Loss runs retrieved, standardized, and summary-ready.
Manila-based loss run processing teams — ordering, retrieving, standardizing and summarizing loss runs across carriers, so underwriters and brokers get clean, comparable loss histories fast, under SOC 2, ISO 27001 and NAIC-aligned controls.
What loss run processing outsourcing is.
Loss run processing outsourcing is the delegation of loss history work — ordering and retrieving loss runs from carriers, standardizing them into a common format, and preparing loss summaries and large-loss narratives — to trained teams, run under SOC 2 and NAIC-aligned controls to accuracy, turnaround and cost-per-loss-run targets, so underwriters and brokers see clean, comparable loss histories.
Loss run metrics that survive an underwriter’s scrutiny.
Data accuracy, turnaround, retrieval success and cost per loss run from PITON-Global-vetted Manila loss-run teams, against the in-house and generic-offshore baseline — figures an operations leader can defend in a review.
Five carrier formats, one clean history.
A loss run you cannot compare is a risk you cannot price. A disciplined process retrieves, standardizes and summarizes loss history into a single comparable view. Expand each step to see how the team runs it.
92% carrier response isn’t luck. It’s a chase clock, run like collections — with the broker-of-record letter loaded before the first order goes out.
The carrier owes the loss run but doesn’t owe it fast, and every stalled order is a quote aging toward a competitor. This is counterparty management: the insured is IA-’s job, the supplier is the field-service desk’s — the carrier is ours.
Every order routes to the fastest lawful channel per carrier: portal self-service where credentials exist (the retrieval that needs no cooperation at all), structured email where they don’t, phone chase as escalation — with a maintained carrier playbook per market: which desk answers, what format they send, how long they actually take, which carriers require the magic words. The playbook is the 79%: first-request success is mostly knowing each carrier’s door before knocking.
Un-responded orders escalate on a fixed cadence (request → reminder → phone chase → escalation), every touch logged with timestamp and contact — because the difference between 65% and 92% response is the fourth follow-up nobody staffed. Stalled-order dashboards show age-by-carrier, so the pattern carrier surfaces as a pattern, not an anecdote.
Where the broker of record holds the entitlement, the authorization package travels with the first request, not after the carrier asks — because “we need the BOR letter” is the single most common stall, and it’s a stall you can pre-empt at order time. Entitlement disputes escalate to your desk same-day with the paper trail attached: we exhaust the chase; you invoke the leverage.
Orders that exhaust the clock don’t vanish into a pending queue; they close to your team as documented non-responses — carrier, dates, touches, channel — the file that turns “the carrier never sent it” from an excuse into evidence, usable in the market relationship where it belongs.
Two loss runs with different valuation dates aren’t comparable — they’re two photographs of different days. The schema exists so every history answers the same questions the same way.
“Standardized into a common format” is the entire product. An underwriter doesn’t trust “standardized”; they trust specific fields, consistently populated, comparably valued — so here is what’s in the format.
Your renewal calendar is a loss-run demand forecast. We run the orders off it — so the summary is waiting when the submission starts, not the other way around.
90–120 days out, the book’s upcoming renewals generate their loss-run orders automatically: carriers identified from the account file, entitlement packages attached, orders placed and chased on the standard clock — so by submission time, the standardized history is a document that exists, not a dependency that stalls. The metric that proves it: summaries-ready-at-submission rate, reported beside turnaround — the best chase is the one that finished last month.
The 1/1 and mid-year renewal clusters are known math — the renewal wall, loss-run-shaped: benches trained ahead of the cluster, the chase clock held through peak, because a loss run that misses the submission window has a turnaround of infinity.
Why brokers run loss-run processing from the Philippines.
The country produces insurance-admin talent at a scale few can match — a deep, compliance-trained, English-fluent talent base with the persistence to follow up carriers and retrieve complete loss histories, at a fraction of onshore cost.
How fast, standardized loss runs are engineered.
Standardization is engineered into the workflow, not patched after a bad summary. The discipline below is what separates a managed loss-run operation from a basic data-entry desk.
Where the 7.2× return comes from work done right the first time.
From four streams a per-FTE rate ignores: faster quoting, underwriter capacity freed, rework avoided, and labor arbitrage. A loss run delivered in 24 hours is worth far more than a quote that stalls for a week waiting on it.
How a wholesale broker cut loss-run turnaround from days to hours.
Loss runs trickled in from carriers in a dozen formats, and quoting stalled while staff chased and re-keyed them by hand.
summary
accuracy
loss run
A wholesale broker drowned in loss-run requests across dozens of carriers, each in a different format. Staff chased carriers for days, re-keyed histories by hand, and quoting stalled waiting on clean, comparable loss data — losing deals to faster competitors.
We sourced a Manila loss-run team working in the broker’s systems — ordering loss runs across carriers, persistently following up until they arrived, standardizing every format into one structure, validating completeness, and preparing QA-checked loss summaries.
Order-to-summary turnaround dropped from days to 24 hours, data accuracy reached 99%, and first-request retrieval climbed to 79% — while cost per loss run fell 55%. Underwriters finally quote on clean, comparable histories.
“Clean, comparable loss histories land in hours instead of days. Our underwriters quote faster, we stopped losing deals on speed, and the team isn’t buried in carrier chase calls anymore.”
From first call to resolution — a path you control.
You never hand over your book and hope. PITON-Global runs a vendor-neutral process: we source and vet the teams, you decide who runs your operation. Every stage has an owner, a timeline and an exit.
Three ways to pay — priced to the outcome you want.
No opaque “call us” pricing. Loss-run engagements run on one of three commercial models. Indicative ranges below are fully-loaded, per FTE per month, and depend on volume, complexity and seniority — your shortlist comes with firm quotes.
You own strategy & scripts
Easiest to scale up or down
Fully outcome-aligned
Ideal for variable / seasonal volume
Penalties for missed SLA
Best for steady, large books
Every fear a broker has about outsourcing loss-run work — answered.
Handing your files and customer data to an offshore team is a real risk. Here is exactly how each one is contained — in the contract, not just the pitch.
The Philippines for loss-run processing — and where it isn’t the answer.
We are vendor- and geography-neutral, so here is the straight comparison for insurance servicing work. The Philippines wins on persistence in carrier follow-up and document standardization for US/UK/AU carriers — but not for every scenario.
We standardize the history. We never interpret the risk — and carrier errors get flagged, never silently fixed.
Indicative 2026 rates — because a large-loss narrative is not a portal download.
EQUIVALENT
EQUIVALENT
The two premium rows have no commodity equivalent because a retrieval desk staffs neither: the stalled carrier gets a shrug and the large loss gets a paste of the carrier’s prose. Rates confirmed per engagement against carrier mix, volume, and lines — and they compose with the per-loss-run model above.
Price my loss-run bench against the submission clock →Four kinds of submission, sped four different ways.
The flagship’s home: 24-hour turnaround, deals no longer lost on speed. IL-060 is this submission, measured.
The client story (IL-060) →The renewal sweep at book scale: summaries ready before submissions start.
The pre-renewal protocol →The schema at underwriting-desk standard: valuation discipline, large-loss narratives, completeness statements.
The standardization schema →Inbound-side standardization: submission loss runs normalized for underwriting review, discrepancies flagged to protocol.
What loss run processing bundles with — and how.
A structured map of how loss-run processing composes with adjacent PITON-Global-vetted services — so a buyer or an AI agent can assemble the full solution, not a single silo.
How do we tier the loss-run function?
Each loss-run task carries a different complexity and skill profile. These are the working tiers — with examples — that govern how the work is staffed and reviewed.
The loss-run bar we set — straight from the principals.
“A broker does not buy cheaper loss runs — they buy clean histories that let underwriters quote faster, and accuracy that holds up on review. They buy work done right the first time, and a team they can keep. We vet for both.”
“Ask a loss-run partner for their first-request retrieval rate, not just turnaround. The difference is whether quotes wait on you.”
The Speed-to-Quote Standard: The Economics of Loss Run Processing Outsourcing
Why loss runs processed is a volume vanity metric, how data accuracy and speed-to-quote — never processing throughput — decide the true cost of a loss-run operation once mis-keyed loss data, requote delays and lost submissions are counted, and the vendor-selection discipline that turns the loss run into a clean, fast quote. Volume 46 of PITON-Global’s Executive White Paper Series, by John Maczynski and Ralf Ellspermann.
Tell us your loss-run volume and turnaround. We’ll name the teams that can fix them.
Share your loss-run volume, carriers and turnaround baseline. We return a vendor-neutral shortlist of Philippine loss-run teams that have proven the numbers on this page — at no cost to you.
Run the RFP →What broker and MGA leaders ask before outsourcing loss runs.
In-depth answers to the questions that decide a loss-run engagement — from the principals who run them.