For brokers frustrated by slow turnaround times or pricing that feels unnecessarily conservative, the message from two underwriting leaders is that the market needs better intelligence. What underwriters want is information that is current, specific and genuinely descriptive of how a client’s business operates. In a market where underwriters are being asked to assess increasingly complex risks at speed, a well-constructed broker submission is essential for a fair price and a quick response.
Ben Allen (pictured left), portfolio manager for liability and CPE at High Street Underwriting Agency and David Jones (pictured right), managing director of Edge Underwriting, both agree on this commercial reality: when the facts are thin or incomplete the underwriter pricing discipline tends to harden rather than soften.
“The biggest improvement would be clearer, more consistent information that reflects how the business operates today and not how it looked years ago,” said Brisbane-based Allen.
One long-running problem for brokers and their commercial insurance placements is that too many submissions still lean heavily on historical wording, legacy descriptions and outdated financial or operational detail. That may once have been good enough in a more stable operating environment but it is far less workable now. Businesses pivot, expand, outsource, import, contract, digitise and diversify much faster than many renewal submissions suggest. If a broker is still presenting a client in yesterday’s language, the underwriter is being asked to price a version of the risk that may no longer exist.
That matters because underwriters are not just assessing a category; they are assessing a living business. A liability client, for example, may still broadly sit in one industry class but the underlying exposures can change dramatically depending on where it sources products, how it manages contractors, what contractual obligations it accepts and what controls it has added or stripped back over time. If those moving parts are not surfaced early and clearly, the assessment slows down while questions go back and forth, or the risk is priced with a heavier margin for uncertainty.
Perth-based Jones said the issue is not simply whether brokers describe the business but whether they explain the mechanics of the exposure.
“Brokers are good at telling us what their clients do, but often, not how they do it,” said the underwriter.
In practical terms, “what” might tell an underwriter that a company is a manufacturer, wholesaler, tradie or professional services firm. “How” reveals the real underwriting substance: how products are sourced, how work is supervised, how staff are trained, how sites are controlled, how quality is assured and how risk management is embedded in day-to-day operations. Through that detail an underwriter can often distinguish a disciplined risk from an average one.
For brokers, a stronger submission does not necessarily mean a longer submission, it means a more intelligent one that anticipates obvious underwriting questions before they are asked. The risk presentation should explain growth, operational change and contractual nuances. Any risk controls should be detailed in the submission and not assumed. That is particularly important when placing a business that might look similar to others on the surface but is actually very different in practice.
“The business description from a liability point of view is everything,” said Jones.
If the business description lacks precision and is too generic, the entire risk assessment can tilt off course from the beginning. A thin description invites follow-up queries, delays and cautionary pricing. A precise one creates momentum and gives the underwriter confidence that the broker understands the client, has interrogated the exposure properly and is presenting a risk that can be evaluated on its merits rather than on assumptions.
“Better context leads to better pricing and quicker outcomes,” said Allen.
That line could neatly capture the bargain at the centre of broker-underwriter engagement. Underwriters are not asking for perfection; they are asking for enough relevant context to judge the risk fairly and move with confidence. When a broker provides timely disclosure of changes in turnover, contracts, business mix or controls, the underwriting process becomes less adversarial and more efficient.
The claims history of a business can also be an advantage and not a weakness if it is properly explained.
“If a business has had a claim, underwriters want to know what they learnt, how they investigated it and what they put in place with their business - that can sometimes result in a better risk,” said Jones.
That insight challenges a common instinct to minimise the narrative around prior losses. For underwriters, a past claim can actually be evidence of maturity if the client responded well. A business that investigated an incident properly, extracted lessons and improved its controls may be more attractive than a business with a clean record but no demonstrable risk discipline. A well-constructed explanation tells an underwriter what has changed.
In the world of modern insurance placement, underwriters like Jones and Allen see brokers as interpreters of risk. The better that interpretation, the more likely the underwriter is to see the client as it truly is rather than as a bundle of unanswered questions.
For brokers, that should be an encouraging message. Fairer pricing and faster responses are not solely functions of market cycle or underwriting appetite. They can also be influenced, materially by submission quality. In a crowded and time-poor market, the brokers who win the best insurance outcomes for clients may well be the ones who present the clearest story, the freshest detail and the strongest evidence that a risk is understood, managed and worth backing.
