Connecting the Insurance Value Chain: Creating Trusted Data Exchange Between Brokers and Underwriters
1. Executive Summary
An insurance broker collected a customer’s documents, entered the information into its internal system and forwarded the application to an underwriter. The underwriter then repeated several identity checks and manually entered parts of the same information into another system.
When inconsistencies appeared between the submitted form and the identity documents, the application was returned to the broker for correction. The resulting delay affected the customer, increased administrative work and postponed policy issuance.
InsureGov would provide a trusted interoperability layer through which verified identity information could move securely between authorised participants. A customer could be verified once, assigned a Unique Insurance Identifier and recognised consistently throughout the insurance value chain.
The broker and underwriter could retain their existing core platforms while exchanging approved information through APIs or lightweight integrations.
2. Background / Introduction
Insurance delivery depends on a network of organisations. A customer may purchase a policy through a broker, bank, agent or digital platform, while the risk is assessed and carried by an underwriter. Claims may later involve assessors, healthcare providers, garages and other service partners.
Each participant has legitimate operational and regulatory responsibilities. However, when their systems are disconnected, the customer’s information is repeatedly collected, transferred and re-entered.
This duplication increases the possibility of errors and creates uncertainty about which organisation holds the most accurate version of a customer’s record.
3. Problem Statement / Challenge
A broker onboarded a commercial customer seeking motor insurance for several vehicles. The broker collected identity documents, business-registration information, vehicle details and completed proposal forms.
The documents were sent to the underwriter for review. During processing, the underwriter discovered that the spelling of the customer’s name differed across two records. One identification number had also been entered incorrectly.
The application was returned to the broker, who contacted the customer for clarification. After corrections were made, the documents were resubmitted and entered into the underwriter’s system again.
The fragmented process caused:
- Delayed underwriting and policy issuance.
- Repeated identity and compliance checks.
- Additional work for the broker and underwriter.
- Increased opportunities for data-entry errors.
- Poor visibility for the customer.
- Inconsistent records across participating organisations.
- Limited availability of standardised data for regulatory and actuarial analysis.
The issue was not a lack of effort by either organisation. The underlying problem was the absence of a shared mechanism for exchanging trusted customer information.
4. Solution / Approach
InsureGov would allow the broker to verify the customer’s identity at the beginning of the transaction. Following successful verification, the platform would create or retrieve the customer’s Unique Insurance Identifier.
With the appropriate permissions, the underwriter could use that identifier to access the verified information required for its onboarding and underwriting process. This would reduce repeated data entry while ensuring that both organisations referred to the same customer identity.
The proposed process would:
- Digitally capture the customer’s identity information.
- Validate it against an approved authoritative source.
- Conduct applicable biometric and compliance checks.
- Generate or retrieve a Unique Insurance Identifier.
- Allow approved information to be exchanged securely.
- Apply role-based access and customer-consent requirements.
- Record when and by whom information was accessed.
- Connect the verified identity to the resulting policy.
- Make standardised information available for authorised regulatory reporting.
InsureGov would operate as an interoperability layer rather than a replacement for the broker’s or insurer’s existing core platform.
5. Results & Impact
In this scenario, the underwriter would receive verified information connected to a consistent industry identifier. Data discrepancies could be addressed before the application was transferred, reducing the likelihood of repeated submissions.
The expected benefits include:
- Fewer duplicate identity checks.
- Reduced manual data entry.
- Fewer incomplete or inconsistent submissions.
- Faster movement from application to underwriting.
- Improved traceability across the customer journey.
- Lower administrative costs for intermediaries and insurers.
- More consistent policyholder records.
- Better-quality data for compliance, regulatory and actuarial purposes.
- A smoother customer experience across different institutions.
A pilot should measure average broker-to-underwriter processing time, the percentage of applications returned for correction, repeated verification costs, data-entry error rates, integration coverage and the percentage of customer records linked to verified identities.
It should also examine data quality over time. The Uganda proposal identifies insufficient and fragmented data as a barrier to effective actuarial analysis. InsureGov can improve the quality and consistency of the underlying information, although actuarial outcomes will also depend on claims history, product data, analytical methods and institutional capacity.
6. Lessons Learned / Conclusion
Connecting the insurance ecosystem does not require every participant to abandon its existing technology. The more immediate requirement is a trusted layer that allows authorised organisations to recognise the same customer and exchange approved information consistently.
By placing a verified insurance identity at the centre of the transaction, InsureGov can reduce avoidable repetition while preserving the responsibilities of brokers, underwriters and regulators.
The result is a value chain in which information moves more reliably, institutions work more efficiently and customers experience fewer delays.