Professional & Management Liability Insurance in AI Search: The Biggest AI Visibility Problems and How We'd Fix Them

Companies covered: Aon, Marsh, Lockton, Embroker, Gallagher, Brown & Brown, TechInsurance, Axis Insurance Services, Professional Liability Insurance Group, The Baldwin Group Innovation Practice (formerly Founder Shield)

Answer Capsule

The November 2026 Professional & Management Liability Insurance benchmark compares 10 companies across 225 AI answers that met its inclusion rules. Gallagher recorded 175 mentions and 45 recommendations (20.00% of the answers). Being mentioned means appearing in an answer; being recommended means receiving an affirmative endorsement.

We examine each company, compare the available monthly results, and set out a five-step plan for improving the information AI systems can draw on. The work starts with measuring visibility and checking conflicting claims, then moves to company pages, relevant publishers and buyer questions. The cited pages need review before any correction request, and the research does not establish what caused recommendation differences or promise future gains.

Executive industry diagnosis

Questions This Section Answers

• What does the Professional & Management Liability Insurance benchmark show about mentions, recommendations and placement?

The peer set splits into two tiers. Gallagher, Aon and Marsh appear in nearly every answer and each earns recommendations at a similar rate, so the contest among them is about position and wording rather than presence. Brown & Brown and Lockton sit well below on reach, and the remaining firms barely register.

Marsh stands out for first-place placement, which is concentrated far above its peers. Gallagher and Aon earn recommendations across broad reach but rarely land at the top. That gap between being named and being named first is where the most useful work sits. For the agency, the practical implication is that visibility alone will not move this cohort. The starting point is a scorecard that records reach, recommendation and position separately, so any later change can be read against a fixed baseline rather than a single month's totals.

What changed since last month

Questions This Section Answers

• What changed across the usable monthly Professional & Management Liability Insurance snapshots?

The two months are separate samples with different answer volumes and service coverage, so the rates are not like-for-like. Read the movement as a description of what was recorded, not as evidence of a trend or of cause.

Gallagher, Brown & Brown and Marsh recorded higher recommendation counts in the later sample, while Aon, Lockton and Embroker recorded lower ones. Several smaller firms moved to zero. The comparability limit applies to every one of these shifts.

A baseline scorecard should record the sample composition alongside the results, so future months can be compared on stated terms.

Company-by-company findings

Aon

Questions This Section Answers

• What measured visibility pattern and review priority does Aon have in Professional & Management Liability Insurance?

Aon recorded 207 mentions (92.00%) and 43 recommendations (19.11%) across 225 answers included in the benchmark. Top 3 placements numbered 23; first-place recommendations numbered 2. Framing among its mentions was 58 positive, 149 neutral and 0 negative.

From October 2026 to November 2026, Aon's mention count rose from 56 to 207, while its recommendation count rose from 30 to 43. The recommendation rate was 23.44% and 19.11% respectively.

AI answers contained 10 conflicting claims about Aon: 0 critical, 0 high, 5 medium, 5 low. Of these, 0 were rated critical or high priority; the critical claims are included in that total. These ratings help prioritize fact-checking. They do not establish that a company or publisher made an error.

Both columns quote AI answers, not verified company facts. Resolve the entity, date and source before deciding whether a correction is warranted; different dates can explain an apparent conflict.

These are recorded answer observations, not search volume, verified demand, or proof of missing website content.

Selected owned-page review candidate: https://aon.com/.

Selected third-party review candidate: https://brokersbloc.com/largest-insurance-brokers-in-2026/.

Aon's reach is close to universal, and its recommendation count is substantial, but first-place placement is rare. Being named often without being named first suggests the answers treat Aon as a standard reference point rather than a preferred pick.

The recorded conflicts concern revenue and U.S. ranking position, both medium severity. We would propose a fact-check brief that resolves the entity, date and source behind each claim before any correction is considered.

Marsh

Questions This Section Answers

• What measured visibility pattern and review priority does Marsh have in Professional & Management Liability Insurance?

Marsh recorded 216 mentions (96.00%) and 42 recommendations (18.67%) across 225 answers included in the benchmark. Top 3 placements numbered 25; first-place recommendations numbered 23. Framing among its mentions was 59 positive, 157 neutral and 0 negative.

From October 2026 to November 2026, Marsh's mention count rose from 58 to 216, while its recommendation count rose from 24 to 42. The recommendation rate was 18.75% and 18.67% respectively.

AI answers contained 2 conflicting claims about Marsh: 0 critical, 0 high, 2 medium, 0 low. Of these, 0 were rated critical or high priority; the critical claims are included in that total. These ratings help prioritize fact-checking. They do not establish that a company or publisher made an error.

Both columns quote AI answers, not verified company facts. Resolve the entity, date and source before deciding whether a correction is warranted; different dates can explain an apparent conflict.

These are recorded answer observations, not search volume, verified demand, or proof of missing website content.

Selected owned-page review candidate: https://marsh.com/en/services/affinity.html.

Selected third-party review candidate: https://brokersbloc.com/largest-insurance-brokers-in-2026/.

Marsh combines near-universal reach with a first-place count that is unusually strong for the cohort. Its recommendation rate is close to Gallagher's and Aon's, so the distinctive feature is position rather than endorsement volume.

The recorded conflicts concern annual revenue at medium severity. We would propose a verification brief covering the revenue figures and the cited pages, with any correction conditional on current primary-source confirmation.

Lockton

Questions This Section Answers

• What measured visibility pattern and review priority does Lockton have in Professional & Management Liability Insurance?

Lockton recorded 76 mentions (33.78%) and 11 recommendations (4.89%) across 225 answers included in the benchmark. Top 3 placements numbered 2; first-place recommendations numbered 1. Framing among its mentions was 19 positive, 57 neutral and 0 negative.

From October 2026 to November 2026, Lockton's mention count rose from 29 to 76, while its recommendation count fell from 13 to 11. The recommendation rate was 10.16% and 4.89% respectively.

AI answers contained 7 conflicting claims about Lockton: 0 critical, 0 high, 1 medium, 6 low. Of these, 0 were rated critical or high priority; the critical claims are included in that total. These ratings help prioritize fact-checking. They do not establish that a company or publisher made an error.

Both columns quote AI answers, not verified company facts. Resolve the entity, date and source before deciding whether a correction is warranted; different dates can explain an apparent conflict.

These are recorded answer observations, not search volume, verified demand, or proof of missing website content.

Selected owned-page review candidate: https://global.lockton.com/au/en/news-insights/lockton-fiscal-year-2026-revenue-increases-to-4-5-billion.

Selected third-party review candidate: https://iii.org/table-archive/20525.

Lockton's reach is moderate and its recommendation count small, with almost no first-place placement. The recorded conflicts are mostly low severity, covering headcount and revenue, which makes them quick to check but unlikely to shift the larger picture.

We would propose a fact-check brief on those figures and a page review of the supplied revenue page, treating any edit as conditional on verification.

Embroker

Questions This Section Answers

• What measured visibility pattern and review priority does Embroker have in Professional & Management Liability Insurance?

Embroker recorded 1 mentions (0.44%) and 1 recommendation (0.44%) across 225 answers included in the benchmark. Top 3 placements numbered 1; first-place recommendations numbered 1. Framing among its mentions was 1 positive, 0 neutral and 0 negative.

From October 2026 to November 2026, Embroker's mention count fell from 14 to 1, while its recommendation count fell from 8 to 1. The recommendation rate was 6.25% and 0.44% respectively.

AI answers contained 0 conflicting claims about Embroker: 0 critical, 0 high, 0 medium, 0 low. Of these, 0 were rated critical or high priority; the critical claims are included in that total. These ratings help prioritize fact-checking. They do not establish that a company or publisher made an error.

No results are available for this part of the analysis.

Both columns quote AI answers, not verified company facts. Resolve the entity, date and source before deciding whether a correction is warranted; different dates can explain an apparent conflict.

These are recorded answer observations, not search volume, verified demand, or proof of missing website content.

Selected owned-page review candidate: https://embroker.com/coverage/cyber-insurance/.

Selected third-party review candidate: https://hotalinginsurance.com/commercial-insurance/professional-liability-insurance-cost-mid-market.

Embroker's recorded presence in this sample is a single mention that was also a recommendation and a first-place placement. That is too thin to support any conclusion about standing, and the earlier month's figures are not comparable.

We would propose a light review of the supplied cyber-insurance page and a note on which observed question produced the mention, without setting a performance target yet.

Gallagher

Questions This Section Answers

• What measured visibility pattern and review priority does Gallagher have in Professional & Management Liability Insurance?

Gallagher recorded 175 mentions (77.78%) and 45 recommendations (20.00%) across 225 answers included in the benchmark. Top 3 placements numbered 25; first-place recommendations numbered 3. Framing among its mentions was 62 positive, 111 neutral and 2 negative.

From October 2026 to November 2026, Gallagher's mention count rose from 36 to 175, while its recommendation count rose from 15 to 45. The recommendation rate was 11.72% and 20.00% respectively.

AI answers contained 17 conflicting claims about Gallagher: 0 critical, 6 high, 9 medium, 2 low. Of these, 6 were rated critical or high priority; the critical claims are included in that total. These ratings help prioritize fact-checking. They do not establish that a company or publisher made an error.

Both columns quote AI answers, not verified company facts. Resolve the entity, date and source before deciding whether a correction is warranted; different dates can explain an apparent conflict.

These are recorded answer observations, not search volume, verified demand, or proof of missing website content.

Selected owned-page review candidate: https://ajg.com/.

Selected third-party review candidate: https://brokersbloc.com/largest-insurance-brokers-in-2026/.

Gallagher pairs broad reach with the cohort's highest recommendation rate, yet first-place placement is uncommon. The pattern suggests strong endorsement in general terms without consistent top billing.

Gallagher also carries the largest set of recorded conflicts, including high-severity items on Big Three membership and U.S. revenue. We would propose a prioritized fact-check brief on those claims first, since they touch how the firm is positioned.

Brown & Brown

Questions This Section Answers

• What measured visibility pattern and review priority does Brown & Brown have in Professional & Management Liability Insurance?

Brown & Brown recorded 79 mentions (35.11%) and 17 recommendations (7.56%) across 225 answers included in the benchmark. Top 3 placements numbered 1; first-place recommendations numbered 0. Framing among its mentions was 22 positive, 57 neutral and 0 negative.

From October 2026 to November 2026, Brown & Brown's mention count rose from 3 to 79, while its recommendation count rose from 1 to 17. The recommendation rate was 0.78% and 7.56% respectively.

AI answers contained 22 conflicting claims about Brown & Brown: 0 critical, 1 high, 19 medium, 2 low. Of these, 1 was rated critical or high priority; the critical claims are included in that total. These ratings help prioritize fact-checking. They do not establish that a company or publisher made an error.

Both columns quote AI answers, not verified company facts. Resolve the entity, date and source before deciding whether a correction is warranted; different dates can explain an apparent conflict.

These are recorded answer observations, not search volume, verified demand, or proof of missing website content.

Selected owned-page review candidate: https://us.bbrown.com/about/.

Selected third-party review candidate: https://alliant.com/media/2togmkgh/business-insurance-largest-brokers.pdf.

Brown & Brown's reach is moderate and its recommendations are modest, with no first-place placement recorded. The recorded conflicts are numerous and mostly medium severity, including the top-five ranking question and an acquisition completion date.

We would propose a fact-check brief on the ranking and acquisition claims, plus a review of the supplied about page, with corrections conditional on current primary-source verification.

TechInsurance

Questions This Section Answers

• What measured visibility pattern and review priority does TechInsurance have in Professional & Management Liability Insurance?

TechInsurance recorded 3 mentions (1.33%) and 0 recommendations (0.00%) across 225 answers included in the benchmark. Top 3 placements numbered 0; first-place recommendations numbered 0. Framing among its mentions was 0 positive, 3 neutral and 0 negative.

From October 2026 to November 2026, TechInsurance's mention count rose from 2 to 3, while its recommendation count fell from 1 to 0. The recommendation rate was 0.78% and 0.00% respectively.

AI answers contained 0 conflicting claims about TechInsurance: 0 critical, 0 high, 0 medium, 0 low. Of these, 0 were rated critical or high priority; the critical claims are included in that total. These ratings help prioritize fact-checking. They do not establish that a company or publisher made an error.

No results are available for this part of the analysis.

Both columns quote AI answers, not verified company facts. Resolve the entity, date and source before deciding whether a correction is warranted; different dates can explain an apparent conflict.

These are recorded answer observations, not search volume, verified demand, or proof of missing website content.

Selected owned-page review candidate: https://techinsurance.com/cyber-liability-insurance.

Selected third-party review candidate: https://affinity.marsh.com/amazonsellers/home.html.

TechInsurance appears in a handful of answers, all neutral in wording, with no recommendations recorded. The observed questions concern cyber liability and errors and omissions cost, which is a narrow slice of the category.

We would propose a page review of the supplied cyber-liability page and a buyer-question brief, treating the absence of recommendations as something to understand before any target is set.

Axis Insurance Services

Questions This Section Answers

• What measured visibility pattern and review priority does Axis Insurance Services have in Professional & Management Liability Insurance?

Axis Insurance Services recorded 0 mentions (0.00%) and 0 recommendations (0.00%) across 225 answers included in the benchmark. Top 3 placements numbered 0; first-place recommendations numbered 0. Framing among its mentions was 0 positive, 0 neutral and 0 negative.

From October 2026 to November 2026, Axis Insurance Services' mention count fell from 2 to 0, while its recommendation count stayed at 0. The recommendation rate was 0.00% and 0.00% respectively.

AI answers contained 0 conflicting claims about Axis Insurance Services: 0 critical, 0 high, 0 medium, 0 low. Of these, 0 were rated critical or high priority; the critical claims are included in that total. These ratings help prioritize fact-checking. They do not establish that a company or publisher made an error.

No results are available for this part of the analysis.

Both columns quote AI answers, not verified company facts. Resolve the entity, date and source before deciding whether a correction is warranted; different dates can explain an apparent conflict.

No results are available for this part of the analysis.

These are recorded answer observations, not search volume, verified demand, or proof of missing website content.

Axis Insurance Services recorded no mentions in this sample, and the earlier month's small presence did not carry forward. With no recorded claims, there is nothing to fact-check.

We would propose confirming the company match and reviewing whether the observed questions in this category are ones the firm could reasonably answer, before any content work is scoped.

Professional Liability Insurance Group

Questions This Section Answers

• What measured visibility pattern and review priority does Professional Liability Insurance Group have in Professional & Management Liability Insurance?

Professional Liability Insurance Group recorded 0 mentions (0.00%) and 0 recommendations (0.00%) across 225 answers included in the benchmark. Top 3 placements numbered 0; first-place recommendations numbered 0. Framing among its mentions was 0 positive, 0 neutral and 0 negative.

From October 2026 to November 2026, Professional Liability Insurance Group's mention count stayed at 0, while its recommendation count stayed at 0. The recommendation rate was 0.00% and 0.00% respectively.

AI answers contained 0 conflicting claims about Professional Liability Insurance Group: 0 critical, 0 high, 0 medium, 0 low. Of these, 0 were rated critical or high priority; the critical claims are included in that total. These ratings help prioritize fact-checking. They do not establish that a company or publisher made an error.

No results are available for this part of the analysis.

Both columns quote AI answers, not verified company facts. Resolve the entity, date and source before deciding whether a correction is warranted; different dates can explain an apparent conflict.

No results are available for this part of the analysis.

These are recorded answer observations, not search volume, verified demand, or proof of missing website content.

Professional Liability Insurance Group recorded no mentions in either sample and no conflicting claims. The absence is consistent across both months, though the samples are not directly comparable.

We would propose a company-match check and a review of the category questions to see whether this firm belongs in the tracked set at all, rather than setting a visibility target now.

The Baldwin Group Innovation Practice (formerly Founder Shield)

Questions This Section Answers

• What measured visibility pattern and review priority does The Baldwin Group Innovation Practice (formerly Founder Shield) have in Professional & Management Liability Insurance?

The Baldwin Group Innovation Practice (formerly Founder Shield) recorded 0 mentions (0.00%) and 0 recommendations (0.00%) across 225 answers included in the benchmark. Top 3 placements numbered 0; first-place recommendations numbered 0. Framing among its mentions was 0 positive, 0 neutral and 0 negative.

From October 2026 to November 2026, The Baldwin Group Innovation Practice (formerly Founder Shield)'s mention count fell from 13 to 0, while its recommendation count fell from 5 to 0. The recommendation rate was 3.91% and 0.00% respectively.

AI answers contained 0 conflicting claims about The Baldwin Group Innovation Practice (formerly Founder Shield): 0 critical, 0 high, 0 medium, 0 low. Of these, 0 were rated critical or high priority; the critical claims are included in that total. These ratings help prioritize fact-checking. They do not establish that a company or publisher made an error.

No results are available for this part of the analysis.

Both columns quote AI answers, not verified company facts. Resolve the entity, date and source before deciding whether a correction is warranted; different dates can explain an apparent conflict.

No results are available for this part of the analysis.

These are recorded answer observations, not search volume, verified demand, or proof of missing website content.

This firm recorded no mentions in the later sample, after a small presence in the earlier one. The two samples differ in composition, so the movement should not be read as a trend.

We would propose confirming the entity match, given the name change, and reviewing the observed category questions before deciding whether content work is warranted.

The CiteWorks five-step improvement plan

Step 1. Establish the baseline

Questions This Section Answers

• What should the agency deliver when it works to establish the baseline for Professional & Management Liability Insurance?

Build a scorecard that records reach, recommendation and position as separate columns for each company, with the sample composition noted beside the results. This gives every later comparison a fixed reference point.

Document the inclusion rules and service coverage for each month so future readers know when a comparison is like-for-like and when it is not. Assign an owner to each record.

Step 2. Verify disputed facts

Questions This Section Answers

• What should the agency deliver when it works to verify disputed facts for Professional & Management Liability Insurance?

AI answers contained 58 conflicting claims across 5 companies. Another 0 possible conflicts were excluded because their company matches were uncertain. The conflicting claims need fact-checking before any corrections are proposed.

Work through the recorded conflicts company by company, starting with the high-severity items and the ranking claims that affect how firms are positioned. Each entry needs the entity, date and source resolved before a correction is considered.

Separate confirmed edits from no-change decisions and from items that remain unresolved. Ambiguous company matches stay outside the queue.

Step 3. Review owned pages

Questions This Section Answers

• What should the agency deliver when it works to review owned pages for Professional & Management Liability Insurance?

Prepare page briefs for the supplied owned pages, each stating the specific claims to verify against current primary sources and the questions the page should answer for a buyer.

Briefs are proposals for review, not instructions to edit. Any change waits on verification, and pages with no confirmed issue are recorded as no-change.

Step 4. Review third-party sources

Questions This Section Answers

• What should the agency deliver when it works to review third-party sources for Professional & Management Liability Insurance?

Prepare source-review packages for the supplied third-party pages, checking current contents before any request is drafted. A citation in an answer does not show that the page influenced it.

Requests should cite verified evidence and stay separate from responses. Publishers may decline or not reply, and that outcome is recorded rather than treated as failure.

Step 5. Address buyer questions and measure again

Questions This Section Answers

• What should the agency deliver when it works to address buyer questions and measure again for Professional & Management Liability Insurance?

Turn the observed buyer questions into content briefs that answer them directly, using verified facts only. These briefs are proposed work, not claims about what the pages currently say.

Measure again on the same terms as the baseline, and report completed work separately from answer outcomes so neither is mistaken for the other.

Third-party authority and citation opportunities

Questions This Section Answers

• Which cited publisher pages support targeted source review in Professional & Management Liability Insurance?

These pages are candidates for review, not confirmed errors. Citation appearances are counted across the captured answers and are not added again for each company.

The publisher list should be prioritized by how many companies each page covers and how often it appears across captured answers, not by citation count alone. Pages covering several tracked firms offer the widest review value per check.

Before any request, confirm what each page currently says and whether the relevant claim is actually present. Citation appearances are counted across all captured answers and are not added again per company, so they indicate attention rather than influence.

Requests should be evidence-backed and modest in scope, with responses recorded separately from confirmed edits.

What we'd prioritize first

Start with the fact dependencies that affect how the leading firms are positioned: the ranking and Big Three claims around Gallagher, Aon and Brown & Brown, and the revenue figures attached to Marsh and Aon. These are the items most likely to shape how answers describe the cohort.

In parallel, build the baseline scorecard so later months can be read on stated terms. Page and source reviews follow once the facts are settled, and buyer-question briefs come after that.

The sequence matters more than speed: corrections proposed before verification would undermine the whole exercise.

Methodology and conclusion

Questions This Section Answers

• What do the Professional & Management Liability Insurance sample and source-review limits allow us to conclude?

This report covers 2026-11. The exact dates when the original AI answers were collected have not been verified. The visibility rates use 225 answers that met the benchmark's inclusion rules. A company is recommended only when the answer both endorses it and uses positive wording. Top 3 and first-place counts are part of those recommendations, not extra recommendations.

An answer can mention or recommend several companies, so company counts cannot be added to find the number of distinct answers. The net sentiment score is positive minus negative mentions, divided by all company mentions; it describes answer wording, not customer satisfaction.

The wider citation analysis covers 700 captured answers and 3782 appearances of cited URLs. Citation appearances across all captured answers differ from the number of benchmark answers citing a page and the number that also recommend a company. The current contents of cited pages and disputed company claims still need independent verification.

Monthly sample coverage:

The answer samples differ between months. These comparisons show how the recorded results changed; they do not establish why they changed.

The results describe how these companies appeared in the captured answers for the reporting month, not how buyers behave or how the market ranks them. Recommendation requires both an endorsement and positive wording, and position counts sit inside recommendations rather than beside them.

The two monthly samples differ in size and service coverage, so comparisons show what was recorded without establishing why anything moved. Citation appearances measure attention across captured answers, not source influence.

Proposed next steps are a baseline scorecard, verified fact checks, page and source reviews, and buyer-question briefs, with outcomes measured again on the same terms. No gain is promised.