Claims Management for Insurance Intermediaries: How to Turn the Operational Load into a Valuable Service for the Client

The Claim Is the Moment of Truth

For an insurance intermediary, the claim is the point where the true value of their work is measured. Everything built during the sales phase — the advice, the choice of the right product, the care taken in defining the coverage — is put to the test when the client, often at a difficult moment, turns to the intermediary for assistance. It is at that moment that it is decided whether the relationship strengthens or fractures.

The problem is that, in everyday practice, handling a claim is also the most scattered and least structured activity in an agency's entire operation. Emails piling up, attachments scattered everywhere, update phone calls, communications with the insurer, loss adjusters to chase, deadlines not to be missed. The moment of truth often becomes the moment of chaos. And in a market where the quality of after-sales service has become one of the few genuine points of differentiation, leaving this phase without a structured process means working against yourself.

Anatomy of the Operational Load: Where the Time Hides

To grasp the real scale of the problem, it helps to break down the process of handling a single claim into its concrete stages. We are not talking about theory, but about what actually happens in an agency.

The initial stage is opening the claim: the client reports the event, usually by phone or WhatsApp, in an unstructured way. The intermediary gathers the first information, requests documents, forwards them to the relevant insurer, and opens a file in their own system (often an Excel spreadsheet, a shared folder or a generic management tool not designed for claims). Already at this point, 30-45 minutes are lost per event, between listening, gathering, recording and the first communication.

The longest stage is the investigation, which can last weeks or months. During this interval, the intermediary must manage three fronts at once: the client, who asks for updates; the insurer, which requests additional documentation; and any third parties such as loss adjusters or lawyers. Every exchange generates an email, every email must be filed, every request must be routed to the right person. Without a dedicated system, this stage can easily absorb 2-3 hours per file spread across several weeks, with a very high additional cost: the risk of forgetting an action, missing a deadline, or leaving the client without news for too long.

The closing stage seems quick, but it carries its own load: verifying the settlement, the final communication to the client, filing the case, and handling any complaint if the outcome is unsatisfactory. Another 30-60 minutes per file.

Let us line up the numbers for a generic but realistic scenario. An intermediary handling 100 claims a year, with an average aggregate time of around 4 hours per file, devotes 400 hours a year to claims handling alone. That is the equivalent of ten weeks of full-time work taken away from sales, advisory or portfolio-development activities. The picture worsens further when you consider that much of these hours is fragmented into high-interruption micro-tasks, with all the cognitive cost that entails.

Added to this is a market figure that weighs on the overall picture: according to ANIA data, in 2023 Italian insurance companies handled around 2.4 million motor third-party liability claims, with an average cost per claim that continues to rise. Volumes this high mean, for the intermediary acting as a bridge between client and insurer, a constant operational pressure that shows no sign of easing.

The Regulatory Framework: What the Law Says and Why It Weighs on Operations

Claims handling is not an unregulated activity: it falls within a precise regulatory framework that intermediaries must comply with, and one that often amplifies the operational load for those working without adequate tools.

The main reference is the Private Insurance Code (Legislative Decree 209/2005), which in Article 106 explicitly defines "collaboration in the management or performance, particularly in the event of claims, of the contracts entered into" as an integral part of insurance distribution activity. In plain terms: assisting the client in handling a claim is not an ancillary service, it is a regulated function, subject to the same duties of diligence and traceability as the sales phase.

IVASS Regulation No. 40/2018 then sets out the documentation and transparency obligations that concern the intermediary's entire activity, including the handling of complaints connected to claims. ISVAP Regulation No. 24/2008, amended by IVASS Measure No. 97/2020, requires companies and intermediaries to respond to complaints within 45 days of receipt, maintaining an orderly electronic register that can be consulted at any time by IVASS in the event of supervision.

In practice, all of this means two things. First: every claim must be tracked formally, with evidence of who did what and when. Second: in the event of a complaint or dispute, the intermediary must be able to reconstruct the entire history of the case, quickly, with consistent documentary evidence. Those who handle claims across emails, Excel spreadsheets and network folders find themselves, each time, having to reconstruct after the fact what a structured system would record automatically. It is a hidden cost that becomes very visible the moment it is really needed.

What a Vertical Claims-Management System Must Do

A generic tool — a standardised CRM, a task manager, a horizontal management system not specific to the insurance sector — can help in part, but almost always leaves the most critical points of the process uncovered. To make a real difference, a claims-management system designed for intermediaries must meet a number of requirements that derive directly from the nature of the work.

The first is the structuring of data from the moment the claim is opened. When the client reports a claim, the system must guide the collection of essential information — type of event, date, policy involved, coverage triggered, counterparties, attached documents — in a uniform and complete format. This is not just a matter of tidiness: every field structured at opening is a field that will not have to be reconstructed later, and one that will automatically feed subsequent reports, statistics and communications.

The second requirement is centralised document management. A claim file easily generates dozens of files: reports, photos, loss-adjuster assessments, quotes, invoices, communications from the insurer, payment receipts. Keeping them in local folders or email inboxes means constantly risking losing something or working on outdated versions. A vertical system must collect everything in a single container linked to the file, accessible to all authorised operators, with a clear version history.

The third requirement is the automatic management of deadlines and statuses. Every claim passes through different stages — open, under investigation, awaiting documents, in settlement, closed — and each stage has its own deadlines. A well-built system does not wait for the operator to remember: it alerts in advance, displays files approaching their deadline on visible dashboards, and flags when a file has been stalled for too long with no progress. It is the difference between a controlled process and one where you hold your breath every time an unexpected reminder arrives.

The fourth requirement is proactive communication with the client. One of the most common frustrations for someone reporting a claim is silence: after the file is opened, they often have no idea what is happening for days or weeks. A structured system can send automatic updates at every change of status, with personalised messages generated without any manual intervention from the operator. The client feels constant attention, the intermediary frees up time. It is one of those changes that has a disproportionate impact on perceived satisfaction relative to the effort required to implement it.

The fifth requirement is reporting and analysis of the claims portfolio. How many claims did we open this month? What is the average closing time by type? Which insurers respond fastest? Which categories of client generate the most complex claims? A vertical system turns data that is scattered today into information useful for running the agency. This level of insight into the portfolio is practically impossible to obtain with generic tools, and it becomes decisive when you want to plan growth, team training or specialisation in specific segments.

The sixth and final requirement is adherence to the intermediary's real workflow. Every agency has its own procedures, its own relationships with insurers, its own working methods consolidated over the years. A system imposed from above, forcing a reconfiguration of the entire way of working, almost always fails. The system must adapt to the workflow, not the other way around.

From Reactive to Strategic: What Really Changes

The practical effect of a claims-management system built on these foundations is not just a saving of hours — although that alone already justifies the investment. The most important effect is a change of positioning.

The intermediary who handles claims reactively, chasing emails and phone calls, projects to the client an image of a service under pressure. The intermediary who has a structured system responds promptly, provides updates without being prompted, and demonstrates control of the process. It is a difference the client perceives, and one that translates into retention, referrals, and the chance to propose additional coverage at the right moments.

There is also a less visible but equally important internal effect. Freeing up 200-300 hours a year from the operational handling of claims means giving the principal and the team back time for high-value activities: strategic advice, developing new clients, portfolio analysis, training. In a market scenario where the traditional intermediary is increasingly challenged by direct channels and digital models, this recovered time is precisely the resource that makes the difference between those who hold on and those who grow.

How We Can Help You

At A126 we build tailor-made digital tools for insurance intermediaries. We do not sell licences for off-the-shelf software: we design and develop solutions that start from the agency's real operational workflow, and that are shaped around the concrete way each intermediary works with clients, insurers and collaborators.

Claims handling is one of the areas where this approach makes the most visible difference, because it is a process that varies profoundly from agency to agency and does not sit well with rigid solutions. When we work on this topic, we always start with an analysis of the existing workflow — what works, what gets stuck, where time is lost, where the client experiences friction — and from there we build the right tool for that specific context.

If you want to understand how to structure a claims-management system that genuinely lightens your agency's operational load, contact us for a free consultation. We will analyse your situation together and show you what can be built starting from your current procedures.

A126 Corporate Advisors — Tailor-made digital solutions for those working in the insurance sector.