor Insurance
Capacity is one of the most pressing concerns in today’s builders risk market, especially for wood-frame and high-value residential projects. Higher fire and water damage exposure, limited insurer appetite, and regional risk factors all contribute to a narrower field of viable options for brokers. Yet for Jeff Benson, Builders Risk Program Leader at Victor Insurance, the issue is not just about finding capacity. It is about establishing the right kind of structure and clarity, for brokers, builders, and underwriters alike.
One lesson he emphasizes is that stated capacity limits are not absolutes. “If a carrier says they can write up to $25 million in frame capacity, it doesn’t mean every project fits the bill,” he explained.
Benson has spent decades in the construction insurance space, and he approaches wood-frame underwriting with equal parts scrutiny and pragmatism. “The conversation around capacity always starts with location,” he said. “If you are dealing with wildfire-prone areas, coastal storm zones, or regions without public fire protection, it is a different world in terms of availability.”
When underwriters talk about frame construction, they do not mean the same thing in every part of the US. In Benson’s view, frame is a broad category that looks very different in Southern California, Texas, or Montana. Wildfire may determine appetite in one place. The lack of public fire infrastructure might be the determining factor in another.
He offered a common example. A custom home project valued at $8 million in a remote part of the Mountain West might present multiple friction points at once. “You could be talking about a high-value structure with no hydrants, no water supply, no staffed fire department. The right questions create a clear picture quickly.”
Those questions are central to Victor’s underwriting approach. Benson asks brokers to bring construction budgets, builder experience, site exposure details, and mitigation plans to the table from the outset, especially for frame. If the project is in a known wildfire zone, that conversation is direct: What is the specific mitigation plan? Is the site cleared of debris? What is the nearest suppression resource?
What has added new pressure in recent years is project length. Many frame builds that originally assumed a 12- to 18-month term now need 24 or 30 months due to labor shortages, permitting delays, or materials disruptions. Benson cites the frequent scenario where a carrier will write a two-year term on a three-year build. “The build gets delayed, but the carrier won’t extend past the original term,” he noted. “The broker is then left trying to find mid-term builders risk coverage, often from surplus markets, at a much higher price.”
Victor takes a different approach. For qualifying projects, extensions are considered from the time the risk is bound. It is not just about getting the premium up front, it is about structuring coverage around realistic build schedules.
Builders risk coverage only works when it reflects what builders face day to day. That is the focus behind how Victor designs its policy.
Take the green building recertification coverage feature. Originally introduced as an optional add-on, it is now included as part of the form for builders who qualify. It offers up to $10,000 for additional costs related to maintaining LEED or similar certifications after a covered loss. As more builders started using energy-efficient systems or working toward certification, Victor added it to the base policy for eligible projects. It solves a real problem for contractors who would otherwise pay out of pocket to reapply after a loss.
“It is a practical step, not a big leap,” Benson said. “We try to make sure the policy mirrors what is actually happening on site.”
Other features like debris removal or property in temporary storage fit the same logic. They anticipate exposures that come up often, especially for smaller contractors and custom builders.
Still, Benson is clear: coverage enhancements do not replace underwriting discipline. “Even with automatic features, everything starts from the application. We will always measure experience, valuation, and exposure first.”
The more a broker understands the project’s context, the easier it is for an underwriter to evaluate it. That includes knowing what questions will surface around fire protection, construction value, builder reputation, and location-based hazards.
But beyond documentation, the brokers who see the most success are the ones who understand the technical side of the work. They recognize that underwriting is not just capacity allocation, but risk interpretation. They know what it means when a contractor is building in a high wildfire exposure zone, or when a project sits beyond public fire service.
That shared understanding is also what makes Victor a familiar option for brokers serving niche segments like custom home builders. “These are not mass production builders,” Benson said. “They build a handful of higher-value homes a year, and they need structure that reflects how they work.” In those cases, the ability to underwrite nuance, not just numbers becomes the real value.
The market for frame construction will likely stay unpredictable. But brokers who treat the process as a technical conversation, not just a placement exercise, are better equipped. For MGAs like Victor, the focus is on offering solutions that line up with what builders actually do, especially those operating at the smaller or more specialized end of the field. That is where thoughtful underwriting can still make a difference, and where brokers and underwriters share the most common ground.
