🛠 Our Story

Built to Fix Structural
Problems in Insurance Claims

Insurix wasn't built because claims technology seemed interesting. It was built because someone spent years inside the industry watching the same avoidable costs erode results — and decided to do something about it.

Why this exists

"The costs weren't hidden. They were structural. Fixed contracts, idle warehouses, call centres absorbing claims that should never have needed a human. Everyone in the room could see it. Nobody was building a way out."

[FOUNDER NAME] spent [X] years working across insurance claims operations, scheme administration, and insurtech — covering mobile device insurance, consumer electronics, and gadget affinity products at both the insurer and MGA level. The roles spanned claims handling, supplier contract management, and operational performance, and they shared a common frustration.

The economics of mobile device claims had not materially changed in over a decade. Insurers were still routing replacements through single contracted warehouses with fixed per-unit costs, regardless of whether cheaper alternatives existed. Damaged devices were being returned and written off rather than sold into a competitive recovery market. Digital claim journeys were being built by teams whose KPI was complaint reduction, not completion rate — producing forms that pushed customers toward the phone rather than through the process.

The result was a loss ratio with structural fat baked in at every stage: too much cost in fulfilment, too little value recovered from damaged returns, too many claims that took an agent to close when they should never have required one.

The failure of existing solutions wasn't a technology gap. Most third-party administrators had some form of online portal. The problem was that the underlying model hadn't changed: fixed supply chains, passive fulfilment relationships, and a claims process designed around the administrator's operations rather than the insurer's cost base or the customer's expectations.

Insurix was built on the premise that a claims operation designed from scratch in [YEAR] would look nothing like the inherited model. It would be API-first, with no warehouse and no call centre floor. It would use competitive dynamics — in fulfilment, in returns, in repair — to drive down costs on every claim. It would be staffed by a remote UK team working through digital tooling, not headcount. And it would embed sustainability as a default, not a bolt-on.

That is what Insurix is. Not a faster version of the old model. A structurally different one.

Inefficiency Observed

Cost Leakage in Fulfilment

Fixed-price contracts with single suppliers meant replacement costs bore no relationship to market rates. Volume guarantees locked in premium pricing regardless of device availability or partner performance.

Inefficiency Observed

Lack of Control Over Recovery

Damaged device returns were typically managed by the same fulfilment partner — with little transparency over recovery value, and no competitive pressure to maximise it on the insurer's behalf.

Inefficiency Observed

Poor Digital Completion Rates

Online FNOL journeys were built to contain complaints, not to complete claims. Friction at key steps — evidence upload, identity checks, excess collection — pushed customers to the phone and cost overrode satisfaction.

Why Existing Solutions Fail

Incremental on a Broken Base

Most TPA and insurtech offerings layer technology onto an unchanged operational model. The warehouse still exists. The call centre still exists. The cost does not change; the reporting around it just improves.

This is not a better version
of what already exists

The structural shift is the point. Not a faster portal. Not a friendlier interface. A fundamentally different way of running a claims operation.

"This is not incremental improvement. It is a structural shift from outsourced administration to technology-led claims control — where cost, quality, and customer experience are engineered outcomes, not supplier promises."
Traditional TPA Model
  • Fixed contracts with single fulfilment partners
  • Warehouse and inventory overhead priced into every claim
  • Call centre as primary claims channel
  • Passive recovery — damaged devices written off or sold in bulk
  • Digital portal layered on manual back-office
  • Loss ratio reported, not engineered
Insurix Model
  • Competitive marketplace — partners bid on every claim
  • No warehouse — zero fixed inventory cost
  • Digital-first FNOL designed to complete without an agent
  • Active recovery — damaged returns auctioned to maximise value
  • Cloud-native platform — fully digital, fully auditable
  • Loss ratio actively managed through platform configuration

Domain expertise.
Not a pitch deck.

Insurix is built by people who have run claims operations — not consultants who have observed them. The difference matters.

📅

Years in the Industry

[X]+ years of direct experience in insurance claims operations, scheme administration, and mobile device supply chain management — at both the insurer and MGA level.

🏢

Organisations Worked With

Experience spanning insurers, managing general agents, affinity scheme operators, and third-party administrators — covering mobile device, gadget, and consumer electronics books across UK and European markets.

📋

Claims Domain Depth

Hands-on experience with FNOL design, supplier contract negotiation, fraud operations, loss ratio analysis, and claims handler management — the operational reality behind the numbers on a bordereaux.

👥

Built for the Buyer

We have sat on the buying side of these conversations. We know what a claims director needs to see, what a CFO will challenge, and what the loss ratio data actually tells you when you know where to look.

Founder-led. Still small enough to care.

Every conversation with Insurix involves someone who built it. If you want to understand how the model works and whether it fits your book, we'll give you a straight answer.

No SDRs. No decks sent in advance. Just a direct conversation.