Ian Hughes was a long serving CEO at Consumer Intellgence which publishes granular customer satisfaction data for all industry sectors including insurance. Deeper than complaints analysis and NPS scores. He now benchmarks insurer claims performance and explains why GI insurers need to look at the uncomplainig middle range of customers who may renew again but still leave after another year and in the meantime tell people how you let them down.

"Nobody wrote a review, or a complaint, or a letter to the chief executive. Asked to score the experience, the customer thought for a second, said it was fine, and gave it a three out of five. Then they got on with their life. 

Inside the insurer, that claim is a success. It closed on time. It cost what it should. It generated no complaint, no rework, no noise of any kind. On every dashboard the company watches, it is indistinguishable from a triumph. File it, and on to the next. 

The tracker sees what happens next, and it is the most quietly expensive finding in this book. The customers who said their claim was fine go on to leave at very nearly the rate of the customers who said it was awful. In motor, roughly 56 in a hundred neutral claimants had gone within two years of renewals, against 58 in a hundred of those with a poor claim. In home, roughly half the neutral group left, against six in ten of the poor group. Look at those pairs of numbers for a moment. The claim that goes fine does not behave like a smaller version of the claim that goes well. It behaves like a slightly gentler version of the claim that goes badly. On the loyalty ledger, fine sits next to failure, and nowhere near good. 

Ian Hughes author of ‘The Claim is the Promise’

Claims automation from faster FNOL to full STP could reduce short term costs but increase customer churn. A Total Loss decision or lower than expected settlement offer may be accepted but still disappoint unless offered with transparency, evidence and understanding.

Reducing costs via automation is also a case of diminishing returns unless the technologies that insurers embrace also effectively reduce indemnity costs and leakage. Claims technology as a point solution only goes so far in tackling the pressure many Motor and Home insurers face- the soft market pressure to keep premiums down and retain customers whilst inflation in repair, replacement parts and labour adbversely impact COR.

Insurers are generally bruised, sapped of energy and shocked by the cumulative costs of depoying core systems of record and AI powered point solutions for underwriting, pricing, claims, supply chain management. And now the FCA in the UK and regulatory authorities in North America, Australia, The EU are increasing the presure to give auditable evidence of how decisions were made, on what evidence and authorised by who over the whole claim lifecycle including long-tail ones.

Claims are not just administration but also the continuous evidence-to-settlement loop. Rather than forcing rigid, "black-box" automation onto customers, a "human-in-the-loop" is a necessary model to fix the information gaps that drive both indemnity leakage and customer frustration. Aided by digital FNOL proactive evidence gathering via vitrual guided inspections by the claimant and field adjuster/engineer onsite inspections where professional analysis required. Building a single claims file available to all parties that need access to make the right decisions aided by digital agents to proactively triage and show what evidence has been gathered, what is still required and present that to make it easier for authorised humans to approve.

All the while keeping claimants informed and feeling they are being treated fairly. Surely that claims tech is proven and available? Well not if you listen to insurers, MGAs and Brokers. The evidence gathering meets challenges with delegated authority and unconnected supply chain sub-contractors. DA rules unable to be applied by the claims platform. The core system of record slowing down transformation of the claims process. No connection between underwriting and claims when much of the factual data required for UW is a start point for future claims.

By combining structured visual capture at the edge with governed AI decision support, an architecture model that addresses both sides of the COR equation without sacrificing customer outcomes is desirable. In ‘Beyond Digital FNOL- innovation across claims’ I analysed and shortlisted three claims tech providers abd use one of these to illustrate how it anwers the challenge Ian Hughes poses.

• Eliminating the Evidence Gap at Underwriting and FNOL. Using Livegenic's guided capture at policy inception (for pre-risk surveys) and immediately at First Notification of Loss (FNOL) creates an indisputable, timestamped, GPS-verified visual baseline. In property and motor claims, this prevents pre-existing damage from inflating payouts and removes the back-and-forth phone calls that stall early triage. 
• Protecting Customer Experience via Assisted Judgment. Instead of letting an algorithm reject a claim or issue an arbitrary lowball offer, Wilbur's intelligence layer assembles the file, ingests third-party data, flags missing evidence, and recommends reserves or settlement ranges. Keeping a human handler in control of the final authorisation satisfies FCA Consumer Duty expectations while cutting file-assembly time. 
• Tightening Supply Chain and Field Dispatch. Triaging damage visually on day one helps ensure field adjusters, builders, or specialist repairers are only dispatched when physically required. For motor and property networks, passing structured scope data directly to approved suppliers eliminates redundant inspections, reduces vehicle hire days, and curbs alternative accommodation costs.
• Governing Delegated Authority (DA) Across the Ecosystem. UK insurers rely heavily on MGAs, brokers, and TPAs, where inconsistent handling often causes silent indemnity leakage. Codifying senior claims logic into workflows—with full audit trails of every approval and threshold—gives capacity providers real-time visibility into how their pen is being used without manual bordereaux auditing.

Key Strategic Benefits vs. Execution

While the architectural logic is strong, realising the full COR reduction requires navigating practical deployment realities across legacy UK insurance operations:

Strategic Takeaway

The most defensible way for UK carriers to escape a 100%+ COR without triggering a price-comparison volume collapse is governed intelligence rather than pure self-service automation. By layering structured visual evidence and AI-assisted triage over existing core systems (like Guidewire, custom platforms or the new generation of MACH-architected coretech), insurers can compress claim lifecycles and tighten supplier spend while keeping human empathy—and regulatory accountability—firmly in the loop. Should current claims management systems have atrophied then a Wilbur platform can be evaluated.

To plan and evaluate options in the round I advise partnering with an SI/Implementation partner with a track record of collaborating through thick and thin. And will not push you towards the multi-year transformation projects that never seem to deliver and swallow £100ms. An SI that will also help you prove value in three months partnering with core platform, claims and other technology vendors with a similar deployment approach and viable commercial model. Plus deliver traansformation in bite-sized advances.

Sources

Fine is not fine - the most dangerous claim in your book. Nothing went wrong with it. 

Beyond Digital FNOL- innovation across claims