Spotting Prior Claims and Open Litigation in Submission Files Using AI  Underwriting Manager (General Liability & Construction, Property & Homeowners, Specialty Lines & Marine)

Spotting Prior Claims and Open Litigation in Submission Files Using AI  Underwriting Manager (General Liability & Construction, Property & Homeowners, Specialty Lines & Marine)
At Nomad Data we help you automate document heavy processes in your business. From document information extraction to comparisons to summaries across hundreds of thousands of pages, we can help in the most tedious and nuanced document use cases.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.

Spotting Prior Claims and Open Litigation in Submission Files Using AI  What Every Underwriting Manager Needs to Know

Underwriting Managers across General Liability & Construction, Property & Homeowners, and Specialty Lines & Marine are under intense pressure to find hidden prior claims and open litigation before quoting. The challenge: critical facts are scattered across sprawling broker submission packages, loss run reports, litigation summaries, schedules, and emailsoften inconsistent, sometimes incomplete, and nearly always time-consuming to review. Miss one prior water loss, a construction defect suit, or a Jones Act claim and you risk mispricing, adverse selection, or regulatory headaches later.

Nomad Datas Doc Chat for Insurance changes the game. It ingests entire submission files (thousands of pages), normalizes entities, reads every schedule and footnote, and surfaces all references to prior claims and active litigation in minutes. With real-time Q&A, Doc Chat answers, List all open suits for any named insured or DBA since 2019 or Summarize Property losses by peril and reserve with page-level citations. For the Underwriting Manager, this is the fastest path from Whats really in this submission? to a defensible, profitable quote.

Why prior claims and open-litigation checks are so hard for todays Underwriting Manager

In theory, brokers provide clean loss runs and litigation summaries. In practice, Underwriting Managers see fragmentation: multiple carrier loss run formats, inconsistent naming conventions, and litigation references buried in email threads or attachments. The problem is magnified across lines of business: construction schedules and additional insured endorsements for GL, catastrophe-exposed property schedules for Homeowners, and complex vessel or cargo documentation for Marine. The cognitive load is enormous, and so are the stakes when details slip through.

Three realities make this problem uniquely difficult:

  • Volume and inconsistency: Broker submission packages can exceed 500 to 5,000 pages. Loss run reports from prior carriers vary by layout and terminology. Litigation summaries might be brief, outdated, or leave key docket details to be inferred.
  • Entity sprawl: The same insured appears as multiple entities: parent company, DBAs, project JVs, OCIPs/CCIPs, fleet subsidiaries, or named insureds vs. additional insureds. Reconciling them manually is error-prone.
  • Hidden signals: Litigation is often implied, not explicit: a demand letter in correspondence; a footnote in a loss run hinting at a suit; a broker note about defense counsel retained; a PACER docket number tucked into a PDF scan; or a Florida AOB claim signaling likely litigation ahead.

Nuances by line of business: GL & Construction, Property & Homeowners, Specialty Lines & Marine

General Liability & Construction

GL & Construction submissions often include ACORD 125/126, contractor supplemental applications, COIs, additional insured endorsements, project manifests, OCIP/CCIP documentation, OSHA 300/300A logs, subcontractor rosters, and multi-carrier loss run reports. Prior claims can be scattered across project codes and subcontractors; open litigation may relate to construction defect, premises liability, or products liability. Additional insured tenders and cross-claims are common, and the insureds role (GC vs. sub) dictates exposure. Without standardized cross-references, Underwriting Managers risk underestimating frequency or misclassifying severity trends.

Property & Homeowners

Property and Homeowners submissions bring COPE data, SOVs, inspection photos, valuation reports, catastrophe modeling outputs, repair estimates, and loss run reports. Prior water, fire, and hail claims drive future risk, but data is scattered across carriers and policy terms. For homeowners in litigious venues (e.g., AOB environments), open litigation can be referenced indirectly via legal notices, SIU flags, or counsel communications. Unreported prior roof repairs, earlier non-weather water losses, or prior arson investigations matter for rating, deductible strategy, and underwriting appetite.

Specialty Lines & Marine

Marine and Specialty Lines amplify complexity: hull & machinery logs, P&I claim histories, crew medical reports, surveyor findings, cargo manifests, charter party agreements, and port state control records. Open litigation and prior claims may sit across multiple jurisdictions or international venues, with Jones Act or Longshore claims evolving over long timelines. Insured names can appear in maritime liens, arbitration summaries, or cargo subrogation files that dont neatly align with the brokers one-pager. Capturing this requires entity normalization, timeline reconstruction, and cross-document inference.

How the process is handled manually today

Most underwriting teams still rely on knowledgeable reviewers to comb through submissions page-by-page. A typical manual workflow for an Underwriting Manager includes:

  • Opening the broker submission package and building a quick table of contents by hand (ACORD 125/126/140, SOVs, schedules of jobs/vessels/locations, endorsements, inspection reports, and loss runs).
  • Reviewing loss run reports from prior carriers, standardizing dates of loss, cause/peril descriptions, paid vs. outstanding reserves, and closing status. Re-keying totals into an internal template or rating model.
  • Comparing loss runs to litigation summaries, looking for matching claim numbers, counsel names, or jurisdictional hints.
  • Searching email correspondence for references to defense counsel, demand letters, mediation dates, or settlement authority.
  • Googling and checking public court portals (e.g., PACER and state court sites) for potential open litigation when something seems off or the timeline is vague.
  • Reconciling insured names (parent/DBA/JV) across documents to ensure all claimed entities map to the same risk profile.
  • For GL & Construction, tying OSHA incidents, subcontractor claims, and AI/COI endorsements back to job-site loss experience; for Property, aligning SOV locations with prior losses and catastrophe footprints; for Marine, mapping P&I incidents to crew roles, ports, and vessel IDs.

This painstaking process is costly, slow, and inconsistent. Even excellent teams miss details when faced with 1,000+ pages. Cycle times stretch, quote opportunities lapse, and referral reviews pile up. Worse, the review quality varies by deskputting the Underwriting Manager in a constant quality-control loop.

Introducing automation: AI review for open litigation in submissions

Today, Underwriting Managers search for AI review for open litigation in submissions because the manual approach is not scalable. Nomad Datas Doc Chat is purpose-built to automate exactly this kind of deep, cross-document diligence. It ingests everything in the broker submission package along with litigation summaries, loss run reports, ACORD forms, endorsements, emails, OSHA logs, SOVs, surveys, and photosthen reads every page and answers your questions instantly with citations.

Examples of underwriting questions Doc Chat handles out of the box:

  • List all prior claims by entity (including DBAs and project JVs) and tag which are still open, with paid-to-date and outstanding reserves.
  • Surface any references to defense counsel, mediation, or trial dates; include docket numbers and jurisdictions if present.
  • Normalize name variants across all documents and produce a single view of loss history for the insured and any additional insured roles.
  • Summarize Property losses by peril and mapped location ID from the SOV; flag repeat water-loss addresses in Homeowners.
  • For Marine, list P&I and hull claims with crew roles, incident ports, and any Jones Act litigation references since 2018.

How Doc Chat works under the hood for prior claims detection automation underwriting

If youre exploring prior claims detection automation underwriting, the details matter. Doc Chat combines advanced document intelligence with insurance-specific playbooks:

  1. High-volume ingestion: Upload the entire submission filehundreds or thousands of pages. Doc Chat handles policies, endorsements, ACORD forms, loss run reports, litigation summaries, OSHA logs, emails, photos, inspection PDFs, marine surveys, and schedules. Scale from one file to entire new-business queues.
  2. Entity normalization: Doc Chat resolves name variants and DBAs across documents, linking subsidiaries, project JVs, wrap-ups (OCIP/CCIP), vessels, and additional insured relationships to a unified view of exposure and loss history.
  3. Cross-document inference: It connects the dots that humans often cant see at scalee.g., a brief counsel email alluding to mediation, an obscure docket reference in a scanned footnote, or a loss run line item that never explicitly mentions open litigation but is clearly pending.
  4. Real-time Q&A with citations: Ask direct questions (Any open suits?) or complex ones (Which Property losses overlap with CAT footprints and remain under dispute?). Doc Chat returns answers with links to source pages, so reviewers can verify instantly.
  5. Playbook training: We train Doc Chat on your underwriting guidelines, appetite statements, risk selection rules, and referral criteria. It learns your formats (e.g., GL triage summary, Property peril roll-up, Marine claim timeline) for consistent outputs across desks.
  6. System integration: Export structured outputs into your underwriting workbench, rating engine, or CRM. Trigger tasks for legal or SIU. Create standardized summaries for referral committees and reinsurance partners, backed by citations.

What this looks like for an Underwriting Manager day-to-day

Instead of splitting the file across analysts, the Underwriting Manager drags and drops the complete submission bundle into Doc Chat. Within minutes, they receive:

  • Unified prior-claims register: A deduplicated list of all claims across prior carriers, entities, and schedules, with status (open/closed), paid vs. outstanding, cause/peril, and loss dates.
  • Open litigation snapshot: Consolidated view of any lawsuits, demand packages, mediation dates, defense counsel references, docket numbers, and jurisdictions mentioned anywhere in the file.
  • LOB-specific summaries: GL & Construction: AI/COI references, subcontractor involvement, OSHA incident tie-outs. Property & Homeowners: peril clustering, repeat-loss addresses, AOB indicators. Specialty Lines & Marine: P&I vs. H&M patterns, crew injury timelines, survey flags.
  • Citations and audit trail: Every conclusion backed by page-level links, enabling quick secondary review and compliance comfort.

From there, you can ask follow-ups: Which GL claims included additional insured tenders? List Homeowners losses by cause for Florida risks post-2020, flag any that mention assignments of benefits. Show Marine crew injuries that evolved into litigation. The answers arrive in seconds.

Business impact: faster quotes, better pricing, fewer misses

Underwriting Managers dont just want speed; they need accuracy and consistency at scale. Doc Chat delivers on all three.

Time savings: Manual reviews that took 35 hours per complex submission now take minutes. Teams collapse multi-analyst effort into a rapid AI-first review backed by citations. Quote turnaround shrinks, increasing hit ratios and broker satisfaction.

Cost reduction: Fewer manual touchpoints and rework. Less need for ad-hoc legal lookups or external research for straightforward docket confirmation. Analysts refocus on risk selection and pricing instead of document hunting.

Accuracy improvements: Machines never tire at page 1,500. The AI applies the same scrutiny across the whole file, surfacing repeated signals, contradictions, or missing data. Prior claims and open litigation are less likely to slip through the cracks.

Defensibility & governance: Page-level citations and standardized outputs create a durable audit trail. Referral committee decks are stronger. Reinsurance discussions move faster with consistent summaries and transparent sourcing.

Why Nomad Data is the best partner for underwriting diligence

For insurers who need reliable, domain-specific automation, Nomad Data brings a proven stack and a partnership mindset:

  • Volume at speed: Doc Chat ingests entire claim or submission filesthousands of pagesso reviews move from days to minutes.
  • Mastering complexity: From exclusions and endorsements to wrap-ups and vessel logs, Doc Chat finds the hidden triggers and references buried in dense, inconsistent documents.
  • The Nomad process: We train Doc Chat on your playbooks, documents, and standards for a solution that fits your underwriting workflow like a glove.
  • Real-time Q&A: Ask Summarize prior GL losses by cause or List all open litigations with docket numbers, and get instant, cite-backed answers across massive document sets.
  • Thorough & complete: Doc Chat surfaces every reference to coverage, liability, or damages so nothing important slips through the cracks.
  • White glove service: From discovery through rollout, you get hands-on support, weekly progress checkpoints, and co-creation of your underwriting templates.
  • Rapid implementation: Most teams go live in 12 weeks, with early drag-and-drop use available on day one of the pilot.

For an inside look at how a major carrier accelerates complex reviews with AI, see Great American Insurance Groups experience in Reimagining Insurance Claims Management. For why this isnt just PDF web scraping, explore Beyond Extraction: Why Document Scraping Isnt Just Web Scraping for PDFs. And for the broader operational context, read AI for Insurance: Real-World AI Use Cases.

Drilling deeper: document and form types Doc Chat reads natively

Underwriting Managers see the full spectrum in submission bundles. Doc Chat is trained to read and reason across:

  • ACORD 125/126/140 and carrier-specific supplemental apps
  • Broker submission packages and cover letters
  • Loss run reports across prior carriers (PDF or spreadsheet)
  • Litigation summaries, demand letters, defense counsel correspondence
  • SOVs and COPE data, valuation and inspection reports
  • Endorsements, additional insured schedules, OCIP/CCIP documentation
  • OSHA 300/300A logs, incident reports (GL & Construction)
  • Marine surveys, P&I logs, hull & machinery maintenance records
  • Certificates of Insurance (COIs), dec pages, prior policy comparisons
  • ISO claim reports, CLUE/Home reports, MVRs where relevant
  • Emails and scanned attachments with low-quality text or images

Instead of forcing you to standardize first, Doc Chat meets you where you are and standardizes as it reads.

Examples of underwriting questions answered in seconds

With Doc Chat, AI review for open litigation in submissions becomes a natural part of triage and referral. Sample prompts Underwriting Managers use:

  • Identify any open or recently closed litigation linked to the named insured, DBAs, or additional insured positions. Provide counsel names, docket numbers, venue, and mediation/trial milestones.
  • Reconcile all loss runs and show a single prior-claims view with totals by year, peril, paid, and outstanding. Note any claim labeled suit filed or defense counsel retained.
  • Flag discrepancies between loss runs and litigation summaries (e.g., a loss shown as closed but a later email indicates ongoing settlement talks).
  • Tie-out Property losses to SOV locations; highlight addresses with repeat water or fire losses and note if any are under dispute or litigation.
  • For Marine, extract all P&I and crew injury matters that escalated into Jones Act litigation. Include vessel name/IMO, port, and timeline.
  • List all additional insured tenders on GL claims and whether those claims appear in the insureds own loss runs or in counterparties reports.

Reducing risk leakage from missed prior claims and litigation

Missing a prior claim or ongoing lawsuit is not just an administrative oversight; its a leakage event. Underpricing risk, accepting a distressed account without proper terms, or failing to recognize litigation-prone behaviors erodes profitability and creates reinsurance friction. Doc Chats thoroughness eliminates blind spots:

  • Finds implicit references: Picks up on defense counsel engaged or mediation scheduled that suggest imminent litigation not yet on the loss run.
  • Unifies entity views: Prevents double-counting or missed claims by resolving parent/DBA/JV and additional insured relationships.
  • Standardizes outputs: Produces consistent summaries for management and referral committees, accelerating approvals and improving comparability across desks and regions.

Security, explainability, and audit comfort

Insurance deals with sensitive information, and Underwriting Managers must consider governance from day one. Nomad Data aligns to enterprise standards and offers transparent outputs:

  • Page-level citations: Every answer links back to the exact page, supporting audits, QA reviews, reinsurer requests, and regulator inquiries.
  • SOC 2 Type 2 controls: Data handling follows rigorous security practices. Internal access controls and retention policies match your compliance expectations.
  • Explainable workflows: Doc Chats summaries are not black boxes. You can inspect the steps, sources, and prompts used to generate outputs.

For a deeper view on medical-record and claim-file explainability at high scale, see The End of Medical File Review Bottlenecks and our perspective on Reimagining Claims Processing Through AI.

Implementation: white glove, low lift, and live in 12 weeks

Nomads white glove service means we do the heavy lifting. Typical launch plan for an underwriting team:

  1. Discovery (days 13): We capture your underwriting playbooks, appetite statements, referral triggers, and preferred output formats. We gather anonymized examples of broker submission packages, loss run reports, and litigation summaries.
  2. Pilot configuration (days 410): We configure Doc Chat to your lines of business (GL & Construction, Property & Homeowners, Specialty Lines & Marine), map your data fields, and set up standard summary templates.
  3. Go live (days 102): Users begin drag-and-drop file reviews immediately; integration into the underwriting workbench or rating systems follows via modern APIs, usually within the same 12 week period.
  4. Iterate and scale: We refine prompts, templates, and dashboards based on your usage patterns and expand to more classes of business or regions.

No data science staffing is required on your side, and your underwriters remain in control. The result is an AI copilot that feels native to your processes.

How Underwriting Managers measure ROI

Underwriting leadership cares about results. Typical KPI improvements after adopting Doc Chat:

  • Review time: 607% reduction in time-to-summary on complex submissions.
  • Hit ratio: 101% lift due to faster quote turnarounds and more confident broker relationships.
  • Loss ratio: 12 points of improvement from better selection and terms informed by complete prior-claim and litigation visibility.
  • Staff capacity: 23x more submissions reviewed per FTE without increasing headcount.
  • Reinsurance friction: Fewer questions and faster placements thanks to standardized, citation-backed summaries.

Beyond the numbers, teams report lower burnout, faster onboarding for new analysts, and more time for judgment-rich work like pricing nuance, manuscript wording, and broker strategy.

Real-world edge cases Doc Chat handles well

Underwriting Managers often ask about tricky scenarios. Doc Chat is designed for them:

  • Scanned, low-quality PDFs: OCR plus language models reconstruct meaning even when older loss runs or counsel letters are hard to read.
  • Name collisions: Smith Marine the tug operator vs. Smith Marine the parts supplierDoc Chat uses surrounding context and addresses to avoid false merges.
  • Silent litigation: It recognizes litigation indicators (e.g., legal demand letter phrases, attorney signatures, or mediation references) before they appear as suit filed in a loss run.
  • Cross-LOB complexity: It threads GL incidents that later manifest as Property disputes (e.g., contractor-caused water losses) or Marine injuries that escalate from incident reports into formal lawsuits months later.

Operationalizing AI across underwriting and risk selection

Doc Chat isnt just a point solution; it becomes core to underwriting governance:

  • Intake triage: Auto-detect missing documents (e.g., current loss runs, OSHA logs, marine surveys) and trigger broker requests immediately.
  • Standard summaries: Auto-produce a Prior Claims & Litigation section for every file, formatted to your committees needs.
  • Risk appetite checks: Highlight red-flag classes (e.g., construction defect venues, high AOB zip codes, heavy crew injury rates) based on your rules.
  • Downstream handoffs: Package citation-backed briefs for legal, reinsurance, or actuarial partners without rework.

Why this is more than data extraction

Finding prior claims and litigation isnt just about reading a field from a form. It requires inference across hundreds of pages and unwritten judgment rules. Thats why we built Doc Chat as a suite of purpose-built agents that learn your institutional knowledge. For a deeper explanation of why document intelligence is not web scraping for PDFs, read Beyond Extraction. It explains how location-based scraping fails where underwriting inference succeeds.

From pilot to enterprise standard

Most Underwriting Managers start with a focused pilot on one class (e.g., GC contractors in GL & Construction or cat-exposed Homeowners). Within weeks, they roll out to adjacent classes and regions. Because Doc Chat is trained on your playbooks, consistency increases as scale grows, not the other way around.

As adoption expands, teams often connect Doc Chat to additional data sources (e.g., PACER, state court portals, CLUE/Home, ISO ClaimSearch) through established processes to supplement whats already in submissions. The result is a single pane of glass for prior claims and open litigationright where the Underwriting Manager needs it.

Getting started

If your team is searching for AI review for open litigation in submissions or evaluating prior claims detection automation underwriting tools, the fastest path is a hands-on session with your real submission files. Within one to two weeks, you can be live with drag-and-drop reviews, citation-backed summaries, and outputs that plug into your underwriting workbench.

Ready to see it on your documents? Explore Doc Chat for Insurance or browse related resources like Automating Data Entry with AI. Then invite your brokers to send submissions in bulkDoc Chat can handle them all, without adding headcount.

Conclusion

Underwriting Managers can no longer afford to rely on manual page-flipping to hunt for prior claims and open litigation. With Doc Chat, every submission is read thoroughly, every entity is normalized, every relevant hint is surfaced, and every conclusion is backed by citations. The result: faster quotes, better risk selection, stronger governance, and fewer surprises post-bind across General Liability & Construction, Property & Homeowners, and Specialty Lines & Marine. Thats underwriting diligence at the speed and accuracy modern markets demand.

Learn More