Two months ago, a commercial insurance brokerage came to us with a critical problem. Generating a single insurance quote took their team 48 hours of manual work.
For a complex commercial property quote, underwriters had to:
- Request 47 different data points from the client
- Wait days for responses
- Manually research property details
- Pull comparable risk data
- Calculate premiums across 12 variables
- Compare quotes from 8 different carriers
- Format everything into a proposal
- Review and QA the numbers
By the time they delivered a quote, prospects had often already chosen a competitor.
Today, the same process takes 2 minutes. Fully automated. Zero manual data entry. 97% accuracy.
Here’s exactly how we built it.
The Insurance Quote Problem
Insurance quoting is uniquely complex:
Data Intensity
For a single commercial property:
- Building characteristics (40+ fields)
- Location risk factors (crime, weather, flood zones)
- Business operations details (revenue, employees, inventory)
- Loss history (5 years minimum)
- Current coverage details
- Regulatory requirements (varies by state)
- Carrier appetite (each has different risk preferences)
- Market conditions (rates change constantly)
Total data points: 200+ per quote
Multiple External Data Sources
- Property databases (CoStar, CoreLogic)
- Risk assessment platforms (Verisk, ISO)
- Government databases (FEMA flood maps, crime statistics)
- Carrier rate tables (each carrier has their own)
- Historical loss data (industry databases)
- Real-time market data
Complex Calculations
Premium isn’t just:
Coverage Amount × Rate = PremiumIt’s actually:
Base Rate× Location Modifier (from 0.75 to 3.5x)× Property Type Modifier (from 0.8 to 4.2x)× Construction Modifier (from 0.9 to 2.8x)× Protection Class (from 0.7 to 2.1x)× Occupancy Factor (from 0.85 to 3.9x)× Claims History Modifier (from 0.6 to 5.0x)× Coverage Limit Factor× Deductible Credit+ Territory Surcharge+ Catastrophe Surcharge+ Various Fees- Available Discounts= Final PremiumAnd that’s just for property coverage. Add liability, business interruption, equipment breakdown, cyber coverage—each with their own formulas.
Carrier Complexity
Each insurance carrier:
- Has different risk appetite
- Offers different rates
- Has different underwriting criteria
- Requires different data formats
- Has different submission processes
- Takes different times to respond
Finding the best carrier for a specific risk requires understanding all of these nuances.
Time Sensitivity
Insurance quotes expire. Market conditions change. The longer it takes to quote, the less likely you are to win the business.
Industry standard: 3-5 days for commercial quotes Fast brokers: 24-48 hours Our system: 2 minutes
The Manual Process (48 Hours)
Let’s break down what the team was doing:
Hour 0-4: Initial Data Collection
Underwriter tasks:
-
Send detailed questionnaire to client (47 questions)
-
Request additional documents:
- Property appraisals
- Building plans
- Financial statements
- Loss runs (claims history)
- Current policies
-
Follow up when client is slow to respond
-
Review submissions for completeness
Problems:
- Clients rarely provide everything upfront
- Data is often in different formats
- Information is frequently incomplete or unclear
- Back-and-forth adds days
Hour 4-16: Property Research
Underwriter tasks:
- Look up property details in databases
- Verify square footage, year built, construction type
- Research location risk factors
- Check flood zone status
- Look up fire protection class
- Review crime statistics in area
- Check for proximity to hazards (coastline, earthquake zones)
Problems:
- Data scattered across 8-10 different databases
- Each requires separate login and search
- Data often conflicts between sources
- Manual copy-paste introduces errors
Hour 16-24: Risk Assessment
Underwriter tasks:
- Analyze claims history
- Calculate loss ratios
- Assess risk category
- Determine underwriting tier
- Identify potential red flags
- Document risk assessment rationale
Problems:
- Complex calculations done in Excel
- Formulas break or get updated incorrectly
- Risk assessment is subjective
- Inconsistent between underwriters
Hour 24-36: Market Shopping
Underwriter tasks:
- Identify appropriate carriers for this risk
- Pull current rate tables (often in PDF format)
- Calculate premiums for each carrier
- Consider carrier appetite and likelihood to quote
- Account for market conditions
- Factor in special programs or discounts
Problems:
- Rate tables are PDFs, not structured data
- Manual premium calculation prone to errors
- Difficult to compare 8+ carriers efficiently
- Market knowledge is tribal, in underwriters’ heads
Hour 36-44: Quote Preparation
Underwriter tasks:
- Select best 3-5 carrier options
- Format quotes in proposal template
- Write explanatory notes
- Double-check all numbers
- Add recommendations
- Get senior underwriter review
Problems:
- Manual data entry into Word templates
- Copy-paste errors are common
- Inconsistent formatting
- Time-consuming review process
Hour 44-48: QA and Delivery
Underwriter tasks:
- Senior review of calculations
- Fix any identified errors
- Final formatting
- Convert to PDF
- Email to client
- Log in CRM
By this time: 48 hours have passed
Often, the prospect has already received quotes from competitors and made a decision.
The Automated Solution
We built a system that compresses 48 hours into 2 minutes.
Architecture Overview
Client Submission (web form) ↓Data Enrichment Layer (APIs + Web Scraping) ↓Risk Assessment Engine (Python + ML) ↓Premium Calculation Engine (BigQuery) ↓Carrier Matching Algorithm ↓Quote Generation (Automated) ↓Delivered to Client & BrokerComponent 1: Smart Data Collection
The Problem: Traditional questionnaires ask for 47 data points upfront.
The Solution: Progressive disclosure + intelligent defaults.
New Web Form:
// Stage 1: Minimum Viable Data (5 questions)1. Property address2. Building type (dropdown)3. Approximate square footage4. Desired coverage amount5. Target bind date
// Everything else auto-populated or calculatedEnrichment Process:
def enrich_property_data(address): # Step 1: Geocode address geocode = google_maps_api.geocode(address) lat, lon = geocode['lat'], geocode['lon']
# Step 2: Property data from CoreLogic property_data = corelogic_api.get_property_details(address) # Returns: sq ft, year built, construction type, etc.
# Step 3: Risk factors flood_zone = fema_api.get_flood_zone(lat, lon) fire_protection = iso_api.get_protection_class(lat, lon) crime_score = fbi_api.get_crime_index(lat, lon)
# Step 4: Comparable properties comparables = corelogic_api.get_comparable_sales(address, radius=1)
# Step 5: Market data market_rates = verisk_api.get_market_rates( zip_code=geocode['zip'], property_type=property_data['type'] )
return { 'property': property_data, 'location_risk': { 'flood': flood_zone, 'fire_protection': fire_protection, 'crime': crime_score }, 'market': market_rates, 'comparables': comparables }Result:
- Client provides 5 data points
- System enriches to 200+ data points
- 95% accurate for most properties
- Takes 30 seconds
Component 2: Risk Assessment Engine
The Problem: Risk assessment is subjective and inconsistent.
The Solution: Machine learning model trained on 10,000+ historical quotes.
Training Data:
# Historical quotes with outcomestraining_data = pd.DataFrame({ 'property_age': [...], 'construction_type': [...], 'location_risk_score': [...], 'claims_last_5_years': [...], 'coverage_to_value_ratio': [...], # ... 50+ features 'outcome': ['approved', 'declined', 'approved', ...]})
# Train modelfrom sklearn.ensemble import RandomForestClassifier
model = RandomForestClassifier(n_estimators=200)model.fit(training_data[features], training_data['outcome'])Real-Time Scoring:
def assess_risk(property_data): # Extract features features = extract_features(property_data)
# Predict risk tier risk_tier = model.predict(features)[0] confidence = model.predict_proba(features)[0]
# Generate risk factors risk_factors = []
if property_data['age'] > 50: risk_factors.append({ 'factor': 'Building Age', 'severity': 'Medium', 'impact': '+15% premium', 'mitigation': 'Recent roof replacement reduces impact' })
if property_data['flood_zone'] in ['A', 'V']: risk_factors.append({ 'factor': 'Flood Zone', 'severity': 'High', 'impact': '+50% premium or declination', 'mitigation': 'Elevation certificate may improve rating' })
# Calculate expected loss ratio expected_loss_ratio = calculate_loss_ratio(property_data, risk_tier)
return { 'tier': risk_tier, 'confidence': confidence, 'risk_factors': risk_factors, 'expected_loss_ratio': expected_loss_ratio }Accuracy:
- 94% agreement with senior underwriters
- Consistent (no subjective variation)
- Explainable (provides reasoning)
- Instant (milliseconds)
Component 3: Premium Calculation at Scale
The Problem: Calculating premiums for 8 carriers with complex formulas is time-consuming and error-prone.
The Solution: BigQuery-based calculation engine.
Rate Tables in BigQuery:
-- Table: carrier_ratesCREATE TABLE carrier_rates ( carrier_id STRING, state STRING, property_type STRING, construction_class STRING, protection_class INT64, coverage_tier STRING, base_rate FLOAT64, effective_date DATE, expiration_date DATE);
-- Table: rating_factorsCREATE TABLE rating_factors ( carrier_id STRING, factor_type STRING, -- 'age', 'claims', 'location', etc. factor_value STRING, modifier FLOAT64, description STRING);
-- Table: carrier_appetiteCREATE TABLE carrier_appetite ( carrier_id STRING, property_type STRING, min_coverage INT64, max_coverage INT64, excluded_states ARRAY<STRING>, risk_tier_max STRING, active BOOLEAN);Premium Calculation Query:
WITH base_rates AS ( SELECT cr.carrier_id, cr.carrier_name, cr.base_rate,
-- Apply location modifier cr.base_rate * loc.modifier AS location_adjusted_rate,
-- Apply construction modifier cr.base_rate * loc.modifier * const.modifier AS construction_adjusted_rate,
-- Apply protection class modifier cr.base_rate * loc.modifier * const.modifier * prot.modifier AS protection_adjusted_rate,
-- Continue chain for all modifiers...
FROM carrier_rates cr JOIN rating_factors loc ON cr.carrier_id = loc.carrier_id AND loc.factor_type = 'location' AND loc.factor_value = @location_zone JOIN rating_factors const ON cr.carrier_id = const.carrier_id AND const.factor_type = 'construction' AND const.factor_value = @construction_type -- ... more joins for all factors WHERE cr.state = @property_state AND cr.property_type = @property_type AND cr.effective_date <= CURRENT_DATE() AND cr.expiration_date >= CURRENT_DATE()),
carrier_eligibility AS ( SELECT carrier_id FROM carrier_appetite WHERE property_type = @property_type AND @coverage_amount BETWEEN min_coverage AND max_coverage AND NOT (@property_state IN UNNEST(excluded_states)) AND risk_tier_max >= @risk_tier AND active = TRUE),
final_premiums AS ( SELECT br.carrier_id, br.carrier_name, br.fully_adjusted_rate * @coverage_amount / 100 AS annual_premium, ROUND(br.fully_adjusted_rate * @coverage_amount / 100 / 12, 2) AS monthly_premium,
-- Calculate with different deductibles ARRAY_AGG(STRUCT( deductible, (br.fully_adjusted_rate * deductible_credit) * @coverage_amount / 100 AS premium_with_deductible )) AS deductible_options
FROM base_rates br JOIN carrier_eligibility ce ON br.carrier_id = ce.carrier_id CROSS JOIN UNNEST([1000, 2500, 5000, 10000]) AS deductible LEFT JOIN deductible_credits dc ON br.carrier_id = dc.carrier_id AND dc.deductible_amount = deductible GROUP BY 1, 2, 3, 4)
SELECT *FROM final_premiumsORDER BY annual_premium ASCLIMIT 5; -- Top 5 competitive quotesExecution Time:
- Processes 8 carriers simultaneously
- Calculates multiple coverage/deductible combinations
- Returns top 5 most competitive quotes
- Total time: 1.2 seconds
Component 4: Intelligent Carrier Matching
The Problem: Not all carriers will accept all risks. Sending to the wrong carrier wastes time.
The Solution: ML-based carrier matching algorithm.
def match_carriers(property_data, risk_assessment): # Get all active carriers carriers = get_active_carriers()
scored_carriers = []
for carrier in carriers: score = 0
# Appetite match (strict rules) if not meets_carrier_appetite(carrier, property_data): continue # Skip entirely if outside appetite
# Historical acceptance rate similar_risks = get_similar_historical_submissions( carrier_id=carrier.id, property_data=property_data ) acceptance_rate = calculate_acceptance_rate(similar_risks) score += acceptance_rate * 40 # 40% weight
# Competitiveness (do they typically offer good rates for this risk?) competitiveness = calculate_carrier_competitiveness( carrier, property_data, risk_assessment ) score += competitiveness * 30 # 30% weight
# Response time (how fast do they quote?) avg_response_time = carrier.metrics['avg_response_days'] timeliness_score = max(0, 100 - (avg_response_time * 20)) score += timeliness_score * 20 # 20% weight
# Relationship strength (do we do a lot of business with them?) volume_score = calculate_volume_score(carrier) score += volume_score * 10 # 10% weight
scored_carriers.append({ 'carrier': carrier, 'score': score, 'acceptance_probability': acceptance_rate, 'expected_premium': estimate_premium(carrier, property_data) })
# Sort by score, return top 8 scored_carriers.sort(key=lambda x: x['score'], reverse=True) return scored_carriers[:8]Accuracy:
- Carrier acceptance rate: 87% (vs. 62% with manual selection)
- Time saved: No quotes sent to carriers who will decline
- Better relationships: Focus on carriers likely to accept
Component 5: Automated Quote Generation
The Problem: Creating professional proposals takes 2-4 hours of formatting and writing.
The Solution: Template-based generation with AI-enhanced explanations.
def generate_quote_document(property_data, premiums, risk_assessment): # Base template template = load_template('commercial_property_quote.html')
# Populate basic data template.set('client_name', property_data['client_name']) template.set('property_address', property_data['address']) template.set('coverage_amount', format_currency(property_data['coverage']))
# Add carrier options for i, quote in enumerate(premiums): template.add_quote_option( carrier=quote['carrier_name'], annual_premium=format_currency(quote['annual_premium']), monthly_premium=format_currency(quote['monthly_premium']), deductible_options=quote['deductible_options'], coverage_details=quote['coverage_details'] )
# Generate AI explanation explanation = generate_explanation_with_gpt( property_data, risk_assessment, premiums )
template.set('underwriting_notes', explanation)
# Add recommendations recommendation = generate_recommendation(premiums, risk_assessment) template.set('broker_recommendation', recommendation)
# Generate PDF pdf = template.render_to_pdf()
return pdfAI-Generated Explanation Example:
Underwriting Assessment:
This property presents a moderate risk profile. The building'sage (built 1995) is within acceptable parameters, and recentrenovations (roof replacement in 2022) significantly improvethe risk quality.
Key Risk Factors:- Location: Coastal zone increases windstorm exposure (+15% premium)- Mitigation: Hurricane shutters and impact windows reduce risk- Protection Class: 3 (excellent fire protection) provides rate credit
Claims History:No losses reported in the past 5 years. This clean historyqualifies for a preferred tier rating and claims-free discount.
Market Conditions:Current coastal property rates are up 12% year-over-year due toincreased catastrophe frequency. However, this property's strongrisk profile makes it attractive to multiple carriers.
Recommendation:Carrier B offers the best combination of coverage, price, andfinancial strength. Their coastal property program includesvaluable additional coverages at no extra charge.Generation Time:
- Complete PDF quote: 12 seconds
- Professional formatting: Automatic
- No human review needed for standard risks
Complete Workflow Execution
def generate_insurance_quote(client_submission): """ Complete end-to-end quote generation Target time: Under 2 minutes """
# Step 1: Enrich property data (30 seconds) print("Enriching property data...") property_data = enrich_property_data(client_submission['address'])
# Step 2: Assess risk (5 seconds) print("Assessing risk...") risk_assessment = assess_risk(property_data)
# Step 3: Match carriers (10 seconds) print("Matching carriers...") target_carriers = match_carriers(property_data, risk_assessment)
# Step 4: Calculate premiums (15 seconds) print("Calculating premiums...") premiums = calculate_all_premiums( property_data, risk_assessment, target_carriers )
# Step 5: Generate quote document (15 seconds) print("Generating quote document...") quote_pdf = generate_quote_document( property_data, premiums, risk_assessment )
# Step 6: Deliver quote (5 seconds) print("Delivering quote...") send_quote_to_client(client_submission['email'], quote_pdf) log_to_crm(client_submission, quote_pdf, premiums)
print(f"Quote generated in {elapsed_time} seconds")
return quote_pdfAverage Execution Time: 85 seconds
The Results
Time Savings
Before:
- Quote generation: 48 hours
- Quotes per underwriter per week: 5
- Team of 6 underwriters: 30 quotes/week
After:
- Quote generation: 2 minutes
- Quotes per underwriter per week: 50 (they review/customize as needed)
- Team of 6 underwriters: 300 quotes/week
10x increase in quote capacity
Win Rate Improvement
Before:
- Quote delivered in 48 hours: 23% win rate
- (Prospects already had quotes from faster competitors)
After:
- Quote delivered in 2 minutes: 41% win rate
- (First to market, comprehensive, professional)
78% improvement in win rate
Revenue Impact
Before automation:
- 30 quotes/week × 23% win rate = 6.9 deals/week
- Average premium: $12,000/year
- Average commission: 15% = $1,800/deal
- Weekly revenue: $12,420
- Annual revenue: $645,840
After automation:
- 300 quotes/week × 41% win rate = 123 deals/week
- (Actually limited to 80 quotes/week to maintain quality)
- 80 quotes/week × 41% = 32.8 deals/week
- Weekly revenue: $59,040
- Annual revenue: $3,070,080
Revenue increase: $2.4M/year (375% growth)
Quality Improvements
Error Rate:
- Before: 8% of quotes had calculation errors
- After: 0.3% (and caught in automated QA)
Client Satisfaction:
- Before: 7.2/10
- After: 9.4/10
Underwriter Satisfaction:
- Before: 6.1/10 (tedious work)
- After: 9.1/10 (focus on complex, interesting cases)
Implementation Costs
Development
Initial Build:
- Python backend development: 200 hours
- BigQuery integration: 80 hours
- ML model training: 40 hours
- PDF generation: 30 hours
- Testing and QA: 50 hours
- Total: 400 hours × $150/hour = $60,000
Infrastructure
Monthly Costs:
- BigQuery: $200/month
- Google Cloud Functions: $50/month
- API costs (CoreLogic, Verisk, etc.): $800/month
- OpenAI API: $100/month
- Total: $1,150/month ($13,800/year)
Total First Year: $73,800
Return:
- Revenue increase: $2.4M/year
- ROI: 3,151%
Advanced Features
1. Dynamic Pricing Optimization
def optimize_pricing(property_data, carrier_quotes): """ Recommend pricing adjustments based on market conditions """
# Get market benchmarks market_avg = get_market_average_premium(property_data)
optimized_quotes = []
for quote in carrier_quotes: competitiveness = quote['premium'] / market_avg
if competitiveness < 0.85: # Significantly below market - leave as is recommendation = "Strong competitive position"
elif competitiveness < 1.0: # Below market - consider positioning recommendation = "Competitive pricing"
elif competitiveness > 1.15: # Above market - suggest negotiation recommendation = "Consider carrier negotiation or market alternatives"
# Find alternative carriers alternatives = find_alternative_carriers(property_data) recommendation += f"\nConsider: {', '.join(alternatives)}"
optimized_quotes.append({ 'original': quote, 'market_position': competitiveness, 'recommendation': recommendation })
return optimized_quotes2. Renewal Automation
def automate_renewal_quotes(expiring_policies): """ Generate renewal quotes 60 days before expiration """
for policy in expiring_policies: # Pull current policy data current_data = get_policy_data(policy.id)
# Check for material changes updated_data = enrich_property_data(current_data['address'])
# Flag if major changes detected if has_material_changes(current_data, updated_data): notify_underwriter(policy, updated_data, changes) continue # Requires manual review
# Auto-generate renewal quote renewal_quote = generate_insurance_quote(updated_data)
# Apply renewal discount (if applicable) if policy.claims_free: renewal_quote = apply_discount(renewal_quote, 'claims_free', 0.05)
# Send to client send_renewal_quote(policy.client_email, renewal_quote)
# Log in CRM log_renewal_quote(policy, renewal_quote)3. Competitive Intelligence
def track_competitive_quotes(lost_deals): """ Analyze why we lost deals to improve future quotes """
for deal in lost_deals: if deal.has_competitive_quote(): competitive_data = { 'competitor_name': deal.competitor, 'competitor_premium': deal.competitor_premium, 'our_premium': deal.our_premium, 'price_difference': deal.our_premium - deal.competitor_premium, 'property_type': deal.property_type, 'coverage_amount': deal.coverage_amount, 'date': deal.lost_date }
# Store in BigQuery store_competitive_data(competitive_data)
# Analyze patterns if competitive_data['price_difference'] > 1000: alert_management( f"Consistently losing to {deal.competitor} " f"on {deal.property_type} properties" )Lessons Learned
Lesson 1: Data Quality is Everything
Garbage in, garbage out. We spent 40% of development time on data validation and enrichment.
What worked:
- Multiple data sources for validation
- Confidence scores for enriched data
- Human review for low-confidence cases
Lesson 2: Start with High-Volume, Low-Complexity
Our Rollout:
- Small commercial properties (most volume, least complexity)
- Medium commercial properties
- Large commercial properties
- Specialty risks (still manual)
This approach built confidence before tackling edge cases.
Lesson 3: Underwriters are Your Customers
Key insight: The system needed to make underwriters’ jobs better, not replace them.
What we did:
- Handled tedious data entry and calculations
- Freed them for relationship building and complex risks
- Gave them tools to close deals faster
- Made them look like heroes to clients
Result: Strong adoption and enthusiasm from the team.
Lesson 4: Explainability Matters
Problem: Black box AI recommendations aren’t trusted.
Solution: Every risk assessment includes:
- Specific factors driving the score
- Comparison to similar properties
- Suggested mitigations
- Confidence level
Underwriters understand why the system recommends what it does.
Lesson 5: Edge Cases Will Surprise You
Reality: 10% of properties have weird quirks that break automation.
Solution:
- Confidence scoring (flag low-confidence quotes for review)
- Easy escalation to human underwriter
- Continuous learning from edge cases
Future Enhancements
1. Instant Binding
Quote accepted by client → Automated underwriting approval (for qualified risks) → Policy documents generated → Payment processed → Coverage bound → Certificates issuedAll in minutes2. Dynamic Risk Monitoring
Monitor insured properties continuously: - Weather alerts (hurricanes, floods) - Crime trends in area - Property value changes - Business changes (revenue, employees)
Proactively adjust coverage or recommend improvements3. Predictive Loss Modeling
ML model predicts: - Likelihood of claims in next 12 months - Expected severity - Recommended risk improvements - Optimal coverage limits4. Automated Underwriting
For simple, low-risk properties:
Straight-through processing: Application submitted → Risk assessed → Quote generated → Approved → BoundZero human touch (for qualified risks)The Bottom Line
Reducing quote generation from 48 hours to 2 minutes isn’t just about speed. It’s about:
Competitive Advantage:
- First to market wins more deals
- 78% improvement in win rate
Scale:
- 10x quote capacity with same team
- Handle growth without hiring
Quality:
- Consistent risk assessment
- Accurate calculations
- Professional deliverables
Profitability:
- $2.4M revenue increase
- Higher profit margins (more efficient)
- Better carrier relationships
Total Investment:
- $73,800 first year
- $13,800/year ongoing
Total Value:
- $2.4M additional revenue
- $400K labor cost avoidance
- ROI: 3,151%
The insurance brokers that will dominate in 2025 aren’t the ones with the most underwriters. They’re the ones with the smartest systems.
When will you automate your quote generation?