This article is produced in partnership with Crawford & Co. Canada
In the pursuit of control and cost savings, insurers often find themselves stuck in a cycle that quietly undermines both. There’s a familiar rhythm in the industry: the push to internalize services. Whether it’s claims adjusting, third-party administration, or contents valuation, many carriers reach a point where the perceived efficiencies of bringing services in-house become tempting. On paper, it seems logical to consolidate control, reduce costs, improve speed. But in practice, internalization often leads to unintended consequences: burnout, capacity strain, and a renewed dependence on external partners when volumes spike. Over time, this pendulum swing between building in-house and bringing in outside help can create instability and put enormous pressure on teams, operations, and the customer experience.
The intent is rarely flawed, motivated by cost containment, consistency, or improved customer outcomes. However, what’s often underestimated is the operational heavy lifting required to maintain quality and scale under real-world conditions.
Catastrophic weather, increased claim complexity, and rising customer expectations don’t wait for internal teams to catch up. Add to that a persistent industry-wide talent shortage and internal resources that can quickly hit their limit. This is where the independent adjusting model adds value—not just as overflow support, but as a strategic partner providing specialized expertise, surge capacity, and national reach.
Internalizing TPA can seem like a strategic way to gain control and reduce costs. But in practice, TPA is much more than moving claims from intake to closure, it’s an interconnected system of triage, compliance, legal exposure, vendor management, and quality assurance. Doing it well requires more than staffing, it demands infrastructure, deep operational expertise, and resilience.
“We build loyalty to your brand by taking care of your customers during some of their most challenging times” says Andrea Aitken, senior vice president, Third Party Administration at Crawford and Company Canada.
During peak periods or within complex, multi-line programs, internal cracks often surface. Not because they lack internal talent, but because trusted partners bring the systems, workflows, and oversight already in place—not built from scratch. The right support helps reduce costs, shorten cycle times, and deliver consistent, defensible outcomes under pressure. Expertise in real-time data and reporting also becomes critical, especially when carriers need a clear picture of performance, compliance, and customer experience at any point in time.
Contents claims are another area where internalization is often oversimplified. They are time-intensive, emotionally sensitive, and logistically complex. While internal teams may be equipped to handle straightforward losses, high-volume or catastrophic contents claims demand a deeper level of expertise.
The contents process is far more than just listing items. It requires detailed documentation to enhance accuracy in both replacement cost value (RCV) and actual cash value (ACV), real-time validation of retail pricing, and modern solutions for sourcing and managing replacements. Just as importantly, it demands empathy and care because behind every item is a policyholder navigating a deeply personal loss.
“There’s a place for handling content claims internally, especially those lower in complexity or value” says Melanie Hughes, president, edjuster at Crawford & Company Canada. “When the stakes are higher—large losses, high volumes, or distressed policyholders—the right external expertise doesn’t just add capacity, it adds consistency, accuracy, and empathy. It’s about matching the right resources to the right situations so both the carrier and the customer are better supported.”
Technology plays a critical role in scaling contents claims, but it’s only a part of the equation. Equally important are the qualities that purpose-built content teams have spent years refining: empathy, agility, and deep subject matter expertise. When these elements are missing, even the most dedicated internal teams can struggle with delays and added pressure.
Internalization works when backed by the right structure. More sustainable models often blend internal ownership with external expertise. It’s not about who owns the process, it’s about who’s ready to execute when it counts. It comes down to readiness. When the next surge hits as it inevitably will, the organizations best positioned to respond won’t be those that tried to do everything alone. They’ll be the ones that built smart, resilient ecosystems designed to perform under pressure.
