Insurance Submission Intake
Five years of claim history and a four-location statement of values, digested into one clean, underwriting-ready account file. Below is a rendering of the working system, populated end to end with a fully synthetic benchmark document set you can download and inspect.
Every carrier formats a loss run differently — and someone has to re-key them all
A renewal submission arrives as a stack of PDFs: loss runs in each carrier’s house format, a statement of values from the agency, narrative notes wedged into table cells. Account assembly is hours of re-keying, and the things underwriters most need — open reserves, litigation flags, large-loss concentration, protection gaps — are exactly the things that get lost in the transcription. I wrote about the submission-intake bottleneck →
From document stack to account file
Ingest
Loss runs, statements of values, and ACORD forms arrive as PDFs in every carrier’s format.
Extract & verify
Claim rows are re-footed to term summaries and grand totals; parenthesized recoveries are read as negatives, every TIV column ties out by row.
Flag
Open reserves, litigation, large-loss concentration, and protection gaps surfaced — including the ones written in narrative text, not structured columns.
Assemble
Loss history and SOV joined into one account file, ready for the underwriter or the rating system.
What the working system looks like
Every value on these screens comes from the sample document set below — a five-term carrier loss run and a four-location statement of values for the same insured — processed the way the production system would.
Screen 01 — five policy terms, footed and flagged
Claim detail — 10 claims, auto & general liability Rows foot to term summaries ✓
| Claim | Term | Line | Status | Paid + ALAE | O/S reserves | Net incurred |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CA-21-004417 | 21–22 | Auto Liab BI/PD | Closed | 44,632 | — | 44,632 |
| CA-22-006033 | 22–23 | Auto PD — Theft | Closed | 62,450 | — | 53,950 |
| CA-24-000455 | 23–24 | Auto Liab BI | Open · litigated | 41,440 | 180,000 | 221,440 |
| GL-25-000644 | 24–25 | GL Prem/Ops BI | Open | 5,425 | 37,500 | 42,925 |
| CA-26-000981 | 25–26 | Auto Liab PD | Open | 480 | 15,500 | 15,980 |
| 5 more closed claims… | 39,895 | — | 39,895 | |||
| All terms — net of $(8,500) recovery | 194,322 | 233,000 | 418,822 | |||
- Large-loss concentration: CA-24-000455 (auto BI, in litigation) is $221,440 — 53% of all-terms net incurred, with $180,000 still in reserve. The litigation status was read from the adjuster’s narrative, not a structured column.
- Recoveries handled: the subrogation recovery on CA-22-006033 appears in parentheses on the loss run — captured as a negative and footed correctly.
- Valuation gap: loss run valued 05/31/2026, 31 days before the proposed 07/01/2026 effective date — noted in the account file.
Screen 02 — statement of values, tied out by row
Schedule of locations TIV foots by row and column ✓
| Loc | City | Construction | Year | SF | Building | TIV |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Duluth, MN | Joisted Masonry (ISO 2) | 1987 | 142,000 | 9,230,000 | 14,580,000 |
| 2 | Superior, WI | Non-Combustible (ISO 3) | 1998 | 38,500 | 2,640,000 | 4,000,000 |
| 3 | Bloomington, MN | Masonry Non-Comb. (ISO 4) | 2004 | 16,200 | 1,890,000 | 2,810,000 |
| 4 | Fargo, ND | Joisted Masonry (ISO 2) | 1979 | 54,000 | 0 | 1,755,000 |
| Totals | 250,700 | 13,760,000 | 23,145,000 | |||
- Protection gap at Location 4 (Fargo): 1979 joisted masonry, roughly 60% sprinklered — flagged for underwriting attention from notes written in mixed text fields.
- No false alarms: Location 4’s building value of $0 is correctly read as “leased — landlord insures the structure,” not as a missing value.
- Carried into the account file: wind/hail exposure note on the Duluth port location; requested deductibles ($25,000 AOP; 2% wind/hail, $50,000 minimum).
Screen 03 — the output: one assembled account file
Account Summary — TwinPort Logistics, LLC
Renewal effective July 1, 2026 · prepared by Harborview Insurance Agency · loss run valued May 31, 2026
The account
TwinPort Logistics, LLC runs warehouse, distribution, cross-dock, and fleet operations across four locations in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and North Dakota. Property and casualty were submitted together; the statement of values and the loss history were joined on the insured’s FEIN.
Property — statement of values
Total insured value $23,145,000 across 4 locations, 250,700 SF, including $3,250,000 of business income values.
Loc 1 — Duluth, MN · joisted masonry (ISO 2), 1987 · 142,000 SF · TIV $14,580,000
Loc 2 — Superior, WI · non-combustible (ISO 3), 1998 · 38,500 SF · TIV $4,000,000
Loc 3 — Bloomington, MN · masonry non-combustible (ISO 4), 2004 · 16,200 SF · TIV $2,810,000
Loc 4 — Fargo, ND · joisted masonry (ISO 2), 1979 · 54,000 SF · TIV $1,755,000 (contents only; landlord insures the structure)
Loss history — five terms (2021–2026)
Net incurred $418,822 across 10 claims, net of an $8,500 subrogation recovery. Three claims remain open with $233,000 in outstanding reserves; lines of business are auto and general liability.
Largest loss: CA-24-000455 (auto bodily injury, in litigation) — $221,440 net incurred with $180,000 still in reserve, 53% of all-terms incurred. The open GL and auto claims, GL-25-000644 and CA-26-000981, carry a further $53,000 in reserves combined.
Underwriter attention
1. Auto liability severity. A single litigated BI claim drives the majority of five-year incurred; reserve development on CA-24-000455 should be watched.
2. Protection and construction at Loc 4 (Fargo). 1979 joisted masonry, roughly 60% sprinklered, flagged from narrative notes rather than a structured field.
3. Valuation gap. The loss run was valued May 31, 2026, 31 days before the proposed July 1, 2026 effective date.
Terms requested
Property deductible $25,000 all-other-perils; wind/hail 2% of TIV, $50,000 minimum. A wind/hail exposure note is carried on the Duluth port location.
Loss runs and SOV become one account file with the exposure story already written. Underwriters judge the risk — the system just clears the re-keying out of their way.
The documents behind the screens
Fully synthetic, fully internally consistent: claim rows foot to term summaries and grand totals, TIV ties by row and column — and the set hides deliberate trap cases (a parenthesized recovery that must read as negative; a litigation flag living in narrative text). That’s the standard a production system has to clear, so it’s the standard the benchmark sets.
ACORD application
Applicant, premises, GL and business-auto sections — the FEIN, requested coverages, and prior-carrier history that join the loss run and SOV into one account.
Open the PDF →Carrier loss run
Ten claims across five policy terms — auto and GL, open reserves, a subrogation recovery, and a litigated large loss.
Open the PDF →Statement of values
Four locations, $23.1M TIV, mixed construction classes, and underwriting flags written into free-text fields.
Open the PDF →Want to see it run on your submissions?
A short assessment scopes this workflow against your actual carrier formats and intake volume — before any build commitment.
Concept rendering: the screens above are the design target for the working prototype, populated with values from the synthetic benchmark set — not screenshots of shipped software. All names, identifiers, and amounts are fictional.