MHC INTERVIEW
Why Specialty Insurance Quotes Stall—and How Carriers Can Regain Speed

Q: Introduction

Sharon: Hi, everyone. I’m Sharon Malloch from MHC and welcome to another session of Expert Insights. Today, I’m joined by Rodney Frye, who has a wealth of experience in customer communications management and is MHC’s leading expert helping insurance companies issue policies faster with greater control and lower costs. So welcome, Rodney. Thanks for joining us.Rodney: Thanks Sharon, glad to be here.

Q: Q1: Why do specialty insurance policies lack standardization?

Sharon: I know the pressures just mentioned—for greater speed, lower costs— these are common to all insurers, but they are especially pronounced in specialty insurance where policies are less standard and inherently more complex. So let’s make this the conversation today. Let’s start with the policies themselves. Why is there so little standardization in specialty insurance? And what challenges does this create for brokers trying to generate quotes?Rodney: (…to understand this) let’s compare personal insurance and specialty insurance. In personal insurance, policies are highly standardized because carriers are dealing with common repeatable risk across thousands of policyholders. A single-family home or a standard car insurance that we all have, those risks are well understood. And coverage rules, pricing models, policy language are already defined. And A policy can often be just generated with a click of a button.Specialty insurance is much different than that. It doesn’t work that way. You might be insuring a multimillion-dollar boat with a helicopter on it, or a unique property, or providing errors and omissions for different companies, or it might be cyber insurance. There isn’t a standard policy that you can just pull off the shelf. Every policy often requires custom language, specific terms, exclusions, and conditions written to reflect the unique risks that’s being covered. Coverage and risk are different for every policyholder.

Q: Q2: How does this affect the way work gets done behind the scenes?

Sharon: When policies require that level of customization, how does it affect the way work actually gets done behind the scenes? Rodney: Because every specialty insurance policy is different, it’s much harder to automate the end-to-end workflow with traditional policy admin systems. And when standardization systems don’t apply, work moves outside the system. Teams rely on documents and emails to capture back-and-forth conversations, review language, and make exceptions to move the process forward.Now this approach does keep things moving. There are many policies today that are issued through manual processes and people are getting business done—but it introduces rework and delays and increases operational cost. Importantly, it slows down response times at the exact moment that brokers and customers are comparing options and making decisions on what coverage they’re to carry.

Q: Q3: Where does this exception-driven work cause teams the most pain?

Sharon: At what part of the process does this manual, exception-driven approach cause the most pain for teams that are working on a specialty policy? At what part of the process?Rodney: The pain of manual exception driven work shows up most clearly in the quote-to-bind process—between when a broker requests a quote and the customer actually signs the policy. This is because, in specialty insurance, the process is highly unpredictable.Underwriting has to determine whether standard terms apply, whether they even have terms for even this coverage, or whether the policy requires custom language, exceptions or exclusions. And then they have to go about writing it.This can mean multiple reviews and approvals across underwriting, legal, operations, and then actually made available to the core system. Because this work is manual, timelines stretch, costs rise, risks increased and this is where carriers are exposed in terms of losing the momentum with the broker—and potentially losing the deal. Now brokers aren’t, especially if you’re using independent brokers, brokers aren’t waiting on one carrier. They’re shopping multiple options, as we all know.In addition, it also affects the relationship with the broker because they’re getting frustrated. Now I’ve worked with many carriers and when they automate this process, adding clear ownership, better visibility and consistent reviews, they see meaningful improvements in speed, efficiency, cost, and customer experience in addition to reducing risk.Most importantly, they put themselves in a better position to win the business and strengthen the loyalty of their existing customers, as well as building a strong initial relationship with their new customers.

Q: Q4: What keeps these manual processes in place? Why are they so hard to address?

Sharon: There’s a lot at stake here, and it sounds to me most carriers across the board know about these bottlenecks related to manual workarounds for specialty insurance. So what keeps the in place? Why are they so hard to address?Rodney: I will tell you now, if you talk to any carrier, they want to get rid of manual processes and it is a goal. If you look at a recent McKinsey report, it suggests as much as 40 to 60% of insurance related tasks are still performed manually by the staff. And when you’re using these manual processes to coordinate insurance quotes, visibility is a big issue.What I mean by this is when work and information is spread across email, shared folders, individual desktops, teams often don’t know where a submission stands, who owns it, or what approvals are still pending. We’ve all experienced it. We send an email out, and a week later we go, hey, we never got a response. Well, these responses are critical, right? And what’s happening?And without a centralized location for information, decisions over time get revisited. The clauses and documents get recreated either because teams can’t find what they need, or they don’t trust what exists, or it’s a new coverage that they’re doing.Where underwriting teams have clear guide guard rails and better visibility into prior decisions, with centralized coordination and reviews views and communications, carriers can reduce friction, improve sales cycle times and operate more predictably and cost efficiently at scale. They have insights, right? And that’s the big piece of it. They want insights to be able to manage that centralized process versus like we mentioned earlier, and it’s not uncommon. Many carriers have it. It’s manual and it’s the death of an email where it goes and it takes weeks to get responses back.

Q: Q5: How can carriers add these improvements without taking on like a large-scale disruptive change?

Sharon: So it’s basically about getting all of that information, all of those clauses, all of those decisions into a centralized, coordinated place where they can also have a process for clear approvals and decisions. And so that seems to be the goal.When it actually comes to implementing this, what really works in practice, and how can carriers add these improvements without taking on like a large-scale disruptive change?Rodney: I’ve worked with many carriers, and everybody wants to improve processes, right? And especially these manual processes. But a lot of times, organizations look to do these major modernizations. And really, the process of automating this content doesn’t rely on a complete policy admin system overhaul. I mean it may, in terms of your organization, but you don’t have to wait for that overhaul. There’s things you can do today.And in terms of what I’ve recommended with many carriers, and they’ve done it, it is they integrate solutions with modernization portion of the business with their current core systems. And That way they transform the business process of managing the content enabling faster turnaround to get the policies.And so then rather than replacing the core policy admin system, we can integrate core functionality to bring the needed structure to manual exception-driven work. And again, giving clear ownership, defined and consistent approval paths, and an essential place for approved language and documentation.Then, if you are doing a new policy admin system transformation, it can plug into that too when that transformation is done. And this allows you to get rid of those manual processes. What I’ve seen with carriers who implement systems that enable faster approvals, better efficiency, and quicker time-to-bind can make themselves more competitive, set themselves up to achieve the business growth that they desire.

Q: Closing

Sharon: Right, okay, so these are great insights. It’s not about some big overhaul with the core policy admin system. It’s about adding the right layer of structure and coordination around this complex high-value work that typically is pushed out of the core policy system and the standard process. So even though the work can’t be standardized, at least some of the communications and information can be.I really appreciate your insights.Rodney: No, absolutely. And you’re right. It’s about automating some tasks. You may not automate it all, but you can automate that process that slows the ability to get to binding a policy and working with those customers. So I appreciate all the great questions you asked me today.And again, to anybody watching this video, if this conversation resonates with you in any way, please add me to your network and message me on LinkedIn. I would love to connect and just discuss some options that you can consider to bring structure and automation to manage your highly complex custom specialty insurance quotes more efficiently, but more importantly, the quotes, getting them to be bound and getting a new policyholder and driving to achieve your business objectives. So again, thank you for listening to today and I enjoyed this.Sharon: Thank you so much for joining us and thanks everybody for tuning in. I hope you all have a great afternoon and the rest of your day. Thanks.

MHC Host
Sharon Jones Malloch, Head of Content Marketing at MHC

Guest
Rodney Frye, MHC’s Insurance Expert (& SVP New Business Growth)

January 28th, 2026

Specialty insurance operates under very different conditions than personal or commercial lines. Policies are highly customized, risks are unique, and underwriting decisions often fall outside what traditional policy administration systems are built to support. As a result, critical work shifts into documents, emails, and manual coordination—especially during the quote-to-bind phase.

In this Expert Insights session, Rodney Frye explains why these manual, exception-driven processes persist and where they create the most friction. When visibility is lost across underwriting, legal, and operations, timelines stretch, costs rise, and brokers grow frustrated—often while comparing multiple carriers. The risk isn’t just inefficiency; it’s lost momentum and lost business.

Rodney also outlines a more practical path forward. Rather than waiting for large-scale core system transformations, carriers can introduce a layer of structure around specialty workflows today—bringing ownership, centralized content, and consistent approvals to work that can’t be fully standardized. The result is faster turnaround, better control, and stronger broker and customer relationships.

In this video, you’ll learn:

Why specialty insurance resists traditional automation approaches
Where manual processes cause the most damage in the quote-to-bind cycle
How carriers can improve speed and predictability without replacing core systems

Key Takeaways

Specialty insurance is unique and hard to standardize, leading to manual work.
Most delays and friction happen in the quote‑to‑bind process.
Scattered emails and documents cause poor visibility, rework, and put business at risk.
Adding structure and centralizing language, decisions, and workflows dramatically improves speed and consistency.
Carriers can modernize without a full system overhaul by layering automation onto existing systems.

Meet the Host and Guests

HOST
Sharon Jones Malloch
MHC Head of Content Marketing

Read the bio

Sharon leads content marketing at MHC, overseeing strategies that fuel sales and demand generation. With more than a decade of experience in customer communications, Sharon brings deep insight into customer pain points, industry trends, and the critical role of solutions in managing regulatory communications. Before joining MHC, she honed her marketing expertise at Doxim, Messagepoint, and OpenText.

GUEST
Rodney Frye
MHC’s Insurance Expert (& SVP New Business Growth)

Read the bio

Rodney Frye is Senior Vice President and Head of New Business Growth at MHC, where he leads go-to-market strategy and revenue expansion across direct and channel sales. A seasoned SaaS sales leader with more than two decades of experience, Rodney has deep expertise helping organizations in financial services, insurance, healthcare, and government modernize operations and customer engagement. Before joining MHC, he held executive roles at Precisely, CEDAR CX Technologies, and Intelledox, driving transformative growth through innovative data and communication solutions. Guided by principles of focus, intentionality, and agility, Rodney builds high-performing teams that accelerate growth and deliver measurable customer impact.

Want to Read Instead of Watching the Video?

Below is the complete transcript from this Expert Insights session with Sharon Malloch and Rodney Frye.
Use the accordion sections to expand and explore the discussion in detail.

Introduction

Sharon: Hi, everyone. I’m Sharon Malloch from MHC and welcome to another session of Expert Insights. Today, I’m joined by Rodney Frye, who has a wealth of experience in customer communications management and is MHC’s leading expert helping insurance companies issue policies faster with greater control and lower costs. So welcome, Rodney. Thanks for joining us.

Rodney: Thanks Sharon, glad to be here.

Q1: Why do specialty insurance policies lack standardization?

Sharon: I know the pressures just mentioned—for greater speed, lower costs— these are common to all insurers, but they are especially pronounced in specialty insurance where policies are less standard and inherently more complex. So let’s make this the conversation today. Let’s start with the policies themselves. Why is there so little standardization in specialty insurance? And what challenges does this create for brokers trying to generate quotes?

Rodney: (…to understand this) let’s compare personal insurance and specialty insurance. In personal insurance, policies are highly standardized because carriers are dealing with common repeatable risk across thousands of policyholders. A single-family home or a standard car insurance that we all have, those risks are well understood. And coverage rules, pricing models, policy language are already defined. And A policy can often be just generated with a click of a button.

Specialty insurance is much different than that. It doesn’t work that way. You might be insuring a multimillion-dollar boat with a helicopter on it, or a unique property, or providing errors and omissions for different companies, or it might be cyber insurance. There isn’t a standard policy that you can just pull off the shelf. Every policy often requires custom language, specific terms, exclusions, and conditions written to reflect the unique risks that’s being covered. Coverage and risk are different for every policyholder.

Q2: How does this affect the way work gets done behind the scenes?

Sharon: When policies require that level of customization, how does it affect the way work actually gets done behind the scenes?

Rodney: Because every specialty insurance policy is different, it’s much harder to automate the end-to-end workflow with traditional policy admin systems. And when standardization systems don’t apply, work moves outside the system. Teams rely on documents and emails to capture back-and-forth conversations, review language, and make exceptions to move the process forward.

Now this approach does keep things moving. There are many policies today that are issued through manual processes and people are getting business done—but it introduces rework and delays and increases operational cost. Importantly, it slows down response times at the exact moment that brokers and customers are comparing options and making decisions on what coverage they’re to carry.

Q3: Where does this exception-driven work cause teams the most pain?

Sharon: At what part of the process does this manual, exception-driven approach cause the most pain for teams that are working on a specialty policy? At what part of the process?

Rodney: The pain of manual exception driven work shows up most clearly in the quote-to-bind process—between when a broker requests a quote and the customer actually signs the policy. This is because, in specialty insurance, the process is highly unpredictable.

Underwriting has to determine whether standard terms apply, whether they even have terms for even this coverage, or whether the policy requires custom language, exceptions or exclusions. And then they have to go about writing it.

This can mean multiple reviews and approvals across underwriting, legal, operations, and then actually made available to the core system. Because this work is manual, timelines stretch, costs rise, risks increased and this is where carriers are exposed in terms of losing the momentum with the broker—and potentially losing the deal. Now brokers aren’t, especially if you’re using independent brokers, brokers aren’t waiting on one carrier. They’re shopping multiple options, as we all know.

In addition, it also affects the relationship with the broker because they’re getting frustrated. Now I’ve worked with many carriers and when they automate this process, adding clear ownership, better visibility and consistent reviews, they see meaningful improvements in speed, efficiency, cost, and customer experience in addition to reducing risk.

Most importantly, they put themselves in a better position to win the business and strengthen the loyalty of their existing customers, as well as building a strong initial relationship with their new customers.

Q4: What keeps these manual processes in place? Why are they so hard to address?

Sharon: There’s a lot at stake here, and it sounds to me most carriers across the board know about these bottlenecks related to manual workarounds for specialty insurance. So what keeps the in place? Why are they so hard to address?

Rodney: I will tell you now, if you talk to any carrier, they want to get rid of manual processes and it is a goal. If you look at a recent McKinsey report, it suggests as much as 40 to 60% of insurance related tasks are still performed manually by the staff. And when you’re using these manual processes to coordinate insurance quotes, visibility is a big issue.

What I mean by this is when work and information is spread across email, shared folders, individual desktops, teams often don’t know where a submission stands, who owns it, or what approvals are still pending. We’ve all experienced it. We send an email out, and a week later we go, hey, we never got a response. Well, these responses are critical, right? And what’s happening?

And without a centralized location for information, decisions over time get revisited. The clauses and documents get recreated either because teams can’t find what they need, or they don’t trust what exists, or it’s a new coverage that they’re doing.

Where underwriting teams have clear guide guard rails and better visibility into prior decisions, with centralized coordination and reviews views and communications, carriers can reduce friction, improve sales cycle times and operate more predictably and cost efficiently at scale. They have insights, right? And that’s the big piece of it. They want insights to be able to manage that centralized process versus like we mentioned earlier, and it’s not uncommon. Many carriers have it. It’s manual and it’s the death of an email where it goes and it takes weeks to get responses back.

Q5: How can carriers add these improvements without taking on like a large-scale disruptive change?

Sharon: So it’s basically about getting all of that information, all of those clauses, all of those decisions into a centralized, coordinated place where they can also have a process for clear approvals and decisions. And so that seems to be the goal.

When it actually comes to implementing this, what really works in practice, and how can carriers add these improvements without taking on like a large-scale disruptive change?

Rodney: I’ve worked with many carriers, and everybody wants to improve processes, right? And especially these manual processes. But a lot of times, organizations look to do these major modernizations. And really, the process of automating this content doesn’t rely on a complete policy admin system overhaul. I mean it may, in terms of your organization, but you don’t have to wait for that overhaul. There’s things you can do today.

And in terms of what I’ve recommended with many carriers, and they’ve done it, it is they integrate solutions with modernization portion of the business with their current core systems. And That way they transform the business process of managing the content enabling faster turnaround to get the policies.

And so then rather than replacing the core policy admin system, we can integrate core functionality to bring the needed structure to manual exception-driven work. And again, giving clear ownership, defined and consistent approval paths, and an essential place for approved language and documentation.

Then, if you are doing a new policy admin system transformation, it can plug into that too when that transformation is done. And this allows you to get rid of those manual processes. What I’ve seen with carriers who implement systems that enable faster approvals, better efficiency, and quicker time-to-bind can make themselves more competitive, set themselves up to achieve the business growth that they desire.

Closing

Sharon: Right, okay, so these are great insights. It’s not about some big overhaul with the core policy admin system. It’s about adding the right layer of structure and coordination around this complex high-value work that typically is pushed out of the core policy system and the standard process. So even though the work can’t be standardized, at least some of the communications and information can be.

I really appreciate your insights.

Rodney: No, absolutely. And you’re right. It’s about automating some tasks. You may not automate it all, but you can automate that process that slows the ability to get to binding a policy and working with those customers. So I appreciate all the great questions you asked me today.

And again, to anybody watching this video, if this conversation resonates with you in any way, please add me to your network and message me on LinkedIn. I would love to connect and just discuss some options that you can consider to bring structure and automation to manage your highly complex custom specialty insurance quotes more efficiently, but more importantly, the quotes, getting them to be bound and getting a new policyholder and driving to achieve your business objectives. So again, thank you for listening to today and I enjoyed this.

Sharon: Thank you so much for joining us and thanks everybody for tuning in. I hope you all have a great afternoon and the rest of your day. Thanks.

MHC INTERVIEWWhy Specialty Insurance Quotes Stall—and How Carriers Can Regain Speed

Meet the Host and Guests

Want to Read Instead of Watching the Video?

MHC INTERVIEW
Why Specialty Insurance Quotes Stall—and How Carriers Can Regain Speed