By
The Next Competitive Advantage in Underwriting
Insurance companies are investing heavily in artificial intelligence, but the more important question is no longer whether they are using AI.
It is where they are using it, and whether it is meaningfully changing how work gets done.
Deloitte found that 76% of surveyed US insurance executives had already implemented generative AI in at least one business function. Conning reported that 90% of respondents were evaluating generative AI in some form, with 55% already in early or full adoption.
The industry has clearly moved beyond curiosity. The next challenge is turning that investment into measurable operational value.
Underwriters need more than faster data extraction
Much of the early conversation about AI in underwriting has focused on reading documents and extracting data from applications, loss runs, supplemental forms, spreadsheets, and other submission materials.
That is an important starting point, but it does not represent the complete underwriting workflow.
After the information is extracted, someone still needs to:
- Understand what was submitted
- Locate the information most relevant to the risk
- Compare details across multiple documents
- Review loss history
- Identify missing or conflicting information
- Request additional details
- Decide whether the submission fits the carrier’s appetite
- Prepare verified information for quoting or another downstream process
When AI only extracts the data, much of the administrative work surrounding the underwriting decision remains.
That matters because underwriters already spend a significant portion of their time on work that is not actually underwriting. Accenture found that the average underwriter in its study spent 40% of their time on administrative tasks, 30% on negotiation and sales support, and only 30% on underwriting itself.
The opportunity is not simply to make one administrative task faster.
It is to redesign the workflow so underwriters can spend more of their time applying expertise, evaluating risk, communicating with agents, and making decisions.
AI should prepare the decision, not remove the underwriter
The most effective underwriting automation does not attempt to remove underwriters from the process. It gives them better information and removes the repetitive work surrounding their decisions.
A more connected workflow can begin the moment a submission arrives.
Documents can be ingested, classified, and converted into structured information. Important risk details can then be consolidated for review, rather than requiring the underwriter to manually search through every page and move between separate forms or systems.
The underwriter can verify or edit the extracted information, review key exposures and loss history, and quickly see where information is incomplete.
When additional details are needed, the workflow can help identify those gaps and generate targeted requests for the agent or insured. Routine requests can be automated, while the underwriter remains in control when judgment, context, or a more personal conversation is required.
This creates a practical division of responsibility:
- AI organizes the submission and moves the process forward.
- The underwriter evaluates the risk and decides what happens next.
That is a much more powerful use of AI than document extraction alone.
Small time savings become significant at scale
The impact of underwriting automation can appear modest when viewed one submission at a time. At scale, the economics change quickly.
For an organization processing 1,000 submissions per month:
-
- Saving 15 minutes per submission returns 250 working hours each month
- Saving 30 minutes per submission returns 500 working hours each month
- Over a year, that second scenario represents 6,000 hours, or nearly three full years of working capacity
- How quickly can an underwriter understand a new submission?
- How much administrative work occurs before a decision can be made?
- How early are missing or conflicting details identified?
- How many submissions can the underwriting team review without sacrificing quality?
- How quickly does the agent receive a clear response or request?
- How easy is it for the agent to complete the process?
Those figures are illustrative, but they demonstrate why workflow design matters.
The value is not limited to reducing operating costs. That capacity can be redirected toward reviewing more opportunities, responding to agents sooner, improving risk selection, and handling growth without increasing administrative staffing at the same rate.
Speed also creates consistency. Submissions do not need to wait in an inbox for someone to begin reviewing documents. Missing information can be identified earlier. Routine follow ups can occur without depending entirely on an underwriter’s workload or memory.
The result is not simply faster processing. It is greater underwriting capacity and a more predictable experience for everyone involved.
The agent experience is part of the competitive equation
Underwriting efficiency is often discussed as an internal carrier issue, but agents experience the effects directly.
They experience the delays when submissions sit untouched. They receive the requests when missing information is discovered late. They navigate the portals, emails, spreadsheets, and repeated questions required to move an opportunity forward.
Recent research shows that agents are actively looking for carriers to improve these processes.
In Ivans’ 2025 agency and carrier connectivity survey, 72% of respondents identified the commercial submission process as the top area where they wanted greater automation from carriers.
J.D. Power found that 61% of independent agents feel that working with their insurers is not “very easy.” Additionally, when looking specifically at commercial lines agents, satisfaction was significantly higher when working with a carrier that was considered "very easy" to work with, as compared to carriers receiving "low ease" ratings.
Service also influences where agents place business. The same study found that commercial lines agents who felt undervalued by an insurer were seven times more likely to reduce the amount of business they wrote with that carrier.
These findings reinforce an important point:
Ease of doing business is not simply a user experience concern. It is a distribution and growth concern.
When a carrier can acknowledge a submission quickly, present clear requirements, identify missing information early, and communicate the next step without unnecessary delays, it becomes easier for the agent to serve the insured.
That experience can influence which markets agents approach first, which relationships they continue investing in, and where they ultimately place more business.
Measuring the right outcomes
As insurers continue investing in AI, success should not be measured only by how many documents were processed or how many fields were extracted.
The more meaningful questions are:
At Appulate, this is how we think about underwriting automation.
The goal is to connect intake, document processing, underwriting review, information collection, and downstream delivery into one workflow. Underwriters remain in control, but they no longer need to manually carry every submission through every administrative step.
The insurers that gain the greatest competitive advantage from AI may not be those that process documents the fastest. They will be the ones that use AI to help underwriters make better use of their time, provide agents with better service, and move good business forward with less friction.
