Policy endorsement processing where every change is keyed once and checked twice
Changes keyed and checked once, so keying errors don't surface at claim time.
See one case, screen by screen ↓It is the work of taking a mid-term change request — add a vehicle or a driver, add an additional insured, raise a limit, add a location — checking it against the policy and the underwriting rules, rating it, issuing the endorsement and keying it into the policy system. Policy Endorsement Processing has six agents do the reading, splitting, checking, rating and drafting, and reads every issued endorsement back against the request.
How to choose AI solutions for insurance →
Updated
Requests to add a driver, change a vehicle, raise a limit or add a location arrive as emails, PDFs, portal forms and call notes, each in its own shape. One insured’s email to the broker can be four jobs: a new truck, a new hire who will drive it, a new client who must be an additional insured, and a certificate. A service representative or an outsourced team reads it, finds the policy, and re-keys each change into the policy system one field at a time.
A VIN with two digits transposed, a date of birth keyed as 1998 instead of 1989, an additional insured’s name cut short — each one goes unnoticed until a claim is filed against a policy that does not say what the customer asked for. A change can go past the representative’s authority, and when an item is missing, the follow-up is easy to lose.
Estimated split for a commercial request with more than one change, by hand and with the solution (hours of handling).
Six specialist agents split, place, check, price and draft every change, then read back what was issued; the service representative accepts and issues.
Monday 08:47. Penwick & Shaw forwards an email from the owner of Orchard Lane Landscaping: a truck, a driver, a new client, a certificate. Here is what happens next, screen by screen, in the working solution.
Lena opens the change requests for commercial lines, Ohio and Indiana: 41 requests today, split into 96 changes — 24 by email, 9 from the portal, 5 as PDFs and 3 call notes. Each row shows the changes found, coloured by status, and when the answer is due against the one-business-day promise.
“Median from arrival to ready: 14 min · Oldest unanswered: Fri 13:30, Dunham Fence & Deck”
Rob Delacroix wrote on Sunday evening: a 2026 Ford F-350 dump, financed through Buckeye Commercial, on from Thursday the 15th, “full coverage like the other trucks”; a new hire, Tyler Brandt (20), to drive it; Crestline Property Group as additional insured before the Larkspur Commons contract starts Nov 1; and a certificate. Dana forwards it. The email sits on the left with each request underlined and numbered; policy CPP 7730418 opens beside it as pages, with each change pinned in the margin.
The request reader reads the email, the 2-page bill of sale and the 14-page Crestline agreement, and splits them into 3 policy changes and 1 certificate request. The policy locator finds unit 12 on page 6, driver 10 on page 9 and entry 4 on page 14. The truck goes in as a redline on the schedule of covered autos: VIN decoded, 14,000 lb GVW from the bill of sale, Buckeye Commercial Equipment Credit as loss payee on CA 99 44, $2,318 a year × 137 of 365 days = $870 this term.
“Allowed · within your authority”
Rule CA-UW 4.2: drivers under 23 on a vehicle over 10,000 lb GVW go to an underwriter. Tyler is 20; the F-350 is 14,000 lb. The note also lists what is missing — his date of birth, and his licence number and state, needed to order the MVR — with two choices: ask Dana for the two items, or refer to Darius Pell.
The eligibility checker never approves a referral. Only the underwriter decides.
Crestline Property Group goes on the CG 20 26 schedule as entry 4, name and address taken from the agreement, Exhibit B §3, for +$50 flat. The limits asked, $1,000,000 / $2,000,000, are already on page 1, and the waiver of subrogation in §5 is already given by the blanket CG 24 04 on page 15. But §4 asks for primary and noncontributory wording, which Rob never mentioned. Lena adds CG 20 01 at no premium. The certificate is routed to Certificates, held until change 3 is issued.
“CG 20 01 added for Crestline · no premium”
Changes 1 and 3 become endorsement 007, effective 15 Oct 2026, as the insured will read it: unit 12 added, the loss payee on CA 99 44, Crestline on CG 20 26 with CG 20 01. Additional premium $920; total policy premium after this change $47,880. Beside it, the keying sheet for the policy system: 14 fields, each pointing to where it came from: the email, the bill of sale, the agreement, the policy page or the forms library.
“Both changes accepted · you may issue up to $2,500 a year”
The drafter has already written to Dana: thank you for the Orchard Lane changes, the F-350 and the Crestline additional insured are being issued today, effective 15 Oct; to add Tyler Brandt we need his date of birth and his licence number and state. Lena reads it and sends it. A reminder goes after 2 business days.
“Until then, please make sure he does not drive unit 12.”
Lena issues endorsement 007 in the policy system. The issued-endorsement checker reads the issued pages back and compares every field with the keying sheet and the request — transaction, VIN, GVW, garaging, coverages, loss payee, additional insured, forms, premium. All 14 match, and the documents go to Dana and the insured.
“Issued 09:12 and read back: 14 of 14 fields match the request. Sent to Dana Whitlock and the insured.”
Dana replies with Tyler’s date of birth, 14 Mar 2006, and Ohio licence TB482917. The MVR is ordered at 10:53 and comes back clean: no violations or accidents in 3 years, and no suspensions. Darius sees the rule, the driver, the vehicle and the record on one screen, and how similar referrals went this year: 14 drivers under 23 on vehicles over 10,000 lb, 11 approved, 9 with an annual MVR condition. He approves with an annual MVR, and endorsement 008 is drafted for Lena to issue.
“Send me the driver and the rule, not the whole inbox.” — Darius Pell
The issued check reads every endorsement back within 10 minutes of issue, including the ones the outsourced team keys. In the last 7 days, 6 mismatches in 212 issued endorsements: a Varga Hauling VIN with two digits transposed, a Pell Street Bakery driver born 1989 keyed as 1998, an Ashby Court Florist effective date keyed 10/19 instead of 10/09. Each goes back to whoever keyed it before the insured receives it.
The checker never closes a mismatch on its own. It holds the documents until the change is corrected.
The same request, seen by the four people who carry it — the representative, the underwriter, the team lead and the broker.
Six specialist agents split, place, check, price and draft every change, then read back what was issued; the service representative accepts and issues.
Reads emails, PDFs, portal forms and call notes, and splits each message into separate requests, quoting the sentence each came from. Recognises requests that are not policy changes — certificates, billing, cancellations — and marks them for routing.
Matches the request to the policy by number, insured and broker, and finds the schedule or form each change alters and the line or entry it adds, removes or changes.
Checks each change against the underwriting and eligibility rules in force and the representative’s authority: allowed, refer with the rule, or ask the broker for the missing items.
Rates each change through the rating engine and prorates it by days to expiry, applying flat charges as filed, and shows the working.
Combines accepted changes with one effective date into one endorsement, picks forms and editions from the library, writes the keying sheet with a source for every field, drafts the broker request for anything missing, and routes certificates, billing and cancellations.
Within 10 minutes of issue, reads the issued endorsement back from the policy system and compares each field with the keying sheet and the request. Any difference is a mismatch, returned to whoever keyed it.
Accepts and issues within authority; the underwriter decides referrals. The agents propose; a named person decides.
The service team can ask about any change, page, rule or premium, or what is still waiting — in plain words, with the answer pointing to its source.
Why does the new driver need an underwriter?
Rule CA-UW 4.2: a driver under 23 on a vehicle over 10,000 lb gross vehicle weight needs underwriting approval. Rob says Tyler is 20, and the bill of sale puts the F-350 at 14,000 lb. Before Darius Pell can decide, he needs a motor vehicle record, which needs Tyler’s date of birth and licence number, and neither is in the email.
What does the Crestline contract ask for that the email left out?
One thing. Exhibit B §4 asks for primary and noncontributory wording, CG 20 01; Rob only mentioned the additional insured. The limits in §2 are already on the policy, and the waiver in §5 is given by the blanket CG 24 04 on page 15. CG 20 01 carries no premium on this policy.
How was the $870 for the truck worked out?
Unit 12 is priced like units 4 and 5, the other F-350 dumps: liability $1,402, comprehensive $318 and collision $598, so $2,318 a year. From 15 Oct 2026 to the 1 Mar 2027 expiry is 137 of 365 days: $2,318 × 137 ÷ 365 = $870. With the $50 additional insured, endorsement 007 adds $920.
Which requests are waiting on brokers?
14 changes in 12 requests are waiting on information. The oldest are Fenwick Auto Glass (a vehicle with no VIN, since Fri 16:20) and Brightwater Pool Service (a location with no square footage). Each broker has had a request; reminders go after 2 business days.
13 screens from the working solution, on its sample data. Pick one to see it large.
Where requests come from, the promises the team keeps and who may issue what are settings, owned by the service team lead.
| Setting | Default | Choose from |
|---|---|---|
| Answer every request within | 1 business day | 1 to 5 business days |
| Remind the broker about missing information after | 2 business days | 1 · 2 · 3 business days, then the team lead |
| Read back every issued endorsement | On | On · Off |
| Combine changes from one request into one endorsement | On | On · Off — when the changes share an effective date or the latest is within 30 days |
| Offer what a contract asks for and the request left out | On | On · Off — additional insured, primary wording, waiver |
| Forms editions | Filed editions, Ohio and Indiana | Filed editions · Latest ISO editions |
| Premium change a representative may issue | Up to $2,500 a year | Over that, the team lead decides |
| Where requests are read | All four | Service email · broker portal forms · call notes · scanned mail |
Every figure is labelled: a target the solution is built to, an estimate, a typical published result, or a proven one.
“demo” = seen in the working solution, on its sample policy data · “target” = the design goal, measured in the live solution · “estimated” = our estimate (including 2–3 days by hand) · “typical” = published figures (Swiss Re agency E&O claims review via IA Magazine, March 2021 — mid-term changes and cancellations 10–16% of claims). People, companies, policies and vehicles named on this page are fictional — characters and sample data in the working solution.
It is the work of taking a mid-term change request — add a vehicle or a driver, add an additional insured, raise a limit, add a location — checking it against the policy and the underwriting rules, rating it, issuing the endorsement and keying it into the policy system. Policy Endorsement Processing has six agents do the reading, splitting, checking, rating and drafting, and reads every issued endorsement back against the request.
The request reader splits the message into separate requests and quotes the sentence each came from. In the demo, one broker email and two attachments became 3 policy changes and a certificate request in 52 seconds, each change pinned to the page of the policy it alters. Requests that are not policy changes, such as certificates, billing and cancellations, are routed to their own queue.
No. The agents draft the endorsement, the keying sheet and any missing-information request; the service representative accepts and issues within authority. Changes outside that authority go to an underwriter, and the eligibility checker never approves a referral.
The issued-endorsement checker reads each endorsement back from the policy system within 10 minutes of issue and compares every field with the keying sheet and the request. A difference is a mismatch: the documents are held and it goes back to whoever keyed it. In the demo it caught 6 mismatches in 212 endorsements issued in a week — a transposed VIN, a wrong date of birth, a wrong effective date.
Yes. The issued check runs on every endorsement, including those keyed by an outsourced processing team, and shows mismatches per endorsement issued for each person or team that keyed them.
The premium rater calls your rating engine with the change and prorates it by days to expiry, applying flat charges as filed and showing the working. It never overrides a rate or waives a minimum.
Yes. The referral and eligibility rules, the authority matrix by role, the answer promise, broker reminders, drafting choices and forms editions are all settings. Rule changes are versioned, and each rule shows the open requests it touches.
The Agentic Solution Engine builds and deploys it from your requirements and documents — your underwriting rules, authority matrix, forms library and a sample of past change requests — and it goes live once every quality gate has passed. We will walk you through it on your own requests first.
No certificate promises more coverage than the policy gives.
1-min demoCancellation & Nonrenewal ComplianceEvery notice checked against state rules and moratoriums before it is sent.
1-min demoBilling Exception ManagementExceptions cleared before they age into a cancellation nobody intended.
1-min demoWe’ll run Policy Endorsement Processing on a sample of your own change requests and policies.