Imagine this: Two companies approach renewal season with entirely different philosophies. Both care deeply about managing risk and ensuring protection for the business, yet how they go about it reveals something much deeper about what they value most. One believes insurance is a transaction; a matter of precision, process, and price. The other sees it as a partnership; an opportunity to build connection, trust, and mutual understanding. Both paths lead to a renewal. But only one builds a relationship.

The Efficiency Group The “Efficiency Group” prides itself on operational discipline. Every decision, every dollar, every hour must justify its return. When renewal season comes around, the risk and finance teams sit down and weigh the costs. Someone suggests an underwriting trip, maybe New York, Chicago, or London. The CFO raises an eyebrow. “Flights, hotels, meals? For what? We can email the deck.” They believe efficiency should apply everywhere, including with insurance. Their process is streamlined. The broker prepares submission materials, complete with the latest financials, loss runs, and summaries of risk controls. The package goes to market, and underwriters bid. The goal is the best combination of coverage and price.

To them, insurance is a commodity. The only difference between two policies is the number at the bottom of the quote. And besides, insurance is always looking for a way to not pay a claim, right? They move carriers from time to time. Sometimes the incumbent wins, sometimes not. If a new market offers a lower price, they take it. Each year becomes another exercise in optimization. Their leadership feels confident this is smart management. No travel expenses, no long lunches, no “relationship overhead.” They are proud of running a lean process and tell themselves that insurers should compete for their business, not the other way around. But over time, small cracks begin to show. Each renewal takes longer. Each set of questions from the underwriters seems to dig deeper, almost as if the insurer does not quite understand the company. A few times, coverage terms shift subtly, not worse, but not quite the same. And when a claim arises, one that sits in a gray area, the adjuster follows the letter of the policy. The underwriter barely remembers the account. The decision is technically correct, but it leaves a bitter taste. The company saved money on flights. But it cost them something they did not realize they were spending: relationship capital.

The Partnership Company The “Partnership Company” takes a different view. They see the underwriting meeting not as an expense, but as part of the investment in their overall risk program. Each year, their risk manager and CFO board flights to meet underwriters in person. Sometimes New York, sometimes Chicago, and always a trip to London. The schedule is tight, and no one particularly loves the travel. But they know what it represents. They sit across the table from their underwriters and tell the story of the business: where they have improved, what new management processes they have implemented, what lessons they have learned from incidents or near-misses. They answer questions directly, not through email chains or brokers. They listen too. Underwriters share what they are seeing in the market, emerging risks, shifts in appetite, claims experiences, and pressure points on capacity. Those insights often shape how the company approaches its next phase of risk management.

In one meeting, a London underwriter thanks them for making the trip. “It means a lot that you come each year,” she says. “It helps us understand you, not just your numbers.” That meeting alone reminds the team why they do it. It is not about being “wined and dined”. It is about being seen and understood. Their renewals tend to run smoothly. The same markets often stay with them year after year. The rates are not always the lowest, but they are consistent, predictable, and fair. When claims arise, the difference shows. The underwriters know the company’s character and risk philosophy. They have met the people behind the policies. They do not need to guess whether this organization does what it says; they have heard it firsthand. The result is not luck. It is trust, built over time.

Two Roads, Two Results Both companies buy insurance. Both manage risk. Both have skilled teams and thoughtful leadership. But their experiences diverge because of how they choose to engage. The Efficiency Group optimizes for efficiency and short-term cost. The Partnership Company optimizes for understanding and long-term value. One measures success in savings; the other measures it in stability. One wins bids; the other earns loyalty. The irony is that both philosophies can claim success in the short run. But the compounding value of trust and continuity often does not appear on a spreadsheet. It shows up when the market tightens, when a claim sits in a gray zone, or when the organization needs flexibility from its insurer to make a sudden pivot. A relationship does not guarantee outcomes. But it increases the margin for grace, the benefit of the doubt that comes when an underwriter knows who you are, not just what you file.

Reflections Meeting an underwriter in person is a reminder that insurance is not just about contracts; it is about people interpreting risk, accountability, and trust. It is like the difference between talking with a friend face-to-face and texting them instead. The message may be the same, but the connection and nuance are completely different. The pauses, the tone, the look in someone’s eyes, those are the details that shape understanding. An application tells the story of what you do. An underwriting meeting tells the story of who you are. For some organizations, the efficiency model makes sense. Budgets are tight, travel is difficult, and renewals can be managed remotely. For others, the in-person meeting is part of their DNA. It reinforces credibility and connection in ways no document can replicate. The key is not that one approach is right and the other wrong, but that each carries trade-offs worth recognizing. If you rarely meet underwriters face-to-face, ask yourself:

• How well do they understand your company’s culture, people, and commitment to managing risk?
• When a gray-area claim arises, will they remember your name or only your file?
• Are you trading long-term stability for short-term savings?

And if you do meet in person:

• Are you making the most of those meetings to listen and learn, not just present?
• Do you come prepared to tell your story in a way that reflects both your performance and your purpose?
• Are you translating what you hear from underwriters into better internal practices back home?

Insurance is built on data, but it is sustained by trust. That trust is not built overnight or through email threads. It is built through conversations, consistency, and the willingness to invest time in being understood. For some, that means the extra effort of flights and meetings. For others, it may mean finding new ways to make the remote process more relational and transparent. The point is not to do what others do, but to be intentional about why you do it. Because in every renewal, there are two roads: one paved with transactions, the other with relationships. Both lead to coverage. Only one builds connection strong enough to stand when the unexpected happens.

---

Let’s discuss how best to balance the value proposition of conducting in person underwriting meetings.

Click here to schedule a Discovery Session or use the Discovery Session button on my website.

The commercial insurance market is at an inflection point. Premiums continue to rise, often without a clear explanation to the insured. Clients who have not suffered a claim still see increases driven by forces largely outside their control including inflation, climate change, litigation trends, nuclear verdicts, tariffs, and geopolitical instability. As a result, the question is asked with greater frequency: why is my insurance premium going up if my exposure has not changed and I am working hard to control my risk? The lack of a satisfying answer creates frustration, and it is within this environment that artificial intelligence is beginning to change the way underwriting, pricing, and product offerings are approached.

This tension, where premiums rise without clarity, is exactly where AI’s promise of efficiency and precision feels most compelling. Faster evaluation, more accurate processing of large amounts of data, and the ability to deliver tailored quotes that more closely align premium with actual exposure are appealing to every participant in the process. For underwriters, AI can eliminate inefficiency by handling the heavy lifting of data summarization and policy comparison, freeing human judgment for the deeper evaluation of exposures, controls, and strategy. For brokers, AI can reduce time spent manually comparing forms, improve completeness of submissions, and highlight coverage gaps with more consistency. For insureds, AI can streamline data collection, cut down on errors, and ideally reduce the administrative burden of renewals. On the surface, this looks like a win for all parties.

But the very efficiencies that make AI attractive can also create fragility if judgment, diligence, and craft begin to erode. If underwriters or brokers lean too heavily on AI outputs, there is a real possibility the art of underwriting and the technical expertise of brokerage begins to fade. Younger professionals who no longer have their hands on the paper may miss the apprenticeship years that built the foundation of today’s senior talent. AI bias is another concern, especially if prompts or model design introduce unintended skew. The science is only useful if it is factual and consistent, and the art requires unbiased interpretation layered on top. This is where the strength of the experienced underwriter or broker comes forward, using AI as a complement, not a crutch.

If the role of people must be rethought, so too must the role of regulators who are tasked with ensuring fairness and solvency in a marketplace being reshaped by opaque systems. For decades, underwriting models have been imperfect and difficult to fully explain, yet widely accepted. Now, with AI, regulators are faced with something more unclear and rapidly evolving. Should they demand full interpretability, require insurers to prove AI’s decision logic, or create sandbox environments to test models before widespread deployment? The temptation will be to overregulate or underregulate, both of which carry risk. What is needed is a thoughtful balance where insurers are transparent about how AI is used, regulators hold them accountable, and the insured has confidence that premiums are fair and predictable. Whether global regulators can align on such an approach is far from certain. Fragmentation, as seen with privacy regimes, risks creating inefficiency and confusion, precisely the opposite of what AI promises to solve.

Regulation, however, is only part of the story. The industry itself will need to wrestle with how AI models are developed, deployed, and tested for resilience. Could a neutral third-party AI service emerge as the baseline, evaluating risk consistently across the industry and allowing insurers and insureds to negotiate from a shared foundation? Such a model might provide efficiency and fairness without requiring every insurer to build their own system. Conversely, if all major insurers adopt similar AI models, there is a risk of systemic blind spots and sudden volatility when models are updated. Resilience must be considered alongside efficiency. If AI is misused, manipulated, or simply wrong, the consequences could be rapid and far-reaching.

Which leaves the industry at a crossroads. The promise of AI in commercial insurance underwriting is to match premium more closely with exposure, rewarding organizations that invest in controls and transparency, and challenging those that do not. This should be a fairer system than blanket increases applied to entire classes of business. But the speed of adoption, the reliance on ambiguous models, and the fragility of new systems mean there is also the risk of disappointment.

Will AI be the catalyst for a more personalized, efficient, and predictable insurance marketplace? Or will it become another tool questioned by underwriters, brokers, and insureds alike, seen as more fiction than fact? It is too early to know. What is clear is that the industry cannot afford to wait passively. If we fail to act with intention now, we may look back years from today and realize we missed a rare opportunity to improve the marketplace for everyone.

---

Let’s discuss how you’re using AI to help improve your insurance program.

Click here to schedule a Discovery Session or use the Discovery Session button on my website.