End-to-end claims-automation programme — document capture, intelligent document processing for supporting evidence, BPM orchestration of assessor workflow, e-signature on settlement, and payment orchestration into the core policy-admin system. Straight-through processing reached 94% on simple claims.
The insurer had built its claims operation around a centralised handler workflow: every claim, regardless of complexity, flowed through the same process. Simple motor claims (windscreen replacement, minor body damage) took 10–14 days; more complex property claims could take 30–60 days. The claims function had grown by 40% over three years just to keep pace with volume growth.
Two pressures converged. First, customers expected digital: photo evidence from a phone, e-signature on settlement, payment within days. Second, the new CEO had made cost-to-income ratio an explicit board metric, and the claims operation was a visible target.
Claims automation is not just a workflow problem. It's a policy-integration problem (claims have to validate against coverage), a fraud problem (automation increases fraud-exposure if not designed carefully), and a regulatory problem (insurance claims handling has specific conduct obligations). Any automation that compromises on any of these creates bigger problems than it solves.
The insurer's policy-admin system was also aged and not API-friendly, which constrained the integration approach.
The engagement was designed around four modules delivered in sequence: intake and IDP (customer-submitted evidence captured and extracted), workflow orchestration (BPM for assessor routing and escalation), settlement and e-signature (customer-facing acceptance), and payment orchestration (integration to core policy system for settlement records and treasury).
Straight-through processing was enabled only for claims within a defined complexity envelope — motor claims below €5 000 with a single-party at-fault pattern, no injury, clean policy history. All other claims routed to human assessors, with the automation providing preparatory data-extraction and recommended routing. The fraud scoring was integrated at the intake stage so flagged claims bypassed straight-through processing automatically.
"Our worry going in was that automation would create a fraud liability we couldn't see. The opposite happened. We now have better data on claims than we ever did with manual handling — and a tighter claim-by-claim risk signal."
— Chief Underwriting Officer, insurer · [VERIFY]Month 1–3: intake module — customer portal and mobile photo submission, IDP for documents (policy schedules, repair estimates, photographs). Month 4–5: BPM workflow — assessor routing, escalation rules, fraud-score integration. Month 6–7: settlement and e-signature — customer acceptance, settlement communication. Month 8–9: payment integration, production tuning, and operating-model handover.
Average motor claims cycle reduced from 14 days to 3 days; 94% of motor claims within the defined simple-claim envelope reach straight-through processing. Claims-handler effort per claim dropped 52% on average. Customer-satisfaction scores rose 21 points in the first 6 months post-launch. The claims operation absorbed a further 14% volume growth without headcount expansion.
Custom intake portal (React + .NET), IDP platform [VERIFY: Azure AI Document Intelligence or similar], BPM engine [VERIFY: Camunda or similar], qualified e-signature platform, integration layer to policy-admin system, fraud-scoring integration to [VERIFY] analytics platform, payment orchestration to core treasury.
90 minutes, no slides. A senior partner, your relevant executive, and a whiteboard. We frame the opportunity, the risk envelope, and the engagement shape — then agree whether there's a fit before any proposal is drafted.