pri25004-prism-v1

Property claims estimating tools –why are they so important to future claims-handling strategies?

Tue, 16 Jun 2026 10:26:31 GMT

Property claims estimating tools should be close to the hearts of every insurer, MGA, loss adjuster, and property claims supply chain partner.

For many years, property claims has taken a relatively flexible — and at times laissez-faire — approach to whether these tools are used at all, never mind which tools should be adopted, how they should be governed, and what role they should play in delivering consistent claims outcomes.

That contrasts sharply with motor claims, where damage assessment and estimating systems have long sat at the centre of both insurer and repairer processes. In motor, the estimating platform is not a peripheral tool; it is central to cost control, repair methodology, audit, and operational discipline. Property claims is now moving in the same direction — and not before time.

The UK property claims estimation market is best understood as an ecosystem rather than a single software category. Cotality, formerly CoreLogic/Symbility, and Verisk’s Xactimate are among the most recognisable estimating platforms. However, the real direction of travel will be set by insurers, MGAs, loss adjusters, and building repair networks, who decide whether these tools are used merely to price repairs or to evidence fair, consistent, and regulator-ready claims outcomes.

Why do estimating tools matter?

Property claims estimating tools have moved well beyond being technical calculators used to price building repairs. In today’s market, they sit at the centre of some of the biggest issues facing property claims strategies: rising claims inflation, weather volatility, labour and materials pressures, cash settlement scrutiny, supplier governance, and the FCA’s growing focus on customer outcomes.

At their best, these tools turn damage into a clear, consistent, and evidence-based repair scope. They support faster decisions, fairer settlements, greater reserve accuracy, and stronger control over indemnity spend. Just as importantly, they create a clearer audit trail showing how a claim was assessed, why a settlement was offered, and whether the customer received a reasonable outcome.

That matters because property claims are often complex, emotional, and expensive. A customer may be dealing with a flooded kitchen, storm damage, a water leak, fire damage, or being out of their home for months. In that environment, a poorly scoped or under-priced estimate is not just a technical mistake. It can delay repairs, lead to complaints, erode trust, and result in poor customer outcomes.

The most mature insurers are therefore starting to view estimating tools not simply as cost-control mechanisms, but as part of a broader claims operating model. They influence three things that now define successful claims handling: cost control, operational consistency, and fair customer outcomes.

From estimating to claims decision support

The future of these tools is that they will move from being cost calculators to becoming claims decision platforms.

In UK property claims, this means they will increasingly influence not only how much a repair should cost, but also how a claim is triaged, validated, routed, settled, audited, and evidenced under Consumer Duty.

Today, many tools are still used mainly to produce a scope and price for repair works. The next stage is broader. Estimation tools will increasingly help decide whether a claim can be handled digitally, whether a field visit is required, whether photos, video, or moisture readings are enough, whether a contractor estimate is reasonable, whether a cash settlement is fair, and whether a claim needs escalation because of vulnerability, complexity, or dispute risk.

This will be particularly important as claims costs continue to rise. In a higher-inflation environment, insurers will want estimation tools to do more than produce a number. They will want them to help control claims leakage, reduce avoidable delay, and prove that outcomes are fair.

AI-assisted, not AI-owned

AI will become much more visible in the estimating process. It will be used to read photographs, recognise damage, suggest repair scopes, compare estimates, identify anomalies and recommend next actions.

However, full automation is unlikely to be the answer for complex property claims. A burst pipe in a modern flat, storm damage to an older property, a subsidence claim, or a vulnerable customer in alternative accommodation all require context, judgement, and human understanding.

The future is therefore likely to be AI-assisted estimating, not AI-owned claims handling. The strongest tools will combine automation with human control. They will give handlers, adjusters, and surveyors better prompts, comparables, and challenge points. However, they will still require professional judgement where cover, causation, vulnerability, repair practicality, or customer impact is in play.

Live pricing and real deliverability

One of the weaknesses of traditional estimating is that it can create a figure that looks precise but is not always deliverable in the real market. Labour availability, material inflation, regional variation, weather events, and surge demand can all render a theoretical estimate unrealistic.

Future tools will need to become more dynamic. They will need to reflect live supplier data, actual completed repair costs, regional rates, material availability, and contractor capacity. In property claims, a fair estimate is not simply a technically correct estimate. It must also be deliverable.

This will be especially important for cash settlements. If an insurer offers a customer a cash settlement based on a tool-generated figure, it will need to show that the customer can realistically reinstate the damage for that amount. A settlement that looks accurate on paper but cannot buy the repair in practice will not deliver a good customer outcome.

Better evidence, earlier in the claim

The estimate of the future will be built much earlier in the claims journey. Customers, contractors, loss adjusters, and claims handlers will increasingly upload photographs, video, documents, room measurements, invoices, and sensor data into a single workflow.

The key change will be that evidence capture and estimating will merge. Instead of a customer reporting a claim, waiting for inspection, waiting for a scope, and then waiting for settlement, the future journey should enable earlier validation and decisions.

That creates opportunity, but also risk. If poor photographs or incomplete digital evidence lead to a low estimate, the customer may be disadvantaged. Insurers will therefore need clear rules on when digital evidence is sufficient and when a claim needs human inspection.

Regulatory evidence and supplier governance

Consumer Duty has raised the bar for claims governance. Insurers increasingly need to evidence not only that they followed a process, but that the customer received a fair outcome.

Estimating tools can support that by recording why a claim was estimated in a particular way, why a cash settlement was considered fair, whether supplier rates were realistic, whether vulnerability was identified and supported, and whether outsourced loss adjusters and repair networks were using tools consistently.

They will also become increasingly important in supplier management. Insurers will be able to see which contractors regularly exceed estimates, which adjusters scope high or low, which perils generate the most variation, and which regions show the biggest gap between estimated and actual repair costs.

This will change supplier relationships. The old argument of “your quote versus my rate card” will become more data-led. Suppliers will need to provide evidence that their scope, cost, or variation is justified. Insurers, in turn, must avoid using tools to force prices below sustainable levels.

The better future model is not the lowest cost. It is the best-evidenced outcome: fair price, good repair, low rework, fast settlement, and strong customer satisfaction.

The risk of “computer says no”

The biggest danger is that estimating tools become a shield for poor claims decisions. Customers do not care that a recognised platform produced an estimate if the amount offered is not enough to complete the repair.

The future will therefore require better governance around override rights, exception handling, quality assurance, vulnerability flags, complaint feedback, post-settlement adequacy checks, supplier capacity and customer communication.

In a Consumer Duty world, insurers must be able to show that the tool helped deliver a good outcome, not just a cheaper or faster one.

Conclusion

The future of claims estimation tools in UK property claims is not simply about faster pricing. These tools are likely to become central decision platforms, combining repair scoping, AI-assisted damage recognition, live pricing, supplier benchmarking, customer communication, and regulatory evidence.

Used well, they can improve consistency, speed, indemnity control and fairness. Used poorly, they risk creating a “computer says no” claims culture in which customers are offered settlements that appear technically precise but are not practically sufficient.

The winners will be insurers and suppliers who treat estimation technology not as a replacement for judgement, but as a governed, auditable, and outcome-focused layer of modern claims handling.

The home and travel insurance claims ‘super-complaint’ - What you need to know and what you need to do about it

Thu, 28 May 2026 10:05:26 GMT

The Which? super complaint into home and travel insurance is a significant development for insurers, MGSs, TPAs, and the wider property claims supply chain.

It is not simply another consumer campaign or isolated regulatory issue. It reflects a wider concern that claims handling, customer understanding, and third-party oversight may be contributing to poor outcomes across parts of the insurance market.

For property claims, the implications are especially important. Claims are delivered through a complex ecosystem of insurers, handlers, loss adjusters, surveyors, contractors, validation specialists, drying companies, contents suppliers, and alternative accommodation providers. The insurer may bear regulatory responsibility, but the customer experiences the overall performance of the entire value chain.

The FCA has now moved beyond its initial response to the super-complaint and into follow-through supervisory work. Its focus includes claims handling, customer service, consumer understanding, and the oversight of third parties involved in claims delivery.

For firms in the property claims market, the message is clear: it will no longer be enough to show that processes were followed or SLAs achieved. Firms need to evidence fair, timely, and understandable outcomes across the full claims journey.

What is a super-complaint?

A super-complaint is a formal complaint made by an approved consumer body, such as Which? or Citizens Advice, to a regulator about a problem that appears to be causing significant harm to consumers across a market.

In simple terms, it says: this is not just a small number of individual complaints; there may be something in the way the market operates that is systematically harming customers.

That is why super-complaints matter. They are made by recognised independent consumer bodies and are therefore considered credible, substantive, and potentially market-wide. They are not about a single poor outcome or a single badly handled claim. They are about whether features of a market, or combinations of them, may be damaging to consumer interests.

Regulators are required to respond within a defined timeframe and may then publish findings, demand changes, increase supervision, require firms to improve practices or, where appropriate, take enforcement action.

Previous super-complaints show why the insurance claims super-complaint should not be dismissed simply because the FCA has completed its initial response. Super-complaints often act as catalysts rather than one-off events.

The Payment Protection, Dual Pricing, and Gender Discrimination in pricing super-complaints all began with concerns about consumer harm that appeared systemic rather than isolated. They created almost instant furore and allegations of industry malpractice, but importantly, over time, they led to market studies, new rules, redress exercises, changes in behaviour, and sustained regulatory scrutiny. The lesson for insurers and property claims suppliers is clear: the immediate FCA response will only be the start of a longer period of supervisory attention and market change.

What does the recent insurance super-complaint address?

The Which? super-complaint focuses on home and travel insurance and raises concerns about whether customers receive fair outcomes when they need to make a claim.

At its heart, the complaint is about whether insurance is doing what customers reasonably expect at the point of need. Customers buy insurance for protection, reassurance, and financial resilience. The claim is where that promise is tested.

Which? submitted its super-complaint to the FCA in September 2025, arguing that consumers were experiencing poor outcomes in home and travel claims. The FCA responded in December 2025, confirming that it would expand its work in these markets, including customer service, claims delivery, and the way firms oversee third parties involved in claims handling.

That final point is particularly important for property claims. Property claims are rarely delivered by a single firm acting in isolation. The customer journey may involve FNOL teams, claims handlers, loss adjusters, surveyors, repair networks, drying specialists, contents providers, alternative accommodation partners, data providers and cash settlement teams.

The insurer may own the regulatory responsibility, but the customer experiences the combined effect of the entire claims ecosystem.

What immediate issues should concern property claims stakeholders?

For property claims, the risks are clear. A claim may be technically covered but still result in a poor outcome if the customer is passed between parties, receives inconsistent messages, faces avoidable delays, or is offered a cash settlement they do not fully understand.

Equally, a claim may be declined correctly but still handled poorly if the explanation is unclear, the evidence is not properly shared, or the customer feels the decision has been reached through process rather than judgment.

The super-complaint, therefore, shifts the debate from isolated service failures to systemic market confidence. It asks whether poor claims handling, unclear communication, weak customer understanding, and insufficient oversight are features of the market rather than exceptions within it.

For those operating in the property claims value chain, that is an important distinction. The question is no longer simply, “Did we follow the process?” It is, “Did the customer receive a fair, timely, and understandable outcome, and can we evidence that?”

How does this link to Consumer Duty?

The super-complaint links directly to Consumer Duty.

Consumer Duty requires firms to act to deliver good outcomes for retail customers. In claims, that cannot be demonstrated simply by showing that a diary date was met, a process was followed, or a supplier SLA was technically achieved.

The more important question is whether the claim outcome was fair, whether the customer understood what was happening, whether avoidable delay was prevented, and whether the firm can evidence effective oversight across all parties involved.

For insurers and MGAs, this has significant implications. The FCA’s response specifically refers to a review of the oversight of third parties that handle claims. That brings delegated authority models, outsourced claims functions, TPA relationships, repair networks, and supplier remuneration structures into sharper focus.

This does not mean supply chains are the problem. In property claims, specialist suppliers are essential to delivering good outcomes. The issue is whether the supply chain is designed, governed, and measured around customer outcomes as well as cost control.

A low-cost supplier model that leads to delays, repeated contact, poor communication, or unsuitable settlement decisions may appear efficient internally while creating regulatory and reputational risk externally.

What areas of claims handling are likely to come under scrutiny?

Several areas are likely to attract particular attention.

The first is third-party oversight. Insurers and MGAs will need to show that suppliers are properly selected, managed, monitored, and challenged. Traditional scorecards based on cost, lifecycle, and complaint volumes will not be enough on their own.

The second is communication. Customers need clear, consistent, and timely explanations, particularly where claims are complex, declined, partially accepted, or subject to technical investigation.

The third is cash settlement. Cash settlements can be entirely appropriate and may suit many customers. But they become problematic if the customer does not understand the basis of the offer, if the amount is not realistic for reinstatement, if vulnerability is not considered, or if cash is used mainly to close the claim quickly rather than deliver a fair outcome.

The fourth is vulnerable customer handling. Property claims often arise at moments of distress, disruption, or financial pressure. Firms need to consistently identify vulnerabilities and ensure that support follows the customer throughout the entire claims journey.

The fifth is complex property claims, including storm, flood, escape of water, and subsidence. These claims often involve technical decisions, multiple suppliers, and emotionally charged circumstances. The outcome depends not only on the coverage decision, but on how the process is explained and coordinated.

Where is the FCA now with this process?

The FCA is past the initial response stage and is now in the follow-through and supervisory phase.

The super-complaint has not led to any dramatic intervention, such as an immediate full-market study or a new rulebook. Instead, it has sharpened and widened the FCA’s existing work on home and travel insurance.

For property claims, the most important live point is the FCA’s focus on outsourced and third-party claims processes. That brings TPAs, loss adjusters, repair networks, surveyors, validation providers, drying contractors, contents suppliers, and alternative accommodation providers directly into the spotlight.

The direction of travel is clear. The FCA is moving from “we have responded” to “we are now testing whether firms are improving outcomes.”

What should firms do now?

Insurers, MGAs, and suppliers should treat the super-complaint as both a regulatory warning and a strategic opportunity.

The practical response should include reviewing supplier governance, strengthening MI, testing customer outcomes, improving communication, scrutinising cash settlement practices, and ensuring that vulnerable customers are consistently supported throughout the claims journey.

For suppliers, the opportunity is to move beyond being seen as operational providers and to position themselves as outcome partners. That means being able to evidence contribution to fair customer outcomes, not simply delivery against task-based SLAs.

The importance of the super-complaint lies in the fact that it crystallises a wider shift already underway. Claims are no longer a back-office fulfilment function. They are the point at which product value, customer trust, operational resilience, and regulatory compliance converge.

For the property claims value chain, the firms that respond best will be those that can balance indemnity control with genuine customer care — and evidence that balance clearly.

Summary

The Which? super-complaint is important because it brings together several issues that were already moving up the regulatory agenda: claims handling, Consumer Duty, customer understanding, vulnerable customers, cash settlements, and third-party oversight. For property claims, the message is particularly clear.

The customer outcome is not created by the insurer alone, but by the collective performance of the full claims value chain. Insurers, MGAs, TPAs, and suppliers, therefore, need to move beyond process compliance and demonstrate that their claims models deliver fair, timely, and understandable outcomes in practice.

Those that can provide clear evidence of this will be better placed to meet regulatory expectations, strengthen customer trust, and differentiate themselves in an increasingly outcome-focused market.

Consumer duty – why insurers and suppliers need to up their relationship game

Fri, 08 May 2026 09:46:24 GMT

The Financial Conduct Authority's Consumer Duty is now well-established as a regulatory framework.

What is less well established is its role as a genuine driver of claims philosophy and strategy across insurers, MGAs, and their supply chains.

That gap is real, and it really matters. Why? Because Consumer Duty does not simply refine existing expectations—it changes the basis on which claims handling is judged.

The shift from a regulatory approach based on “Did you follow the rules and processes?” to one based on “Did the customer receive a good outcome?” is fundamental.

The FCA has been clear, firms must be able to “…demonstrate that they are delivering good outcomes for retail customers…”, not simply that they’re operating compliant processes.

Parts of the claims value chain have been slow to respond to this shift. That creates risk—not just of regulatory scrutiny but of failing to meet the standards customers increasingly expect.

What Consumer Duty really means in claims

Consumer Duty places claims firmly at the centre of regulatory accountability.

It is in the claims journey that the value of the product is ultimately tested, and the FCA has been explicit that fair value must be assessed across the entire customer lifecycle, including at the point of claim.

For a claims industry historically focused on measuring activity, the most important adjustment is understanding the distinction between activity and outcome.

Claims functions have traditionally tracked indicators such as call answering times, backlogs, and service levels. These remain relevant, but they are not what the regulator considers to be outcomes. An activity is what you do; an outcome is what the customer experiences as a result.

It is entirely possible to deliver strong activity metrics and still produce poor outcomes. Calls can be answered quickly, yet handled poorly. Claims can be progressed within SLAs, yet result in settlements that customers don’t understand or can’t act upon.

The outcomes the FCA is concerned with are more fundamental: whether settlements are fair and sufficient, whether customers understand the options available to them, and whether they can, in practice, reinstate their position.

As the FCA has stated, firms must “…act to deliver good outcomes and avoid causing foreseeable harm…”—a standard that goes well beyond process adherence.

This, in turn, requires a different approach to oversight. Outcomes must be evidenced through robust data, not assumed. And risk management must become more proactive, with firms expected to identify where poor outcomes could arise and act before harm crystallises.

Who owns Consumer Duty—and what that means for supplier relationships

The question of accountability is straightforward in regulatory terms, even if it is uncomfortable in practice.

The insurer is responsible.

The FCA has been unequivocal on this point: firms “…remain responsible for outcomes even when activities are outsourced…”. From a regulatory perspective, there is no distinction between an insurer’s own claims operation and that of its MGA or supply chain.

For insurers that rely heavily on delegated authority or outsourced claims models, this represents a material shift. It requires far greater visibility, control, and assurance than has historically been the case. The idea that elements of the claims journey can sit outside direct oversight is no longer tenable.

The reaction to this message in market forums such as ‘I Love Claims’ over the past 12–18 months suggests it has not yet fully landed. But the direction of travel is clear: insurers, MGAs, and suppliers all need to evolve how they work together to meet the FCA’s expectations.

What insurers and MGAs need to do differently

Placing Consumer Duty at the heart of the insurer–supplier relationship requires a more disciplined and outcome-focused approach.

First, performance management must move beyond traditional operational metrics. Insurers need consistent, outcome-based measures across their supply chains—covering areas such as settlement quality, customer understanding, complaints, and rework. Crucially, these measures must be comparable across suppliers, enabling firms to identify variation and act on it.

Second, contractual frameworks need to reflect regulatory reality. When claims handling is delegated or outsourced, expectations around Consumer Duty cannot remain implicit in the background. They need to be explicit about data provision, audit rights, and outcome-based performance.

Third, risk management must become more forward-looking. The FCA expects firms to identify “…foreseeable harm…”, which in practice means using data to detect where outcomes may deteriorate and intervening early. This requires both capability and focus—neither of which can be assumed.

What suppliers must do differently

The implications for suppliers are equally significant.

Delivering the service in line with a specification is no longer sufficient. Suppliers must be able to demonstrate that the services they deliver result in good customer outcomes and that they understand the regulatory context in which their clients operate.

This means being able to evidence performance in outcome terms, not simply activity. It also means aligning more closely with insurers’ customer and regulatory objectives, rather than operating purely to contractual or operational targets.

In practical terms, regulatory alignment is becoming a core component of supplier capability. Those who cannot demonstrate it will increasingly struggle to remain relevant in a Consumer Duty environment.

Conclusion

Consumer Duty is changing the nature of the insurer–supplier relationship.

It is no longer enough to deliver efficiently against a set of agreed activities. The requirement now is to deliver—and evidence—consistently good customer outcomes across the entire claims value chain.

As the FCA has made clear, firms must be able to “…monitor, assess, and understand the outcomes their customers receive…”. That expectation applies equally to what happens inside the organisation and across its supply chain.

At Prism Claims Group, we see this as an opportunity to strengthen collaboration among insurers, MGAs, and suppliers. By focusing on transparency, consistency, and outcome-based performance, it is possible not only to meet regulatory expectations but to build more effective and resilient claims solutions.

Because ultimately, in a Consumer Duty world, the standard is simple:

It is not enough to run the process well; the customer has to come out of it in the right place.

A personal touch mattered most in the run-up to Christmas

Tue, 31 Mar 2026 16:52:50 GMT

A worrying discovery of a water leak in a third-floor en suite bathroom quickly escalated into a stressful situation for our client’s policyholder. Once appointed to handle the claim, the Prism Claims Group team responded immediately, resulting in a positive outcome for a busy household at Christmas.

Loose connections
A loose connection on a soil pipe was identified as the cause of the leak. Consequently, the property required drying to remove excess moisture, but while this was underway, another issue was identified. The rubber connectors serving the bathrooms on all three floors had failed. The findings were shared with our client, who agreed that all required repairs could be covered under a single claim. This decision helped ease concerns at an already difficult time for the policyholder.

The contractor, part of our professional and trusted network, carried out the repairs with particular care, especially when removing the bath. By doing so without disturbing the surrounding tiles, they avoided the need for tile replacement and re-plastering. This approach significantly reduced disruption and helped ensure the work could be completed before Christmas, which was especially important to the policyholder.

Extensive praise for the team
Throughout the claim, clear communication and personal support played a key role in reassuring the policyholder. The contractor deployed by the Prism Claims Group team offers a rare service in the insurance repair sector: a welcoming office where policyholders can meet in person, discuss the work, and choose finishes like tiles, paint, and flooring over coffee.

Reflecting on their experience, the policyholder shared the following feedback:

“I just wanted to write this email to show our appreciation for all of the hard work and dedication that we have received regarding our water insurance claim.

“We had a great experience from start to finish. Stuart, Steve, and the team kept us fully updated on when the workers would be arriving, what needed to be done, and the timeframes involved.

“Their communication was fantastic and really helped put our minds at ease, especially as we were anxious and stressed when we first discovered the leak.

“The workers themselves were excellent; clean, tidy, polite, and very professional. They got on with the job efficiently, went above and beyond, and their attention to detail was spot on. The way they tidied up afterwards made it feel as though they had never been in the house, which we really appreciated.

“We were also supported over the phone whenever needed, and visiting the new office added a personal touch to the whole process. The staff took the time to sit down with us over a coffee, talk through exactly what needed to be done, and show us all the options for tiles, paint, flooring, and more. This made the decision-making process much easier and gave us confidence in the work being carried out.

“Thanks to the contractor’s expertise, we didn’t need a full bathroom replacement, which saved time and ensured the work was completed before Christmas, exactly what we wanted. Having options available throughout the process was a huge help.

“We couldn’t be more appreciative of this company and would happily use them again for private works in the future. Working in HR and dealing with trades, labour, and managing directors nationwide, I can honestly say every member of staff has been a delight. If I could, I would snap them up in a heartbeat.

Thank you again for everything!”

A positive outcome for a policyholder
This claim is a strong example of how thoughtful repairs and customer-focused service can create positive outcomes for all.

By carefully removing the bath and preserving the existing tiles, the contractor also kept costs to a minimum, saving over £1,000.

Prism Claims Group is driven by delivering outcome-focused claims handling. Those outcomes include optimal loss and expense ratios, exemplary customer satisfaction, and full compliance.

A fast, stress-free service for a vulnerable customer

Mon, 30 Mar 2026 16:09:50 GMT

At Prism Claims Group, we strive to achieve the outcomes that matter most to our stakeholders. This was demonstrated in a recent case in which we handled a motor-impact claim for our client, on behalf of a vulnerable customer.

Despite the challenging circumstances, we were recognised for delivering a positive experience.

The insurance claim was made after an ambulance accidentally reversed into a patient’s driveway wall. The customer we dealt with, whose mother had been unwell and unable to handle the claim, was pleased with a completely hassle-free experience with Prism Claims Group.

During the closing call, the customer’s daughter praised Prism Claims Group, saying: "You have provided me with really fantastic service, the communication has been great, and I have had to do no chasing. This was really lovely, given that it is my mother’s claim. She has been poorly and wasn’t able to take on the stress of this claim. All-round great service from both Prism Claims Group and the contractors who attended."

She contrasted her experience with another insurance company, calling it “terrible experience,” and commended Prism Claims Group for completing the claim more quickly and smoothly.

The claim process itself delivered fantastic outcomes, demonstrating the efficiency, professionalism, and a human touch that Prism Claims Group is known for:

Contractor appointed: 17 October
Survey completed: 23 October
Scope and costs approved: 26 - 31 October
Repairs commenced and completed: 6 - 7 November

Louise Couldwell, Operations Director, said: “From survey to completion, the entire process took just 11 days, with all service levels met throughout.

“This is a great example of our commitment to proactively set, meet, and beat expectations for policyholders and their insurers. But also, applying a bit of common sense and kindness in an already stressful situation.”

Prism Claims Group is supported by a trusted, vetted network of licensed contractors that can be quickly deployed to deliver a professional service that combines high-quality craftsmanship and cutting-edge technology.

Working together, the contractor and Prism Claims Group delivered the outcomes that mattered most, including:

A prompt, stress-free service for a vulnerable customer
Controlled indemnity spend
Protection of our client’s positive brand reputation

Louise concluded: “We put people at the heart of every claim, prioritising the outcomes that matter most to them. We call it looking at claims through a different lens. Something we instil in all our fantastic people.”

Prism Claims Group goes back to school!

Tue, 24 Mar 2026 16:48:56 GMT

Rob Ford, Vendor Manager at Zurich Insurance, invited members of the Prism Claims Group team to help deliver a much-needed improvement project at Wimborne Primary School in Southsea, Portsmouth.

He said: “After seeing a plea for help in the Wimborne Primary School newsletter, I asked Prism Claims Group if they would be willing to volunteer their time along with mine, to restore and refresh the school’s boundary wall, ensuring it was safe, sturdy, and welcoming in time for the start of the new school term.”

Carl Daborn, National Contractor and Surveyor Performance Manager at Prism Claims Group, was one of the team members who took part.

He said: “We were delighted to offer our support. However, beyond painting, light gardening, and basic DIY skills, it’s fair to say that we needed to tap into our network of building repair contractors!

“That’s when we turned to Topmarx, specialists in the reinstatement and restoration of residential and commercial properties. Incidentally, Peter from Topmarx also had his children attend this school when they were younger.”

The boundary wall, measuring 25 metres long by 1.7 metres high, needed some TLC. To start, protective measures were put in place to ensure safety and minimise disruption. Vegetation and weeds growing along the wall were then cleared away, creating a clean base for the repairs. Essential masonry works were carried out, including repointing sections of the wall and replacing damaged bricks.

Once the brickwork was completed, the surface was prepared by scraping back any bubbled or loose paint. A fresh, durable paint finish was then applied across the entire wall, giving it a clean and vibrant new look.

James Fairbairn, Director of Solace Loss Adjusting, part of the Prism Claims Group, said: “It was a great day well spent doing something positive for a good cause. We were pleased that Rob asked us to help out. We all pull together as a team in our day jobs anyhow, but we’re not always face to face, so it was a great opportunity to get to know each other better.”

Carina Jacobs, Headteacher at Wimborne Primary School, said: “We’re incredibly grateful to Zurich, Prism Network, and Topmarx for restoring the wall in our outdoor learning area. Their work has created a safe and inspiring space for our children, who were thrilled to return to school and see the transformation.

“The wall is now ready for our site team to paint a beautiful mural, and the excitement among the pupils is truly heartwarming. Thank you for helping us bring creativity and learning outdoors!”

A fast, coordinated response to a leaky problem

Fri, 28 Nov 2025 16:16:55 GMT

On behalf of a major insurer, Prism Claims Group and its supply chain worked quickly together to deliver an excellent outcome for a policyholder.

In Autumn 2025, a resident reported a water leak behind their kitchen cabinets. The leak was severe enough that they had to turn off the mains supply, as water continued to flow whenever it was turned back on. A plumber had already attended but was unable to identify the cause.

At 09:11, immediately following the First Notification of Loss (FNOL), Prism Claims Group deployed a leak detection specialist to investigate the ongoing leak. By 11:50, they were on site, just over two hours later, and had successfully identified the issue.

The cause of the leak
The property, a new build still under warranty, was found to have an installation fault: the boiler cupboard had been fixed to the wall, piercing the mains pipe. Thanks to data from the leak detection specialist, Prism Claims Group was able to confirm an early recovery opportunity for their insurance company client to pursue with the builder or developer.

Rapid response and seamless coordination
The following day at 11:58, the leak detection report was made available to the insurance company for review. ‘Escape of Water’ cover was approved, and by 16:53, Prism Claims Group was mobilising trades.

The next day at 13:11, the tradesperson deployed by Prism Claims Group visited the property, removed the kitchen unit, and exposed the damaged pipe. Prism Claims Group is awaiting the reinstatement scope, and the policyholder is arranging the pipe repair directly.

Outcome highlights

Same-day investigation and cause identified
A leak detection specialist onsite within two hours of instruction
Report received and cover approved within 24 hours
Contractor on-site the following morning
Early recovery opportunity identified under the new build warranty
Reduced the need for alternative accommodation and minimal disruption
Consistent communication and customer support throughout

A simple focus on customers

Working as one, the team moved quickly to identify and fix a small issue causing a big problem: repairing a leak and getting a policyholder’s water running again. It’s a great example of seamless teamwork, quality workmanship, and putting the customer first. We’ll continue to monitor reinstatement progress and support the policyholder every step of the way.