If the relationship goes quiet after binding, if carriers handle billing directly, and if claims conversations bypass the broker entirely, what value are insurance brokers delivering?
That’s the question quietly posed by corporate risk managers.
Amid 2026’s volatile risk and insurance landscape, the greatest competitive risk for intermediaries is no longer technology disruption, alternative capital, or even consolidation; for RIMS president Manny Padilla, it’s becoming invisible between renewals.
Padilla draws a sharp distinction between strategic broker partners and what he describes as transactional intermediaries. The latter, he said, perform limited market outreach, minimal underwriting dialogue, and a focus on delivering the “right number” as fast as possible.
“They have three or five markets, and they’ll give you the right number,” Padilla said. “But if (risk managers) are just buying a standard policy off the shelf, you haven’t done the full job.”
According to the RIMS leader, insurance buyers are no longer evaluating brokers purely on placement outcomes. They are assessing whether brokers understand their enterprise, their risk appetite, and the complex interactions between operational, financial, and reputational risks. At the same time, buyers now experience fragmented post-bind processes: multiple carrier billing systems, inconsistent communication, and brokers who defer administrative or claims issues back to insurers.
“No customer is appreciative of doing business with 10 insurance carriers and having 10 different payment schemes,” he said. “You go back to the broker and they say, ‘That’s a carrier thing.’”
For risk managers running lean teams, this undermines confidence. And while clients may not complain immediately, over time, they start questioning whether the relationship is worth maintaining, especially as alternative access points to capacity continue to expand globally.
Another hallmark of transactional brokerage is shallow engagement with underwriters. Padilla emphasized that robust underwriting dialogue is one of the most critical and most neglected aspects of broker value.
Risk managers want brokers who can articulate what makes a specific enterprise unique, quantify that uniqueness, and translate it into coverage structure and pricing. That requires more than submitting data; it requires narrative, context and challenge.
“The devil is in the details. Policy language, coverage design, and direct conversations with underwriters are critical. If you’re just buying the cheapest price at the quickest transaction,” Padilla addressed fellow risk managers, “you kind of get what you pay for.”
Claims handling is the third inflection point. While automation may streamline simple claims, Padilla warned that complex commercial losses require active broker participation.
“When my broker isn’t involved in complex claims, I get very nervous,” Padilla said. “I view my broker as an extension of my department. If they’re absent from claims or even administrative discussions, we reach an inflection point where we have to ask: what role is the broker really playing?”
The push toward efficiency, whether through carrier platforms, AI tools or streamlined workflows, is not inherently negative. But Padilla cautioned that brokers who become “too comfortable” allowing carriers to absorb servicing functions risk diluting their own role.
“Efficiency is important, but not at the expense of advocacy. Clients value presentation, coordination, and relationship management, not just automation,” Padilla said.
“For me, the issue isn’t whether brokers are needed; they absolutely are. But if a broker becomes so ‘efficient’ that they’re no longer actively involved after placement, it’s not a good fit.
“My renewal starts the day the last one ends. Brokers play a vital role in loss control, underwriting meetings, site visits, claims strategy, and coordinating third parties like panel counsel. When brokers operate at that level, they are indispensable.”
