At a glance
| Jurisdiction tier | Tier A - Specified and enforced. A binding instrument that applies to insurers' own use of AI, or an issued regulator document addressed to this insurance market, addresses AI - by name or by an unambiguous description such as "predictive models" or "automated decision system" - and sets out rules or expectations that apply to it; and the regulator has a live mechanism to check or sanction them. |
| Case examined | Ethos Technologies - one underwriting engine serving several carriers |
| Band for this case | Elevated |
| Rules reach | Insurers: directly · Reinsurers: not stated · Intermediaries: not directly |
| Last verified | [actual date of the launch-window check] |
Colorado's Regulation 10-1-1 (3 CCR 702-10), effective 15 October 2025, governs insurers' use of external consumer data, algorithms and predictive models. Insurers file compliance reports signed by an officer attesting to compliance: life insurers from 1 December 2024 and annually thereafter, and private passenger auto and health benefit plan insurers from 1 July 2026 (Section 6).
Who these rules reach
- Insurers: directly. The regulation applies to "all insurers authorized to do business in the state of Colorado and offering the following types of insurance: A. Individually issued life insurance; B. Private passenger automobile insurance; and C. Health benefit plans."
- Reinsurers: not stated.
- Intermediaries: not directly. The regulation applies to insurers. Ethos is not itself the attesting carrier.
This band describes how clearly the rules meet the AI use that Ethos Technologies has itself published. It is not a finding that Ethos Technologies has breached any rule.
Why Ethos Technologies: Ethos's own SEC filings describe one underwriting engine behind several partner carriers.
The question
In briefWhen Ethos's single underwriting engine places a Colorado applicant with one partner carrier one day and another the next, does each carrier's Regulation 10-1-1 attestation test that same shared engine independently - or does one carrier's sign-off end up standing in for all of them, given that Colorado's rule was written around an insurer's own model, not a third-party engine serving several licensees at once?
Why this band: The rule in the question binds, describes AI and has a fixed date, but Ethos's Colorado presence is inferred from its national filings.Ethos's SEC filings describe one shared underwriting engine behind several separately attesting carriers, and Colorado's rule - built around a single insurer's own model - does not say who is accountable when one engine carries several licences.
3. The same question for other firms in United States (Colorado)
Any Colorado insurer that relies on a third-party underwriting engine shared with other carriers faces the same point: whether its own attestation tests that engine independently. This entry gives no band to any firm other than Ethos Technologies.
4. What this entry does not establish
- Ethos's Colorado licence record was not read; the Colorado link is inferred from its filings describing a multi-carrier national platform.
- A 2026 Colorado law treats insurers as compliant for the practice of insurance under a separate statute; this is taken from law-firm summaries, not the enrolled text.
- No dated item is recorded for this entry.
Sources
- Ethos Technologies Inc., Form S-1 (Filing Date 2025-09-26) and Form 10-Q for the quarter ended 31 March 2026 (Filing Date 2026-05-08). Company's own. sec.gov S-1 sec.gov 10-Q
- Colorado Division of Insurance, 3 CCR 702-10, Regulation 10-1-1, effective October 15, 2025 (printed). Regulator. sos.state.co.us PDF
None share a law or regulator with this entry.
________________________________________
Commercial relationship with any party named here: None · Right of reply: indexreport.protocol@fijishi.com; with the sender's agreement, replies are published in full below the entry, dated · Cite as: Fijishi Jurisdiction Index 2026, Entry US-CO · Corrections: none.