Multinational insurance programmes are designed to deliver consistency. Claims are governed locally, not globally, and that consistency is rarely absolute. Legal systems, regulatory frameworks and cultural expectations vary by jurisdiction, shaping how multinational claims are handled in practice.
“Multinational programmes can deliver consistency, but not uniformity,” said Paul Burgess (pictured), SVP and global head of multinational claims at Sompo, speaking to Insurance Business at the Axco Global Insurance Summit in London.
For clients, the expectation is simpler. “It’s the same approach anywhere around the world. And at the end of the day, that’s what they want,” he said.
Delivering that expectation depends less on eliminating differences than on managing them. Burgess describes multinational claims through a set of core disciplines: “consistency, communication, clarity, collaboration.” Those principles underpin governance and oversight but also define how programmes operate in practice.
“Right at the outset, it’s making sure that everyone knows who’s going to do what, when and where,” he said. “So no surprises.” Without that clarity, differences between jurisdictions become points of friction rather than managed variation.
The tension at the centre of multinational claims is structural. Global programmes are designed to create oversight, visibility and control. Claims, however, are governed by local law.
“The main tension lies between global oversight and local reality,” Burgess said.
That tension becomes most visible when claims cross borders. Legal processes differ not just in substance but in pace and expectation. A UK-headquartered client handling a US claim, for example, may encounter a system that operates on different timelines and procedural norms, affecting both speed and outcome.
Consistency, in this context, is less about identical results than about predictable process. That requires setting expectations early, particularly around reporting, timelines and potential divergence in outcomes. Where differences arise, explanation becomes part of delivery rather than an afterthought.
The alternative is misalignment between what clients expect and what local conditions allow. As Burgess noted elsewhere, managing expectations is as critical as managing the claim itself.
If the structural challenge is divergence, the operational challenge is coordination.
“Coordination is the primary challenge,” Burgess said. “You’re aligning multiple stakeholders, whether it’s brokers, loss adjusters, TPAs, our own offices, the insureds.”
Those stakeholders often operate across different time zones, regulatory environments and reporting structures. Tension can arise not only between global and local teams, but also between local entities and parent organisations, particularly where priorities differ.
Data fragmentation compounds the issue. Systems vary across markets, reporting standards are inconsistent, and information does not always move cleanly between participants. The result is an uneven view of claims activity, affecting both decision-making and oversight.
Expectations around performance have also shifted. “They’re much more demanding,” Burgess said, pointing to the growing expectation for real-time visibility and faster decision-making. Speed of settlement has become a differentiator, particularly where complex processes risk slowing outcomes.
That pressure is not purely operational, it is also relational. Claims remain the point at which the insurance proposition is tested most directly, requiring both technical execution and clear communication. “Strong first impressions set the tone. Insurers are ready to guide and support insureds through every stage of the claims lifecycle, ensuring transparency at each step. This clarity builds trust and helps reduce stress for the insured. Having dedicated multinational claims advisors, skilled in navigating the complexities of cross‑border claims, ensures that this consistency and transparency are delivered in practice,” Burgess said.
A persistent challenge in multinational programmes is the gap between design and delivery.
“There can be a disconnect between how programs are designed and how they operate in practice,” Burgess said. Too often, claims considerations are not embedded early enough, leaving programmes exposed when tested.
“The claims proposition needs to be included from day one, because without that it’s going to fall apart,” he said.
Where that alignment is missing, assumptions fill the gap. “People make assumptions and normally get it wrong,” Burgess said, particularly when global frameworks are applied without sufficient regard for local practice.
That risk is amplified when firms expand across borders without fully adapting to local conditions. As Burgess put it, “you cannot be parochial.” Approaches that work in one jurisdiction cannot simply be replicated in another.
Instead, the emphasis shifts to understanding and visibility. Local practices need to be understood, communicated and reflected in programme design. Differences are not removed, but they are anticipated and explained.
Consistency, in that sense, is not defined by uniform outcomes. It is defined by whether those outcomes are understood before they occur.
