GenAIM Automating the judgment‑heavy work in medical indemnity underwriting
AI-Operated. Human-Governed.
Workflows
Book a demo

For every application, the underwriter needs three answers quickly.

1Is this a risk we should write?
2At what terms?
3Can you defend the decision?
Today, answering them is slow, manual work. The application arrives with everything attached and the underwriter reads all of it against your guidelines. Days, sometimes weeks, in the queue, and the file only as deep as time allows.
With GenAIM working the application, the answers arrive in minutes. Yours to verify and approve.
Within minutes. The application is ingested, a summary of the practice, every document and exhibit catalogued.
Against your guidelines. Scored component by component against your risk appetite and underwriting guidelines.
Checked against the exhibits. Every material statement in the application cross-checked against its supporting exhibits. Where they disagree, it is called out.
The recommendation. Accept, refer, or decline, with terms, every finding traced to its source line, for your underwriter to verify and approve.
Locked. Approved, it becomes the locked recommendation, the basis of the terms you offer.
Gaps chased. Missing certificates and outstanding disclosures raised as tracked actions. Nothing falls through the cracks.
Hours, not days, to a recommendation your underwriter approves.
The three answers, from the worked application below.
Is this a risk we should write?
4.72 / 5.00
Risk appetite fit. Low risk across nine scored components.
At what terms?
Standard terms
Accept at standard terms. For your underwriter to approve.
Can you defend the decision?
The audit file
Every finding and discrepancy traced to its source. The evidence behind your decision.

Every figure from the worked example on this page. Illustrative, synthetic data.

The worked application

One application, run end to end.

Application Summary · at intake, within minutes
Practice indemnity application, Rowan Family Practice, procedural general practice
Received 9 July 2026 · principal, Dr. Sarah Rowan · 14 documents catalogued · 3 required certificates outstanding

Four-practitioner procedural general practice applying for practice indemnity. Obstetric procedures and minor surgery on the schedule; premises, equipment and quality systems documented; five years of claims history disclosed. Three required certificates not included with the bundle, raised as tracked actions at intake.

Application form ×1Financials ×3Certificates ×6Claims history ×1Policies ×3
The Risk Assessment · 9 components, scored
LOW RISK · overall score 4.72 / 5.00 · recommendation, ACCEPT, STANDARD TERMS · for the underwriter to approve
Practice structure and governance4.8Low Premises and equipment5.0Low Claims history4.9Low
Medical practitioners4.8Low Quality and risk management5.0Low Staff and human resources4.8Low
Clinical services and risk exposure4.5Low Financial stability4.1Medium Compliance and regulatory5.0Low
Weighted to the insurer’s own methodology. Financial stability graded medium on 3 discrepancies, surfaced below. Synthetic data.
Checked against the exhibits · discrepancies surfaced
Net practice incomeApplication states $820,000
Financial statements show $880,000
Called out
Underwriter reviewed · actioned
Staff costsApplication states $1,425,000
Wages schedule shows $1,245,000
Called out
Underwriter reviewed · actioned
Equipment and maintenanceApplication states $95,000
Exhibit shows $28,000
Called out
Underwriter reviewed · actioned
16 cross-reference points confirmed across 9 sections. Where the application and its exhibits disagree, the disagreement is called out and the underwriter’s action recorded.
Completeness · nothing falls through the cracks
3 required certificates outstanding at intake, practice manager qualification, claims-free confirmation, healthcare assistants’ qualifications. Each raised as a tracked action and acknowledged by the underwriter before approval.
The recommendation is your deliverable. The scorecard and the cross-reference trail are the audit file, every finding traced to its source line in the application.
Illustrative example using synthetic data. No real practitioner, practice, or insurer information; names are fictional.
From application to claim

Underwriting and claims. One engine.

The same engine that scores an application reads the claim when it arrives. It reads the same messy documents a person would, applies your methodology for that workflow, captured in playbooks, and produces a source-traced assessment for review. Most platforms operate underwriting or claims. GenAIM operates both.

Explore the Complex Claims workflow →

Join us building underwriting workflows.

Your methodology drives the composition. Your team governs the decision. A 30-minute working session, bring an application you'd like to operate, and we'll show how GenAIM would assess it end to end.

Book a demo →
Or join the waitlist if the timing isn't right yet.

GenAIM is led by Jonathan Birch. 25 years building enterprise automation, including 4 years as CSO in London at an insurance technology company. Full track record on the homepage.