Empromptu LogoEmpromptu

Begin on one claims line. Catch built-up claims and coverage-check misses at intake; prove a leakage delta before any pl
Leakage is buried in the loss-adjustment line and it never s

You can pilot leakage detection at first-notice-of-loss on one line without touching the core platform.

What changes when AI orchestration runs the loop

Not 'buy more analytics' -> 'capture subrogation/reserve leakage your current model misses without burying adjusters in

You've tried analytics on leakage; the false positives eroded adjuster trust. A model trained on your own adjuster dispositions raises fidelity so the catch survives.

Not 'more STP rules' -> 'clear the submissions your rules engine bounces.'

You've got rules-based STP; exceptions still pile on underwriters. A model trained on your underwriting dispositions clears more straight-through and routes the rest with context.

Not 'more documentation' -> 'prove the model on demand to the examiner and the reinsurer.'

You've documented governance; testing and proof stay point-in-time. A model trained on your own validation history continuously tests and produces explainable, owned evidence - the floor reinsurers hold you to.

Not 'more scoring' -> 'connect the evidence your scoring can't.'

You score claims; building the network is still manual. A model trained on your SIU history connects parties and corroborating evidence across sources and shows its work.

Not 'more AMS automation' -> 'capture the bundles and referrals your generic prompts miss.'

You've tried automated prompts; they're generic. A model trained on your book's real cross-sell patterns surfaces the right gap for the right client.

Where the work changes

Five frames in this vertical's language — leak, operational, governance, analysis, growth.

Leak / value-capture: Not 'buy more analytics' -> 'capture subrogation/reserve leakage your current mo

Leakage is buried in the loss-adjustment line and it never shows up in the monthly reports.

  • Claims leakage from missed subrogation, stale reserves, inconsistent coverage checks at settlement.
  • Loss-adjustment expense undermonitored; unverified vendor/defense billing.
  • Built-up claims (padded real losses) hard to catch without filters at first notice of loss.
  • Combined ratios near/above 100 in many lines; recovering even 1% of loss payments is material.

Operational throughput: Not 'more STP rules' -> 'clear the submissions your rules engine bounces.'

Submissions pile up at intake and underwriters can't even start until someone organizes the file.

  • Submission intake is the most operationally intensive stage - underwriters can't review until the file is organized and entered.
  • Multi-channel submissions (portals, email, broker platforms) arrive unstructured.
  • Manual triage caps how many risks an underwriting team can clear.
  • Servicing/endorsements/renewals add recurring throughput load.

Governance & audit: Not 'more documentation' -> 'prove the model on demand to the examiner and the r

Regulators and reinsurers now demand provable, tested model governance and I can't produce it on demand.

  • NAIC AI Model Bulletin (adopted ~24 states) requires a written AIS Program: governance, testing, documentation, vendor oversight.
  • Market-conduct exams (and the 2026 NAIC AI Systems Evaluation Tool) demand document production on AI use, bias testing, and controls.
  • Many insurers still don't regularly test models for bias - a live exam gap.
  • Reinsurers use the bulletin as the evidentiary floor at treaty placement - weak governance blocks capacity.

Analysis / diagnosis: Not 'more scoring' -> 'connect the evidence your scoring can't.'

To see the fraud network I have to connect scattered evidence across claimants, providers, and attorneys by hand - and I miss the links.

  • SIU work IS link analysis - connecting associations among claimants, medical providers, attorneys, witnesses.
  • Evidence is scattered across claims systems, external data, and social/open sources.
  • Fragmented communication across claims teams; SIUs work with limited resources.
  • Generative AI now lets bad actors produce fraudulent evidence at scale, raising the bar on connecting corroboration.

Growth / outcome: Not 'more AMS automation' -> 'capture the bundles and referrals your generic pro

We know we should cross-sell, we just don't have the bandwidth to work the book.

  • Producers chase new business; the existing book's cross-sell goes unworked.
  • Most clients are never asked about additional coverage despite willingness.
  • First-year policyholders churn most; renewals need proactive touches that don't happen.
  • Referrals under-asked despite far higher retention.

Where current tooling falls short

Category limitation: core claims platforms manage the workflow of record but were not built to autonomously detect and work the leakage long tail; leakage detection has historically been sample-based audit after the money is paid, not at point of settlement.

Guidewire logo
Duck Creek logo
Sapiens (core claims platforms) logo
Verisk logo
CCC (analytics) logo
plus internal rules engines logo

What's leaking and what it costs

["Leakage represents ~7%-14% of carriers' total claims spend (EY P&C Claims, 2026).", 'Insurers spend >$23B/yr on defense and cost containment within the claims process (EY citing Statista, 2026).', '$27,000 indemnity per injured party in third-party bodily injury, +38% since 202
['Traditional underwriting timelines run weeks-to-months vs automated application processing in <4 minutes / up to 95% faster issuance (ScienceSoft / NAIC framing 2025-26).', 'Vendor-reported policy-admin automation: ~70% faster issuance, ~50% less manual intervention (Newgen 202
['NAIC AI Model Bulletin (Dec 2023) adopted in ~24 states/DC; requires written AI governance, testing, documentation, vendor oversight (NAIC; Quarles; Fenwick 2025-26).', "~1/3 of health insurers still don't regularly test models for bias despite the bulletin (Fenwick 2026); Colo
["Insurance fraud ~$79B/yr across P&C/workers'-comp (Coalition Against Insurance Fraud, via CNA); ~10% of P&C incurred losses (FBI, via Envista).", 'SIU techniques are explicitly link analysis, data mining, clustering, sequence matching across fragmented sources (Claims Bureau US
['72% of policyholders would consider more coverage from their agent, but only 19% have ever been asked (J.D. Power 2025).', 'Moving 1.8 -> 2.8 policies/client raises agency revenue 34-42% with zero new clients (IIABA 2025 Best Practices).', 'Bundled/3+ policy retention 91-94% vs

Frequently asked

Still have questions?

Book a 25-min call

Regulators and reinsurers now demand provable, tested model governance and I can't produce it on demand. Not 'more documentation' -> 'prove the model on demand to the examiner and the reinsurer.'

Walk the numbers together