Delegated authority claims software helps an agency settle claims within the limits an insurer has granted and prove it did. Claims platforms such as ClaimsGateway (claimsgateway.com) and Curium handle the claim. Oversight platforms such as VIPR and Send serve the capacity provider. MGA systems such as Insly and JAVLN hold claims beside policy.
Key takeaways
- According to the Underwriting Agencies Council, its more than 130 member agencies are responsible for over $10.5 billion of premium a year.
- Three kinds of software touch delegated authority: claims platforms, capacity-provider oversight platforms and MGA systems with a claims module.
- According to ASIC, handling and settling insurance claims has been a financial service needing an AFS licence since 1 January 2022.
- An authority limit nobody wrote into the process cannot be audited, whatever software the agency buys.
- According to the Code Governance Committee, claims caused 59% of the 70,325 Code breaches recorded in 2024-25.
What does delegated authority ask of claims software?
Delegated authority asks claims software to keep each decision inside the limits an insurer granted. That means settlement limits per claim, referral of anything above them, permissions that match who may decide what, and a record the insurer can audit later. Software that handles claims well but cannot show who decided what leaves an agency exposed.
An agency settles claims in someone else's name. So the binder, not the agency, sets the rules. Those rules can differ by insurer, by scheme and by class. The delegated authority explainer covers how binders grant underwriting and claims authority separately.
In practice, the hard part is the gap between the binder and the handler's screen. A settlement limit written in a PDF does nothing on its own. It only works when the claims process knows the limit, sends the claim for referral above it and records the outcome.
Oversight runs the other way as well. The insurer receives bordereaux and audits files, and it compares both against the authority it granted. At Lloyd's, for instance, coverholders and delegated claims administrators "have to provide reporting information under delegated authority contracts to Lloyd's syndicates", according to Lloyd's own guidance.
How were these options assessed?
Each option was assessed on claims scope, who changes workflows, segments served, presence in Australia and New Zealand, and security certification. For this article, one more row was added: how each vendor says it controls authority, as its own site publishes it. Every vendor fact was checked on the vendor's site in October 2026.
That extra row matters because delegated authority is a governance job before it is a feature. An agency needs to know whether the software holds the rules, or whether a person must remember them. However, no independent test of authority controls exists, so the row reports vendor statements rather than judging them.
The list is grouped by the job each kind of software does, not ranked. Claims platforms come first, then oversight platforms built for capacity providers, then MGA systems that include claims. The ClaimsGateway underwriting agencies page describes how one claims platform approaches agency work.
Which claims platforms handle claims under a binder?
Claims platforms treat the claim as the whole product, so they are built for the person deciding and paying it. For an agency, that means the claims process for each scheme lives in one system, beside whatever policy system the agency already runs. ClaimsGateway and Curium are in this group, and both sell to Australian underwriting agencies.
1. ClaimsGateway
Best for: Agencies that want each scheme's claims process configured in one platform, kept separate from their policy system.
Typical customer size / segment: From small brokers to large enterprises, as its own site positions it, with a dedicated page for underwriting agencies.
Key strengths:
- Workflows are configured without developers, so the agency can change a scheme's process when a binder changes.
- User, role and permission controls set who in the agency can act on a claim.
- It covers the claim from first notice of loss to close, and records system and user activity in audit logs.
Claims scope: The whole product.
Who changes workflows: The business, without developers.
Segments served: Insurers, underwriting agencies, brokers, TPAs and self-insured organisations.
Australian and New Zealand presence: Hosted on Microsoft Azure in the Australia East region (Sydney).
Authority controls, as published: User, role and permission controls, with workflows the business configures.
Security certification: ISO/IEC 27001.
Watch-outs: Agencies that want policy administration and rating in the same system as claims will be better served by an MGA platform.
Pricing: Volume-based, set by annual claim volume, with unlimited users. Its pricing page listed plans from AUD 5,500 a year ex GST in October 2026. An implementation fee and a minimum 3-year term apply.
2. Curium
Best for: Agencies and insurers in Australia and New Zealand that want claims and compliance tools from one local vendor.
Typical customer size / segment: Brokers, agencies and insurers. Named customers include Balanced Underwriting and Blue Zebra Insurance (getcurium.com, October 2026).
Key strengths:
- A claims product for agencies and insurers, described as "Enterprise level claims without the complexity".
- A compliance platform alongside, which it calls "one source of truth for registers, controls and obligations".
- AI it describes as "trained on AU/NZ laws and real cases".
Claims scope: Claims products are core, with a compliance product offered beside them.
Who changes workflows: The business. In September 2026 its site described a "No-code claims platform" with "No IT required."
Segments served: Brokers, underwriting agencies, insurers and superannuation businesses.
Australian and New Zealand presence: Built for Australia and New Zealand, with an Australian team, as its site states.
Authority controls, as published: Not described on the pages reviewed. Its compliance product covers registers, controls and obligations.
Security certification: ISO 27001, as its site states.
Watch-outs: Bordereaux production is not described on its homepage, so agencies should test how it reports to each insurer.
Pricing: Not published. In September 2026 its site described pricing as modular and not per seat.
Which platforms help capacity providers oversee delegated authority?
Oversight platforms are built for the insurer, reinsurer or managing agent that grants authority. They take in bordereaux from many agencies, check the data and report on it. An Australian agency usually meets them as the system its capacity provider uses, rather than as software it buys to handle claims. VIPR and Send are in this group.
3. VIPR
Best for: Capacity providers and managing agents that need to collect, clean and analyse bordereaux from many coverholders.
Typical customer size / segment: Insurers, reinsurers, MGAs and brokers. According to VIPR, half of Lloyd's managing agents use one of its products, and it has more than 55 clients (viprsolutions.com, October 2026).
Key strengths:
- It describes itself as "the only technology platform that serves the entire DA value chain, end-to-end".
- Intrali handles bordereaux management, and a data cloud and analytics product sit alongside it.
- Intarga covers onboarding and due diligence, to "bring new coverholders live faster".
Claims scope: Claims data within bordereaux. It is not a system for handling a claim.
Who changes workflows: Not stated on its homepage.
Segments served: Insurers and reinsurers, MGAs and brokers.
Australian and New Zealand presence: Not stated. Its listed offices are in London and Hartford, Connecticut.
Authority controls, as published: Not described on its homepage, which focuses on bordereaux data and analytics.
Security certification: Not stated in the text of its homepage.
Watch-outs: It serves the party receiving bordereaux, so an agency still needs its own claims system. No Australian office or customer is stated.
Pricing: Not published.
4. Send
Best for: Insurers and reinsurers that write through MGAs and want incoming bordereaux checked against each agreement automatically.
Typical customer size / segment: Insurers, MGAs and reinsurers. Logos on its site include Aviva, Everest and Dale Underwriting Partners (send.technology, October 2026).
Key strengths:
- It validates "incoming bordereaux against agreement terms and authority rules as it's ingested".
- It tracks "premium, exposure, and claims across MGAs in near real time".
- Bordereaux arrive in multiple formats and are mapped into the insurer's own data model.
Claims scope: Claims data within delegated underwriting oversight. It is not a system for handling a claim.
Who changes workflows: Not stated on its delegated underwriting page.
Segments served: Insurers, MGAs and reinsurers.
Australian and New Zealand presence: Not stated. Its listed offices are in London and New York.
Authority controls, as published: Checks bordereaux against agreement terms and authority rules when they arrive.
Security certification: ISO/IEC 27001:2022 and SOC 2 Type II, as its site states.
Watch-outs: It checks authority after the fact, from bordereaux, so it does not stop a handler exceeding a limit. No Australian office or customer is stated.
Pricing: Not published.
Which MGA platforms include claims under delegated authority?
MGA and policy administration platforms run products, quoting, binding and accounting, with claims as one module. They suit an agency that wants one vendor for the whole binder, from writing the risk to paying the claim. Insly and JAVLN are in this group, and both sell to agencies or underwriters.
5. Insly
Best for: MGAs that want product building, distribution, accounting and claims from one low-code vendor.
Typical customer size / segment: MGAs, insurers and brokers. Its named case studies include Ridge Canada Cyber Solutions and Alta Signa (insly.com, October 2026).
Key strengths:
- A claims module it says "suits any line of business and can be used standalone or integrated with other Insly modules".
- An Insly Claims Portal to "Give policyholders a faster, smarter claims experience".
- Product builder, distribution and accounting modules alongside claims.
Claims scope: One module of a policy and accounting platform.
Who changes workflows: Not stated on its homepage, which describes the platform as low-risk insurance software.
Segments served: MGAs, insurers and brokers.
Australian and New Zealand presence: No Australian or New Zealand customers appear on its homepage.
Authority controls, as published: Not described on its homepage.
Security certification: Not named on its homepage.
Watch-outs: It is policy-first, and its named customers sit outside Australia, so local references matter.
Pricing: Not published. Its site promises "Low upfront costs. Fast set-up."
6. JAVLN
Best for: Agencies and underwriters that want policy, quoting, renewals, trust accounting and claims in one system.
Typical customer size / segment: Australian and New Zealand brokers, agencies and underwriters. Named customers include Aviso Specialty and BMS Insurance Group (javln.com, October 2026).
Key strengths:
- One platform for "quoting, binding, renewals, claims, trust accounting and compliance".
- Document management and workflow automation inside Microsoft 365, through JAVLN Officetech.
- Workflow automation and AI client summaries, as its site lists.
Claims scope: One module of a broking and policy platform.
Who changes workflows: Not stated on its homepage.
Segments served: Brokers, agencies and underwriters.
Australian and New Zealand presence: Offices in Melbourne and Auckland.
Authority controls, as published: Not described on its homepage. Compliance is listed among its platform's functions.
Security certification: SOC 2 Type 2, as its site states.
Watch-outs: Claims is one function among many, so an agency with heavy claims volume under several binders should test the module's depth.
Pricing: Each product has its own pricing page. Rates were not reviewed for this article.
What can software not do for an agency's delegated authority?
Software cannot negotiate the binder, interpret an ambiguous limit or keep a capacity provider's trust. It can hold rules the agency has written down, route referrals and keep a record. Everything before that, from agreeing clear limits to training handlers on them, stays the agency's work, whichever system it buys.
The first gap is the binder itself. Many claims authority clauses were written for underwriters, not for claims handlers. For example, "refer complex claims" means different things to different people. Software can only enforce a rule that someone has turned into a threshold, a class or a trigger.
The second gap is judgement. A referral trigger catches a large claim. However, it may not catch a small claim that is about to become a large one, or a dispute that should go to the insurer early. That call still belongs to an experienced handler.
The third gap is the relationship. According to Lloyd's, its Delegated Audit Manager exists to "manage and monitor the audit of Coverholder and Delegated Claims Administrators". Audits like these test the records, but a capacity provider also judges how an agency talks to it when something goes wrong. No system does that part.
Regulation raises the stakes for all three. According to AFCA, general insurance complaints reached 36,022 in 2025-26, with delay the most common issue. As a result, an insurer reviewing an agency's claims looks harder at both the speed and the record.
Frequently asked questions
What is delegated authority software?
Delegated authority software is any system that helps an insurer grant authority to an agency, or helps the agency act within it. Claims platforms handle the claims themselves. Oversight platforms help capacity providers collect and check bordereaux. MGA systems combine policy, binding and claims. Most agencies use more than one kind.
How do agencies enforce claims authority limits?
Agencies enforce claims authority limits by writing each binder's settlement limits and referral triggers into their claims process, restricting who may approve at each level, and recording every decision. The insurer then checks those records through bordereaux and audits. Limits that live only in a PDF or in handlers' memory are the usual weak point.
What do capacity providers audit?
Capacity providers audit whether an agency handled claims within its authority and its procedures. They typically sample claim files, check settlements against limits, test referrals above those limits and compare bordereaux with the agency's own records. They also look at timeliness, reserving and how complaints were handled.
Is delegated authority software the same as MGA software?
No. MGA software usually means a policy administration platform for products, quoting, binding and accounting, sometimes with a claims module. Delegated authority software is broader, and includes oversight tools used by capacity providers. A claims platform is a third kind, focused on the claim, and often runs beside an MGA system.
Do Lloyd's coverholders need specific software?
The Lloyd's guidance reviewed for this article names no required claims system. Lloyd's does require reporting under delegated authority contracts, and it runs its own market systems, such as ATLAS for coverholder permissions and Delegated Audit Manager for audits. A coverholder's software therefore needs to produce the data those processes ask for.
About the author
ClaimsGateway builds cloud claims management software for insurers, underwriting agencies, brokers, TPAs and self-insured organisations in Australia and New Zealand. Every regulator figure in this article links to its source, and every vendor fact was checked on the vendor's own site on the date shown.
Related reading
- Claims software for agencies: the wider list of claims software for underwriting agencies.
- What a claims bordereau contains: the report capacity providers check an agency's claims against.
- Choosing agency claims software: the decision worked through step by step.
- MGA software in Australia: policy, binding and bordereaux platforms compared.
Sources
- Underwriting Agencies Council. Home page, checked 21 October 2026. https://www.uac.org.au
- ASIC. "Claims handling and settling: How to comply with your AFS licence obligations (INFO 253)." Updated June 2025. https://asic.gov.au/for-finance-professionals/afs-licensees/applying-for-and-managing-an-afs-licence/licensing-certain-service-providers/claims-handling-and-settling-how-to-comply-with-your-afs-licence-obligations/
- Lloyd's. "Delegated authority guidance: premium and claims handling." Checked 21 October 2026. https://www.lloyds.com/market-resources/delegated-authorities/market-knowledge/premium-and-claims-handling
- Lloyd's. "Delegated Audit Manager." Checked 21 October 2026. https://www.lloyds.com/conducting-business/delegated-authorities/systems-and-tools/delegated-audit-manager
- Insurance Business Australia. "Record AFCA complaints mask a worse story in insurer compliance data." 4 August 2026. https://www.insurancebusinessmag.com/au/news/breaking-news/record-afca-complaints-mask-a-worse-story-in-insurer-compliance-data-584812.aspx (reports AFCA's 2025-26 figures and the Code Governance Committee's 2024-25 data)
- Vendor websites, each checked 21 October 2026: viprsolutions.com, send.technology/products/delegated-underwriting, claimsgateway.com. Curium, Insly and JAVLN checked 16 October 2026 (getcurium.com, insly.com, javln.com); Curium's no-code and pricing wording is from its site as checked in September 2026.
