Claims and Underwriting – A Competitive Function

Published on: 27/05/2026 Published in: Blog

Speed, judgement, trust: the new battleground in claims and underwriting.

Two insurers receive the same broker submission on the same morning.

One treats it like paperwork.

The file lands in an inbox. Information is rekeyed. Questions go back and forth. The underwriter spends time hunting for context instead of judging risk. A straightforward case picks up the same friction as a complex one. By the time the quote is ready, the broker has already moved on.

The other insurer treats it like a decision workflow.

The submission is triaged early. Simple business is routed fast. Complex business lands with the right underwriter, with the right data, at the right point in the process. The questions are sharper. The response is quicker. The broker feels the difference.

A few weeks later, a claim arrives.

Again, the difference is not just speed.

In one insurer, the customer repeats information, the file moves between teams, and handlers spend too much time gathering, checking, and chasing. In the other, the insurer already has better context, better routing, and a clearer sense of what should move instantly, what needs review, and what needs specialist judgement.

That is the real competitive gap now.

Not who talks most loudly about AI.
Not who has the most pilots.
But who has redesigned claims and underwriting so that speed, judgement, and trust each sit in the right place.

That matters because the market is moving fast. Underwriting is shifting from manual, rules-heavy processes towards more automated, AI-supported decisioning, while “ease of doing business” is becoming a differentiator in broker distribution. KPMG says 73% of insurance CEOs are prioritising AI investments to streamline underwriting, claims, and customer experience. At the same time, EIOPA says nearly two-thirds of European insurers are already using generative AI, but most are still only at proof-of-concept stage.

That tells us something important.

The opportunity is not just to automate more.

It is to operate differently.

What insurers should do differently

First, stop treating all work the same.

Too many insurers still run simple and complex cases through similar levels of friction. That wastes expert time and slows down the business. The better model is three lanes:

instant for clear, low-complexity work
guided for cases that need enrichment or light intervention
expert for cases where real judgement matters

Second, connect claims and underwriting more tightly.

Claims should not just be an operational output. It should be underwriting intelligence. Underwriting should not just set the risk appetite at the front end and disappear. It should keep learning from claims experience faster. Insurers that create this feedback loop will improve both selection and control.

Third, make data useful inside the workflow.

Most insurers already have a lot of data. The problem is that the right signals do not always show up at the right point in the process. Better external data, earlier fraud signals, policy context, claims history, and clearer next-best-action prompts should all appear where decisions are being made, not afterwards in reporting.

Fourth, productionise AI where trust can still be defended.

This is where many firms get stuck. The pilot works. The business case sounds good. But the workflow, ownership, controls, and exception handling are not ready. KPMG highlights that trust in AI remains critical, particularly where pricing, risk profiling, and claims payouts need to be seen as fair. EIOPA’s findings that most insurers are still at proof-of-concept stage suggest the market knows this already.

Fifth, compete on ease of doing business, not just internal efficiency.

A broker does not care how many internal queues your submission passes through. A customer does not care that a claim had to move between systems. They care how easy the insurer is to deal with. JD Power’s 2026 property claims study found that claims were resolved 3.4 days faster than the year before, and that faster repair and payment cycle times plus better digital capabilities improved customer satisfaction.

That is the point.

Better claims and underwriting efficiency should be visible externally:

faster quote turnaround
fewer repeated questions
sharper triage
better escalation
clearer communication
stronger confidence in decisions

What standing out really looks like

The insurers that stand out over the next few years will not simply be the ones with more automation.

They will be the ones that know:

what should move instantly
what should be intelligently guided
where human judgement should be reserved
how claims and underwriting should learn from each other
where AI can reduce friction without reducing trust

That is a much stronger position than “we are investing in AI”.

It is a better operating model.

And that is harder for competitors to copy.

Where The Data Company fits

At The Data Company, we see the biggest gains when insurers stop thinking about claims and underwriting efficiency as isolated technology projects.

The real opportunity is to redesign the workflow:

better intake
better routing
better decision support
better claims-underwriting feedback loops
better use of data at the point of work
AI that is governed, measurable, and useful

That is how insurers improve speed without losing judgement.

And that is how they start to stand out.

If claims or underwriting still feel slower, noisier, or more manual than they should, the best question may not be “How do we automate more?” It may be “What should move instantly, what should be guided, and where should expertise really sit?” That is usually where the next advantage starts.

References:

You may also like