What Verdica's 798 score means for Bilt Technologies, Inc.
Bilt Technologies, Inc. received a composite score of 798 out of 850, placing it in the "strong" band (740–799). This score reflects a provider that demonstrates solid compliance and operational performance across the dimensions Verdica measures. A reader should interpret this as a signal that the company meets or exceeds regulatory expectations in most areas, though it has not yet reached the "excellent" threshold (800–850).
The gap between 798 and 850 is modest—12 points—and stems primarily from the Financial Strength sub-score of 700, which pulls the composite down slightly. The company's Complaints and Regulatory Actions sub-scores are both at 850, indicating no meaningful red flags in those domains. For a business owner or consumer evaluating Bilt Technologies, this score suggests a provider with established regulatory compliance and a low complaint profile relative to industry peers, though financial reserves or capitalization metrics leave some room for improvement.
How the sub-scores break down
Financial Strength: 700
This sub-score reflects the company's capital adequacy and reserve levels as assessed by regulatory filings. A score of 700 is acceptable but not exceptional. In the insurance industry, financial strength ratings indicate whether a provider has sufficient assets on hand to pay claims and weather market downturns. A score in this range suggests the company meets minimum solvency requirements but may not carry reserves well above regulatory thresholds. This does not indicate distress; rather, it flags that the provider operates closer to baseline capital requirements than some competitors.
Complaints: 850
This sub-score is based on NAIC complaint ratios—the number of complaints filed against the provider relative to its market share and policy volume. A score of 850 (near the maximum) indicates that Bilt Technologies receives very few complaints relative to its size. In practical terms, this suggests customers experience few service failures, claim denials, or billing issues serious enough to escalate to regulators. This is a strong signal of operational reliability and customer satisfaction.
Regulatory Actions: 850
This sub-score reflects enforcement actions, licensing sanctions, or compliance violations recorded by state insurance regulators. A perfect 850 means no material regulatory actions have been logged against the provider. This indicates the company has maintained consistent adherence to licensing, solvency, and conduct requirements across all jurisdictions where it operates.
What regulators track for insurance providers
Insurance regulators, coordinated through the NAIC (National Association of Insurance Commissioners), monitor two primary compliance dimensions reflected in Verdica's methodology:
Complaint Ratios: Regulators track all complaints filed by policyholders, brokers, or other parties alleging unfair practices, claim handling delays, misrepresentation, or billing errors. These ratios are normalized by the provider's premium volume, allowing fair comparison across large and small carriers. A high complaint ratio relative to peers may trigger regulatory scrutiny or enforcement action.
Financial Strength Ratings: Regulators require insurers to file audited financial statements showing capital, reserves, and loss ratios. These metrics determine whether a company can meet its claims obligations. Minimum capital requirements vary by state and product line. Ratings below threshold may result in regulatory oversight, required capital injections, or license restrictions.
Regulatory Actions: Beyond complaints, regulators may issue cease-and-desist orders, fines, consent orders, or license suspensions for violations including unfair claims practices, inadequate disclosure, market conduct violations, or insolvency risk. These actions appear in regulatory databases and directly inform compliance assessments.
Bottom line
Bilt Technologies, Inc. is a strong-performing provider with excellent complaint and regulatory records but slightly below-peak financial reserves. A business owner or consumer considering this provider should confirm current financial stability through recent regulatory filings and verify that coverage terms align with their specific needs before committing.