Insights from our steering committee meeting
Delegated authority claims has spent too long being treated as an operational headache.
Bordereaux. Oversight. Due diligence. MI templates. TPA performance. Coverholder maturity. Loss funds. Audit trails.
All important. All familiar.
But the more useful question now is this:
Can managing agents and claims leaders prove that delegated claims are being handled consistently, fairly and in line with their strategy?
That is a much bigger question than whether the bordereaux arrived on time.
A recent London Market Claims steering group discussion brought this into focus. The mood was not doom and gloom. In fact, one comment stood out: “This is our moment.”
There is more technology available. There is more regulatory focus. There is more pressure to improve customer outcomes. There is more awareness that delegated authority is not a side issue. For many firms, it is central to growth, distribution and claims service.
So what needs to change?
Is there a real delegated claims strategy?
One of the clearest points from the discussion was that strategy matters.
Not a document that sits on a shelf. A practical strategy that sets out what delegated claims handling is for, how it supports the business plan and what standards partners are expected to meet.
That means being clear on some uncomfortable questions.
- Which delegated arrangements are worth writing?
- Do we understand the true cost of oversight?
- Are we making commercial decisions without understanding the operational burden?
- Do underwriters understand what needs to happen before the stamp goes down?
- One comment was blunt: “Boards need to understand delegated authority.”
That is the right place to start.
Delegated claims cannot be managed properly if it is only understood when there is a breach, a poor audit result or a service failure.
Who actually owns the operating model?
Delegated claims involves a lot of people.
Claims teams. DA teams. Underwriters. Risk. Compliance. Legal. Operations. Bordereaux teams. Performance teams. TPAs. Coverholders. DCAs. Brokers.
That complexity creates gaps.
- Who is accountable for onboarding?
- Who owns performance?
- Who challenges poor data?
- Who intervenes when service drops?
- Who explains to underwriters why a third party may not be fit for purpose?
The steering group discussion highlighted the need for clearer ownership and accountability across the delegated claims lifecycle. Without that, firms risk relying on goodwill, experience and workarounds rather than a controlled operating model.
Are monthly bordereaux enough?
The market still relies heavily on monthly bordereaux, often with limited detail… to say the least!
But if the purpose is active claims management, monthly bordereaux are not enough.
You cannot manage CAT exposure, customer service issues, emerging loss trends or leakage effectively if the data is late, incomplete or too high level.
As one participant put it:
“Monthly bordereaux isn’t sufficient.”
The same applies to loss descriptions and cause coding. If everything is classified as water damage, fire or “other”, it is almost impossible to understand what is really driving loss.
Was the water damage caused by a failed waste trap, a burst pipe or a sprinkler issue?
Was the fire linked to batteries, e-bikes, faulty wiring or something else?
That level of detail matters. It supports reserving, pricing, wording, risk mitigation and product improvement.
Are delegated partners being treated as data partners?
One of the most interesting observations was that delegated partners often know more about the claim than the carrier does.
That should make the market pause.
If TPAs and coverholders hold the operational detail, then the question is not just how to oversee them. It is how to work with them to extract better insight.
Heat maps. Root cause analysis. Claims hotspots. Early warning indicators. Customer feedback. Complaint triggers. Sub-limit validation. Initial claim value vs settled value.
That is the kind of information that can improve underwriting performance and client service.
But it requires a different relationship.
Not just: send us your bordereaux.
More: show us what is really happening in the claims portfolio.
Are we using technology to intervene earlier?
Technology has a practical role to play here, but it should not be reduced to “AI in delegated claims”.
Some of the most useful opportunities are more immediate.
- Using satellite data to identify flood or subsidence issues earlier.
- Using video to triage claims before sending an adjuster.
- Using claim summarisation to give insurers and partners a clearer view of the file.
- Using AI telephony to identify dissatisfaction before a complaint escalates.
- Using automation to remove diary tasks from adjusters so they can focus on judgement and service.
The direction of travel is clear: delegated claims needs to move from retrospective review to earlier intervention.
That improves service. It can reduce cost. It also gives managing agents better evidence that claims are being handled properly.
The questions to be discussed at London Market Claims in October
Delegated authority claims is no longer just about processing, audit and bordereaux.
It is about control, service, cost, insight and reputation.
So the questions for the market are becoming sharper.
- Can you prove what is happening across your delegated claims portfolio?
- Do you know which partners are performing well and which are not?
- Are you comparing partners fairly across class, territory and complexity?
- Do you have the data to intervene before problems become complaints?
- Are underwriters, claims and DA teams making decisions from the same evidence?
- Are boards seeing delegated claims as a strategic issue or an operational detail?
These are not theoretical questions. They go directly to client outcomes, regulatory confidence, underwriting performance and the credibility of delegated models.
We will be discussing these issues at London Market Claims on 6th October, including how to fix bordereaux, improve delegated claims data and strengthen governance at scale.
The aim is not to admire the problem again.
It is to ask what better control looks like, what is already working and what the market needs to do next.
Sign Up to TINsights
Where we share our latest blogs, industry reports and insights
