US property insurers have managed to improve customer satisfaction with the claims process even as policyholders face higher premiums, larger deductibles and rising out-of-pocket costs, according to the JD Power 2026 US Property Claims Satisfaction Study.
JD Power said faster repair and payment cycle times, together with greater use of digital tools, helped offset the negative impact of higher costs on the overall experience. A quieter catastrophe year - including a relatively calm hurricane season and lower non‑catastrophe claims volumes - also contributed to greater stability in claims handling.
“There was no shortage of headwinds to customer satisfaction with the property claims experience this year, particularly when it comes to the financial burden customers face, but carriers were really able to counter the negative effects of higher prices by delivering exceptional service,” said Mark Garrett, director of insurance intelligence at JD Power.
He added that investments in digital channels made over the past several years have made it faster and easier to communicate with customers throughout the claims process, driving efficiency gains that are now showing up in customer experience scores. However, Garrett noted that “almost one in five customers” still reported their experience was not great, underscoring that there is still work to do.
Overall customer satisfaction across the industry rose 20 points year over year to 702 on JD Power’s 1,000-point scale, despite clear pressure on household finances.
Nineteen per cent (19%) of homeowners in the study experienced the combined effect of an insurer‑initiated premium increase, out‑of‑pocket expenses, and a deductible of $1,000 or more. Among this group, average satisfaction was significantly lower at 606, illustrating how pricing and cost‑sharing decisions can quickly erode goodwill if they are not matched by strong service and clear communication.
Cycle times, however, improved. The average time to complete a repair fell to 29.6 days, 2.8 days faster than last year. The average time before customers received final payment dropped to 40.7 days, an improvement of 3.4 days.
Repair times were heavily influenced by the use of direct repair programs, in which insurers connect homeowners with contractors from an approved network. Among the 41% of customers using such programs, JD Power reported notably faster time to start work and shorter overall repair durations – more than two weeks faster for higher‑severity claims than for those not using the programs.
The study also found increasing adoption of digital tools across the claims journey.
Digital channels were used by 38% of customers to report first notice of loss, 49% to submit photos for estimating or paying the claim, and 45% to receive updates. Satisfaction levels were higher for customers using digital tools at each of these touchpoints than for those who did not.
For insurance professionals, this reinforces a trend already visible across personal lines: when digital interactions are optional, intuitive, and supported by human backup, they tend to raise satisfaction rather than depress it. Carriers that have invested in self‑service FNOL, photo‑based estimating, virtual inspections, and push notifications are now seeing returns not only in cost and speed but also in customer sentiment.
The results also highlighted a competitive divide. Insurers that lag on digital capabilities risk slower cycle times and lower satisfaction scores, particularly among younger and more tech‑enabled policyholders. Over time, that can translate into higher churn and increased acquisition costs as dissatisfied customers shop around at renewal.
At the same time, greater digitalization creates new challenges around fraud detection, data quality, and model governance. Many US carriers are pairing digital front ends with advanced analytics and straight‑through processing on the back end, to preserve control while still delivering the speed customers expect.
Despite the overall uplift, the study pointed to a significant expectations gap.
Fifty‑one per cent (51%) of insurers were rated as fully meeting customers’ expectations for how their policy would work, and 15% were seen as exceeding expectations. However, 34% of customers said their policy did not fully meet expectations.
Among those whose expectations were not met, common themes were a lack of explanation or insufficient opportunity to discuss the estimate or settlement, high out‑of‑pocket costs, and the need for frequent customer‑initiated contacts to move the claim forward. This underlines the importance of clarity at point of sale as well as at claim stage. Higher deductibles, sublimits, and exclusions have become common tools to manage catastrophe exposure and reinsurance costs. The JD Power findings suggest that unless these are clearly explained in advance - and revisited when a claim occurs - insurers risk surprise and dissatisfaction even when they are operating within policy terms.
Claims and product teams may see this as a prompt to revisit communications, including pre‑season outreach in catastrophe‑exposed states, clearer declarations pages, and more proactive discussion of likely out‑of‑pocket costs when a loss is reported.
The US Property Claims Satisfaction Study measures customer satisfaction among insurance customers who have filed a property damage claim, across eight core dimensions, in order of importance: fairness of the claim settlement; level of trust; time taken to settle the claim; people; digital channels; communicated with me how and when I want; ease of starting the claims process; and ease of resolving the claim.
The 2026 study is based on responses from 5,093 homeowners' insurance customers who filed a claim in the previous nine months. Fieldwork was conducted from December 2024 through December 2025.
