Speed Wins: The First-Responder Advantage in Insurance Submissions
By Brandon Robinson
TL;DR
- You don't need a massive IT project to start improving intake—meaningful progress happens in 30 days with the right focus
- Week 1: Measure your baseline (you can't fix what you can't see)
- Weeks 2-3: Quick wins that show immediate results—communication templates, SLAs, and appetite clarity
- Week 4: Build the business case for bigger investments with real data from your own operation
You've seen the benchmarks. You know sub-48-hour response time is the competitive baseline. You understand that broken intake has hidden costs.
Now what?
The gap between knowing there's a problem and actually fixing it is where most teams stall. They wait for budget approval, IT availability, or the "right time" to tackle intake—and months pass without meaningful progress.
This article is the Monday morning playbook. It's designed for the underwriting leader who wants to make visible progress on intake efficiency within 30 days—without waiting for a major technology initiative or executive sponsorship. Some of these steps require nothing more than spreadsheets and calendar blocks.
Let's start your clock.
Week 1: Establish Your Baseline (Days 1-7)
Before you can fix intake, you need to know where you actually stand—not where you think you stand. Most teams are surprised by what the data reveals.
Days 1-2: Response Time Audit
The goal: Know your actual response time, not what you assume it is.
What to do:
- Pull 50 recent submissions from the last 30 days
- For each, capture two timestamps: email received and first response sent (quote, decline, or request for more info)
- Calculate the average, median, and distribution
What you're looking for:
- What percentage hit sub-48-hour response?
- What's the longest response time? (The outliers reveal the most)
- Is there consistency, or does response time vary wildly?
If Your Systems Don't Talk
If you can't easily pull timestamps from your systems, don't let that stop you. Ask two underwriters to manually log received and response times for one week. Even a small sample gives you baseline data that's better than assumptions.
Days 3-4: Appetite Match Review
The goal: Know how much of your queue is out-of-appetite work.
What to do:
- Pull your last 100 declines (or as many as you can access)
- Categorize each: outside appetite, pricing/terms, incomplete submission, or other
- Calculate the percentage that fell into each bucket
What you're looking for:
- What percentage of declines were appetite-related? (Industry average is ~25%)
- Are certain classes, geographies, or limits repeatedly showing up out of scope?
- Could brokers have known this wasn't a fit before submitting?
Shortcut: If you don't have clean decline data, ask 3-5 underwriters: "What percentage of the submissions you see this week should never have reached you?" Their estimates will cluster around a number—that's your starting point.
Days 5-7: Underwriter Time Study
The goal: Understand where underwriter time actually goes.
What to do:
- Shadow or survey 3-5 underwriters for one day each
- Have them categorize their time: document gathering, data entry, broker communication, risk analysis, pricing, other admin
- Calculate the split between "underwriting work" and "everything else"
What you're looking for:
- What's the biggest time sink? (Usually: document hunting or data entry)
- How much time goes to submissions that don't bind?
- What would underwriters do with an extra 2 hours per day?
Week 1 Deliverable: A one-page baseline report with your actual numbers—response time distribution, out-of-appetite rate, and underwriter time allocation.
Week 2: Quick Wins—Communication (Days 8-14)
Now that you have data, it's time for quick wins that don't require IT support or budget approval.
Standardize Response Templates
Most teams waste time drafting similar emails from scratch. Creating standardized templates can compress response time by 20-30%.
Templates to create:
- Acknowledgment: "Received your submission, reviewing now"
- Request for information: "We need [specific items] to proceed"
- Decline—appetite: "This falls outside our current appetite because..."
- Decline—other: "We're unable to quote this because..."
- Quote ready: "Attached is our quote for [risk]"
Include merge fields for personalization—risk name, broker name, specific reasons. The goal is faster response, not robotic communication.
Set Explicit SLAs
If your team doesn't have explicit response time targets, now is the time to set them.
Suggested starting SLAs:
- Received → Triaged: 4 hours (same business day)
- Triaged → First Touch: 24 hours
- First Touch → Quote/Decline: 48-72 hours (varies by complexity)
Make these visible. Put them on a whiteboard in the underwriting area, add them to your workflow dashboard, or review them in daily standups. Accountability drives consistency.
Week 2 Deliverable: Response templates live in your email system; SLAs communicated to the team.
Week 3: Quick Wins—Appetite Clarity (Days 15-21)
The single highest-leverage fix for most teams: make appetite explicit enough that brokers can self-screen.
Create a One-Page Appetite Scorecard
Most appetite documents are too long, too vague, or buried in a portal nobody uses. Your goal: a single page that answers "should I send this to you?"
What to include:
- What you write: Specific classes with examples
- What you don't write: Clear exclusions (don't make them guess)
- Geographic appetite: States/regions you're active in
- Limit ranges: Min/max you'll consider
- Contact for questions: Who to call if they're unsure
Don't just post it to a portal. Proactively send it to your top broker relationships with context:
"We want to make it easier for you to send us the right opportunities. Here's a quick reference for what we're looking for—and what falls outside our appetite. If you're unsure about a submission, reach out before sending."
Ask for feedback: "What else would help you know when we're a fit?" Brokers will tell you where your appetite communication is confusing.
Expected impact: Teams that implement clear appetite communication typically see 10-15% reduction in out-of-appetite submissions within 30 days.
Week 3 Deliverable: Appetite scorecard created, reviewed by senior underwriters, and distributed to top 20 broker relationships.
Week 4: Build the Business Case (Days 22-30)
You've measured your baseline and captured some quick wins. Now it's time to quantify the opportunity and make the case for larger investments.
Calculate Your Cost of Inefficiency
Use your Week 1 data to calculate real numbers:
Hours lost to out-of-appetite work:
- [Out-of-appetite %] × [Weekly submissions] × [Average hours per submission] = Hours wasted weekly
- Multiply by 52 for annual hours lost
Estimated premium lost to slow response:
- For submissions where you took 3+ days, estimate how many were competitive situations
- Apply estimated attrition rate (~25% at over 24 hours)
- Multiply by average premium per submission
FTE equivalent of wasted capacity:
- Hours lost annually ÷ 2,080 = FTE equivalent
- Multiply by fully-loaded underwriter cost for dollar impact
Identify Your #1 Bottleneck
Your data will point to one of three primary constraints:
- Response time is the bottleneck: Focus on intake automation—document extraction, automated acknowledgment, smart routing
- Out-of-appetite is the bottleneck: Focus on triage automation—AI-powered screening, appetite enforcement, broker education
- Low conversion is the bottleneck: Focus on prioritization—scoring submissions by win probability, declining earlier, focusing underwriter time on high-value opportunities
Draft Your 90-Day Roadmap
Based on your bottleneck, outline what comes next:
- What can you do with existing resources? (Templates, SLAs, appetite clarity)
- What requires technology investment? (Document intelligence, automated triage)
- What's the expected ROI? (Use your cost-of-inefficiency numbers)
Week 4 Deliverable: Business case document with baseline metrics, cost-of-inefficiency calculation, identified bottleneck, and proposed 90-day roadmap.
What Comes After Day 30
The first 30 days establish baseline, capture quick wins, and build the case for bigger moves. Here's what typically comes next:
If response time is your bottleneck:
- Explore document extraction and automated data capture
- Implement smart routing based on complexity and workload
- Consider automated acknowledgment and status updates
If out-of-appetite is your bottleneck:
- Implement AI-powered submission triage
- Build automated pre-screening for common appetite mismatches
- Create feedback loops so declined brokers understand why
If low conversion is your bottleneck:
- Build prioritization into your workflow—score by win probability
- Analyze why quotes aren't binding and address root causes
- Focus underwriter time on higher-fit opportunities
For a deeper dive on scaling capacity without headcount, see how high-throughput teams handle 2-3X volume.
The Bottom Line
1
You don't need permission to start measuring. Week 1 requires nothing more than access to your email and submission data.
2
Quick wins build momentum and credibility. Templates, SLAs, and appetite clarity don't require budget approval—and they show visible progress.
3
The business case writes itself once you have data. Real numbers from your own operation are more compelling than industry benchmarks.
Not sure where you stand on intake efficiency? Run the Submission Intake Calculator to benchmark your team—then start your 30-day clock.
Commercial P&C Insurers Guide to Solving the Underwriting Bottleneck
