Hub Property Insurance Underwriting Assistant

A property submission arrives as a bundle: a broker email, a schedule of values in a spreadsheet nobody formatted consistently, loss runs as PDFs, and supporting documents in whatever shape the insured happened to have them. Before an underwriter can price anything they have to read all of it, extract the facts, and decide which of them are disqualifying — while quoting speed is the thing brokers actually choose on. The economics push toward reading less, which is exactly when a detrimental feature slips through.

• Submission data arrives across formats that no intake system normalises, so extraction is manual.
• Extracted values lose their link to the source document, which breaks the audit trail.
• Features that should disqualify or reprice a risk are found late, or not at all.
• External signal — filings, news — that bears on the risk is not consulted under quoting pressure.

Hub works the submission on arrival. Relevant data is extracted from the incoming documents and from the appropriate internal records, and the extraction retains sourcing back to the underlying document so every value on the underwriter's screen can be traced to the page it came from. Organisations can integrate external sources into the same process — SEC filings, news articles and similar public material — so that a risk is assessed against more than the broker's own account of it. Against that assembled picture the system automatically detects and flags features that are potentially detrimental, and checks the submission for standard compliance. Suggested responses to the broker or agent are then generated from the combination of automated flags and the underwriter's own interventions, keeping the human in the loop on anything consequential.

Extraction is the obvious model task — the documents are heterogeneous and no template survives contact with a real broker's submission. The less obvious one is flagging: deciding that a described feature is detrimental requires connecting the description to underwriting standards written as prose, and that connection is a comprehension step. Sourcing is the discipline that makes the output usable: an extracted value with no provenance is a liability in a file that may be litigated, so provenance is retained as a property of the extraction rather than added afterwards.

INTAKE

Property submissions across mixed document formats

EXTRACTION

Structured, with sourcing retained to the underlying document

EXTERNAL DATA

SEC filings, news and comparable public sources, integrated

FLAGGING

Automatic detection of potentially detrimental features

COMPLIANCE

Standard compliance checks run at intake

AUTONOMY

Broker responses generated, underwriter-approved

1. 01Data extracted from incoming submissions and matched against the appropriate internal records.
2. 02Sourcing to the underlying document maintained through the whole extraction.
3. 03External sources integrated so risks are assessed on more than the submission itself.
4. 04Potentially detrimental features detected and flagged rather than discovered at renewal.
5. 05Standard compliance checks executed as part of intake, not as a separate review.
6. 06Suggested broker and agent responses generated, with human-in-the-loop intervention throughout.

Sourced

Every extracted value, back to its documentdesign intent

At intake

Compliance checking, against a later reviewdesign intent

• AGENTIC AIOpsResolve™→
• PORTFOLIO & EXPOSUREHub for Portfolio Risk Trends→
• RESTAURANT OPERATING SYSTEMPrime POS→