Underwriters are far more likely to back a complex or unusual risk when it comes from a broker they trust than when it arrives as a clean but impersonal submission, according to Simon Taylor (pictured), commercial director at First Underwriting. Despite the industry's growing focus on data and technology, the fundamentals of winning over an underwriter have changed remarkably little, he believes.
Winning an underwriter over starts with a clear, logical submission that anticipates the questions they are likely to ask.
"Those brokers that are looking to protect the underwriter are showing all the information that the underwriter needs, not trying to hide anything," Taylor said.
The strongest brokers carry out much of the groundwork before a submission reaches an underwriter, from credit and sanctions checks to reviewing a client's online presence where appropriate. That preparation, he believes, builds confidence before pricing is even discussed.
"Bizarrely, it's as much about the broker as it is about the client," Taylor said. "A really good broker that understands their client and you trust them – that's what makes the underwriter open up that presentation and go for it."
Adverse features are not necessarily a dealbreaker, provided there is context behind them.
"If it comes with a story and a client that's prepared to work with you, that will come across very quickly."
What does raise concerns is a risk that "has moved every year for the last three years," since the cost of underwriting a new account is typically front-loaded for both broker and insurer. Price is only one part of the conversation. Equally, brokers can mistake a long list of underwriter questions for reluctance rather than genuine interest.
"Lots of questions is a buying signal. It's saying, I'm interested in this – tell me," he said. "If I'm going to give you the best cover and the best price, I'm trying to understand what it is that you need."
Professional indemnity provides a good example. Questions about a client's contract terms may feel like friction, but they often improve the eventual cover by identifying exposures that neither the broker nor the client may have previously considered.
Getting the balance between cover and price wrong can prove costly for everyone involved: the client if a claim is not covered, the broker if a dispute follows, and the underwriter facing a large loss.
Better data has not necessarily made underwriting easier, but it has made it more informed. Policy wordings are broader than they were a decade or two ago, while increasingly sophisticated products have driven up claims costs because more items are replaced rather than repaired.
For Taylor, data only becomes valuable when it changes behaviour. His framework is simply "data, insight and actions" – data creates insight, but insight only matters if it leads to better underwriting decisions.
Better data, however, does not replace judgement. The best brokers understand both their client's needs and an insurer's appetite, rather than presenting every risk to every available market. Strong relationships give underwriters confidence to look beyond an initial submission and properly assess a complex risk.
"Good brokers mean that underwriters listen to them," Taylor said. "Then it becomes a shared goal."
