Industry playbooks

Insurance sales call playbooks

Your buyers are trying to pull days out of the claims cycle and points off the loss ratio while running on a core system older than half their claims staff — and every dollar they spend gets a second look from actuarial. Practise against a claims executive who will ask where your integration touches the core, what your false positive rate does to their SIU queue, and how the savings show up in a reserve review, so the first time you hear it isn't on a live call.

Every call type for Insurance

Scripts, sample dialogue, objection handling and a live AI buyer for each one.

Who you're calling

In Insurance, the people who pick up are P&C carrier claims and operations executives. The titles you will actually reach:

  • Chief Claims Officer
  • VP of Claims Operations
  • SVP Claims
  • Director of Claims Transformation
  • Chief Underwriting Officer
  • SIU Director / Director of Special Investigations
  • Chief Operating Officer (Carrier)
  • VP of IT / Head of Core Systems

What keeps them up at night

Name one of these in your first thirty seconds and you have earned the rest of the call.

  • Cycle time is driving complaints, DOI attention, and non-renewals

    Auto and property files that should close in 12 days sit at 28 because the adjuster is chasing a photo estimate, an appraiser assignment, and a coverage question in three different queues. Every extra day shows up as a policyholder call, then a DOI complaint, then a non-renewal at the next term. Claims leaders can quote their average days-to-close from FNOL to final payment from memory, and they can also quote the number their board asked about last quarter.

  • The policy admin system is 20+ years old and every change is a six-figure project

    The core was written in COBOL or an early Java stack, the two people who understand it are within five years of retirement, and the vendor's professional services rate is $250/hour. A field addition to a claim record becomes an eight-month IT roadmap item with a business case. The reflex answer to any new system is 'where does it touch the core?' — because when integrations break there, statutory reporting and check issuance break with them.

  • Claims leakage is quietly eating the loss ratio

    Overpayment on soft-tissue bodily injury, missed subrogation opportunities, salvage left on the table, adjusters settling above reserve to close a file before month-end. Nobody has a clean number for it — the range they'll admit to is 2–5% of paid losses — and every point of leakage is a point they have to claw back in rate, which takes a filing and a regulator's approval.

  • Fraud is caught too late to matter

    By the time a file gets referred to SIU, the rental car has been paid, the medical bills are in, and the adjuster has already built rapport with a claimant they now have to accuse. Referral rates hover around 1–2% when the industry estimates fraud at closer to 10% of premium. Prior analytics tools drowned SIU in false positives and got turned off.

  • Cat season breaks the staffing model

    A hail event in the Midwest or a named storm on the coast puts 4,000 claims into a queue built for 400 a week. They deploy independent adjusters at 2–3x internal cost, cycle times triple, and the complaint volume follows six weeks later. Everything they buy gets judged on whether it holds up during the surge, not on a normal Tuesday.

  • Agent and broker channel friction

    Independent agents own the customer relationship and will move the book to another carrier over claims service. Producers call the claims VP directly about a file for their best commercial account. Retention is a channel conversation as much as a price conversation, and slow claims handling is the complaint agents raise at every carrier council meeting.

What they'll push back with

The objections that come up on nearly every call, and a response that keeps the conversation alive.

We run on a 20-year-old core system — integrations die there.
Agree with them before answering, because they're right and they've been burned. Then get specific about the integration surface: read-only against the claim file, flat file or message queue rather than writing to the core, no schema change, no change to check issuance or statutory extracts. Ask what broke last time — usually a vendor tried to write back into the PAS. Then offer the smallest possible proof: one line of business, historical claims, no production connection at all until they've seen it score files they already know the outcome of.
Every dollar goes through actuarial scrutiny — the ROI better be bulletproof.
Don't bring an ROI calculator with your own assumptions in it. Bring the model empty and let them fill it with their paid losses, their LAE ratio, and their leakage estimate. Ask which number their chief actuary would trust: cycle time reduction is hard to book, but a measurable drop in ALAE per claim or a documented subrogation recovery lands in a reserve review. Offer to run the pilot as a back-test on closed claims so the savings are calculated against actual settlements, not projections.
We tried a fraud analytics vendor two years ago. SIU drowned in false positives and we shut it off.
Ask what the precision was and what the referral threshold was set at — most failures are threshold and workflow, not the model. Then invert the pilot: instead of scoring new claims, score last year's closed SIU-confirmed files and see whether it would have flagged them, and how many clean files it also flagged. Let the SIU Director set the alert volume they can actually work, and size the deployment to that capacity rather than the model's output.
We're mid-migration to a new policy admin platform. There's no IT bandwidth until 2027.
That's a reason to talk now, not later. Core migrations run 24–36 months and claims service degrades during them — ask what their cycle time has done since the project started. Position anything you sell as sitting outside the migration path so it doesn't compete for the same integration team, and get the pilot scoped so the claims org owns it, not IT. If it genuinely requires IT, say so and ask to be on the roadmap conversation for the quarter after go-live rather than pretending otherwise.
We can't have a black box making claim decisions. We'd get destroyed in a market conduct exam.
Concede the frame: the model recommends, the adjuster decides, and every recommendation carries a reason code in the file notes. Walk them through what an examiner would actually see — the audit trail, the disparate impact testing, whether the model touches coverage or only routing and prioritization. Ask whether their compliance and legal teams have a model governance standard already; if they do, get it and answer against it rather than against a generic AI objection.
We're a mutual. We don't have a technology budget line like a stock carrier does — surplus is policyholder money.
Speak to it as a combined ratio conversation, not a tech spend. Every dollar of expense ratio and every point of loss ratio comes out of the same surplus, and slow claims cost them in complaint handling, agent defection, and rate adequacy. Ask when the planning cycle closes and what the board's expense ratio target is for next year, then size the deal to fit under whatever threshold doesn't need board approval for the first phase.
Send me something and I'll route it to our innovation team.
The innovation team is where claims vendors go to die. Acknowledge it politely, then anchor back to the operational number: 'Happy to — before I do, is cycle time actually a priority for you this year, or is the pressure coming from somewhere else, like severity or retention?' If they name a real pressure, book time with them and the person who owns that number. If they don't, you've learned this is a stall and you should ask who does own claims cycle time in the org.

Their language

Use these the way they do. Getting one wrong costs more credibility than getting none of them right.

Jargon

  • Combined ratio
  • Loss ratio vs. expense ratio
  • LAE / ALAE / ULAE
  • Claims leakage
  • FNOL
  • IBNR and adverse reserve development
  • Subrogation and salvage recovery
  • SIU (Special Investigations Unit)
  • Severity vs. frequency
  • Policy admin system (PAS) / core
  • Book of business
  • Rate filing and rate adequacy
  • Cat season / PML
  • Market conduct exam
  • Straight-through processing (STP)

Metrics they are measured on

Combined ratio (the number under or over 100 that defines the year), Loss ratio and expense ratio, tracked separately by line, Average cycle time from FNOL to close, by line and by segment, LAE per claim / ALAE ratio, Claims leakage as a percentage of paid losses, SIU referral rate and fraud dollars recovered or denied, Policyholder retention rate and DOI complaint count, Subrogation recovery rate and net promoter score at claim close

Related industries

Buyers with adjacent pressures, and the same call types against them.

Practise against a Insurance buyer

A live AI prospect with Insurance context — their pressures, their jargon, their objections. They talk back, they interrupt, and they can hang up on you. You get a scored breakdown when the call ends.

Start a roleplay