An insurtech platform is suing a competitor, alleging its chief legal officer created a sham company to infiltrate a rival's underwriting system and extract trade secrets.
Technology Risk Retention Group and Corgi Insurance Services filed the lawsuit on April 14, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The defendants are Vouch, Inc. and several affiliated entities, along with Kelly Wulff, Vouch's Chief Legal and Administrative Officer, and a Delaware LLC called Augmenta Advisory. No determination on the merits has been made.
According to the filing, Wulff formed Augmenta Advisory on February 10, 2026 - the very same day an insurance application was submitted through Corgi's online underwriting platform under Augmenta's name. The lawsuit alleges Augmenta had no federal employer identification number, no revenue, no clients, no website, and no actual business operations. It existed, the suit claims, for one reason: to give a direct competitor a way into Corgi's platform without being recognized.
The lawsuit describes a methodical effort. Wulff allegedly completed the entire underwriting flow, responding to over one hundred proprietary risk-assessment questions spanning four coverage lines — Commercial General Liability, Directors and Officers, Cyber Liability, and Technology Errors and Omissions. The filing says this was not casual browsing. Every available line was selected, and the responses were detailed enough to trigger a policy issuance - unlocking Corgi's custom policy forms, underwriting logic, pricing architecture, and coverage structures.
The policy forms at issue, the suit notes, are not standard industry templates. They are proprietary documents containing coverage language, exclusion structures, and retention mechanics developed specifically for the technology company market. The plaintiffs allege these materials represent years of development and millions of dollars in investment - and that a competitor in possession of them could reverse-engineer underwriting models, replicate coverage design, or undercut the plaintiffs with precision.
Within days of obtaining the policy and its accompanying documents, Wulff allegedly requested immediate cancellation, stating she "no longer require[d] the coverage." The filing suggests the speed of that cancellation - for an entity that had existed only days and never conducted any real business - reveals the application's true purpose had already been served.
The lawsuit also points to Corgi's Terms of Use, which prohibit users from accessing the platform "in order to build a similar or competitive website, product, or service."
The plaintiffs are pursuing claims for trade secret misappropriation under both federal and Delaware law, along with civil conspiracy, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, fraud, and a request that the court declare the issued policy void from its inception. A jury trial has been demanded.
For insurers and MGAs running digital platforms, this case surfaces an uncomfortable question: when proprietary underwriting logic, custom forms, and pricing are delivered through a self-service workflow, what stops a competitor from simply posing as a customer to access them? The answer, this lawsuit suggests, may not yet be good enough.
The defendants have not yet responded to the allegations.
