Navigation menu toggle

Breaking down barriers
to productive partnerships

Insurtech Board



Louise O’Shea


Chair, Insurtech Board

The United Kingdom has a proud heritage in insurance. As an internationally renowned insurance hub, we have a wealth of expertise and experience driving future developments across the sector.  Combined with a talent pool featuring strong technological skills, it is therefore unsurprising that UK insurtech is also now flourishing. The UK Insurtech scene is a vibrant and dynamic market.  Pilots and proofs-of-concept have led to many material commercial outcomes.  New groups of policyholders are being protected by insurtechs via innovative product designs.  In turn, the established insurance industry is supportive of the insurtech community, has invested directly in many companies and frequently provides underwriting capacity to back their new and innovative products. Investment into UK insurtech increased by 61% year on year in 2020 to $360m, fueled by strong raises from start-ups including Bought by Many, Marshmallow and Tractable, and in 2021 we have now seen the first UK insurtech unicorn (a company valued at over $1bn) in Zego.

To further enhance the UK’s position as a global leader in the future of financial services, HM Treasury established the Insurtech Board, powered by Tech Nation, bringing together insurers, entrepreneurs, investors and consumer representatives to develop collaborative initiatives that help insurtechs achieve scale and benefit consumers. Whilst some insurtechs will grow independently and challenge existing preconceptions and propositions within the industry, creating an environment conducive to productive partnerships is also a key driver for insurtech growth. Enabling insurers and insurtechs to collaborate brings swifter integration and adoption of new technologies at scale, be it improving customer experience, underpinning new propositions, or widening accessibility and affordability, and I look forward to seeing results of future collaborations in the months and years to come.

Trevor Maynard

Chair of Partnerships workstream, Insurtech Board

Head of Innovation, Lloyd’s 

Innovation in the insurtech ecosystem is creating the insurance of the future. As established insurance institutions we have a responsibility not just to learn and understand these developments, but to proactively seek out, support and scale the strongest solutions and the brightest inventions. This goes beyond scouting the best new propositions; it means the whole organisation adopting an entrepreneurial mindset which enables rather than hampers new collaborations.

As Chair of the Insurtech Board’s partnerships workstream it is vital to me that we bring together insurers with insurtechs, to bridge between the inquisitive and the experienced, and to see where existing barriers are hindering relationships.

I am grateful to all those who contributed to this research - their forthright feedback and insightful recommendations will help all of us work together more effectively as we forge the next steps in insurance innovation.


Executive Summary

1. Introduction

An environment conducive to productive partnerships is a key driver for insurance innovation and insurtech growth. Through a series of research interviews the Insurtech Board explored the barriers insurtechs face when working with established institutions, the experience of insurance firms seeking to partner with insurtechs, and how to tackle the obstacles identified.

2.1 The insurer perspective... on partnering with insurtechs

Challenges identified through the interviews can be categorised into four themes:

  • Insufficient insurance and sector knowledge
  • Lack of regulatory knowledge and expertise
  • Unrealistic or uninformed expectations regarding completion of deals
  • Failure to understand the relative impact of their solution and wider context

Recommendations for insurtechs to secure the best chance of a successful contract include:

  • Insurtechs should ensure sufficient prior knowledge of fundamentals of insurance
  • Insurtechs should take time to fully understand and evaluate how regulation may impact their business or product
  • Insurtechs shouldn’t underestimate the process they’re working through and recognise that there will important steps to complete beyond an initial “yes”
  • Insurtechs should do background research on potential insurer partners and be aware of where they fit in their strategy

2.2 The insurtech perspective... on partnering with insurers

Challenges identified through the interviews can be categorised into six themes:

  • Opaque processes can be difficult to understand
  • Procurement and due diligence processes aren’t designed for insurtechs
  • Legal and contractual requirements aren’t designed for insurtechs
  • The culture of a slow no
  • Absence of Payment for Proof of Concepts
  • Lack of clear strategy for engagement with start-ups

Recommendations for insurers on how best to support insurtechs and get the most from working together include:

  • Insurers should clearly map their innovation process with key stakeholder roles and responsibilities clarified and communicated 
  • Insurers should review their procurement requirements for insurtechs, ensuring these are risk appropriate
  • Insurers should review their legal requirements for insurtechs, and consider how they can help equip them with necessary understanding of legal/regulatory requirements
  • Insurers should be mindful of a startup’s funding runway
  • Insurers should offer paid Proof of Concepts where possible
  • Insurers should develop a clear strategy for engaging with insurtech start-ups

3. Conclusion

There is a strong appetite across the industry to drive higher levels of innovation, and clear agreement that smoothing the partnership process can play a key role here. The Insurtech Board will work with industry stakeholders to promote these recommendations, and to encourage further consideration of related challenges such as driving technological change across the whole insurance supply chain.



In the autumn of 2020, the Insurtech Board undertook to explore how the innovation ecosystem for insurance could be enhanced through insurtechs and insurers working together more effectively. Established institutions stand to benefit from better customer experience, lower risk variability and in some cases a reduced cost base. For insurtechs partnering can be an opportunity to develop their products and scale a new solution at pace. Some insurtechs become direct suppliers, providing a variety of services (e.g. back office efficiencies, risk advisory services, data enhancement and models), whilst others have developed new insurance products and work with incumbents who provide methods of distribution, underwriting capital and advice including regulatory support.  It should be noted that incumbents are also one group of potential investors for insurtechs, so they can be both customers, partners and shareholders – sometimes all at the same time.

With the support of Lloyd’s Lab, more than 25 interviews have been completed with insurers, insurtechs, and other relevant innovators. The objective was to gain greater understanding of the barriers that insurtechs face when working with established institutions, the experience of insurers seeking to partner with insurtechs, and what could be done to start to tackle any identified obstacles.  Whilst this research found challenges to be addressed on both sides, it also revealed an encouraging number of positive partnership experiences to learn from and build upon.

“Every time we met them, they listened to everything we said…keen to learn, keen to present, never over-promised”

Insurer commenting on prospective insurtech partner

“They brought us ‘inside the tent’”

Insurtech commenting on prospective insurance partner

Focusing in on areas where improvements can still be made, this report lays out relevant insights and recommendations for insurers and insurtechs. Beyond this, there is also a role for the wider industry and regulators to consider the part they can play in promoting productive partnerships. The more that can be done to address the identified friction in the process, the greater the impact on the potential of the UK insurtech sector.


Insights, challenges and recommendations


2.1 The insurer perspective… on partnering with insurtechs

Innovation in insurance can take various guises - from enhancing in-app customer experience, to drawing on new data sets when appropriately assessing risk, to streamlining regulatory reporting. One option to meet the demands of these new developments is to partner with an insurtech with expertise or solutions beyond that which the insurer has immediate access to in-house.

This section documents the insights from insurers when looking to partner with innovative insurtechs. It gathers their observations and experiences, providing recommendations for future prospective partners on how to secure the best chance of landing a successful contract.

The challenges, and subsequent recommendations, have been grouped into four main themes:

  1. Insufficient insurance and sector knowledge
  2. Lack of regulatory knowledge and expertise
  3. Unrealistic or uninformed expectations regarding completion of deals
  4. Failure to understand the relative impact of their solution and wider context

1. Insufficient insurance and sector knowledge

> Challenge

A common comment from the established institutions was that whilst some insurtechs bring an interesting and innovative approach to a product, they can have a large gap in their understanding of fundamental insurance principles.

An example was a lack of understanding of the way underwriters price a product. This can lead to unrealistic expectations and forecasts, and so when the underwriter sees potential in the idea, they need to do the work on the insurtechs behalf to get the business plan in order – it is not always a simple task to find a way to make it work. Others commented on how a lack of experience in the insurtech team meant they needed “hand-holding” through the process of taking a great idea and turning it into a commercial-ready solution.

The impact of this was said to be two-fold: first, the insurers mentioned “insurtech fatigue” and one noted that they will be taking a break from bringing more teams in for the short term. Others generally flagged the point that they limit the number of teams they try to work with, because they know it is going to be a drain on their time away from business as usual tasks.

Second, the process takes a lot longer and they are more likely to fail to garner the required support within the business. For example, if the business case has missed out some important considerations, wider internal stakeholders may dismiss the whole solution.


Insurtechs should ensure they have sufficient prior knowledge of the fundamentals of insurance.

Several of the interviewees commented on how teams who had been through some kind of incubator or structured accelerator programme were much better prepared. The advice and experience gained proved highly valuable.

Alternatively, startups could seek to fill experience and knowledge-gaps through recruitment or senior advisory positions. These advisors could test key assumptions and ensure the robustness of business plans and forecasts.

These knowledge gaps aren’t only about how their product fits, but also how it compares with the competition.

2. Lack of regulatory knowledge and expertise

> Challenge

This challenge is an extension of the previous challenge related to insurance expertise. Insurance is a highly-regulated industry, so it is vital to ensure the insurtech team have a good understanding of any relevant regulations.

These will differ depending on the sub-sector of insurance they are seeking to enter or support, but the requirements are all publicly available, so it should fall on the insurtech to investigate and at least have a high level overview of the requirements and implications.

Several of the interviewees from insurers commented on regulatory unpreparedness being an issue, with similar implications as noted above.


Insurtechs should take time to fully understand and evaluate how regulation may impact their business or product

Again insurtechs may find it helpful to work with advisors to enhance their regulatory expertise, as well as sharing insights with peers where this is appropriate. There are many regulatory consultancies, legal firms and trade associations such as (such as Insurtech UK, Innovate Finance and the Association of British Insurers) who may provide regular webinars on relevant topics. A wealth of information is available on the FCA website. Where a firm is piloting a new product or concept it may also be helpful to apply to the FCA’s sandbox to receive further guidance in this regard.

3. Unrealistic or uninformed expectations regarding completion of deals

> Challenge

A common comment from insurance firms was that insurtechs often underestimate the process of agreeing a deal, then onboarding a new supplier with new technology. A few of the interviewees mentioned “naïve” expectations.

For example, getting positive feedback and support from a senior stakeholder can be seen as the most vital part of the process – if the senior leader supports, the rest will follow. But this isn’t always the case – they may be a key internal advocate for you, but procurement, security and compliance teams all have a lot of influence and often need to approve a new solution before it gets signed off too.

Whilst institutions themselves recognise this as a barrier, and several are in the process of increasing transparency around the onboarding journey or streamlining these requirements, being realistic about what these next steps will contain will ensure the insurtech is best prepared to navigate them. Clear communication and an honest appraisal of the sign-off process will be key. 

Insurtechs should also be aware that many insurers do not have a “test and learn” culture.  Insurtechs may expect to iterate, but established institutions may be looking for “right first time”. Again communication is key and upfront discussion of an experimental approach is vital.


Insurtechs shouldn’t underestimate the process they’re working through and recognise that there will important steps to complete beyond an initial “yes”

Based on our interviews, it can regularly take six months or more to complete a commercial deal with a large institution. This timeline is often largely outside the control of the immediate point of contact, so do what you can to understand the process, and be ready to support with extended business case requests and answering due diligence requests as promptly as possible. 

4. Understand the relative impact of their solution and its context within the insurer

> Challenge

Within big organisations there is often a lot going on, from product development, to strategy refreshes or restructures. Even if the insurtech solution in its own right is most likely beneficial, it may only impact a very small part of an insurer’s business. A key priority to the insurtech might be a nice-to-have for the insurer. Some of the interviewees felt that the insurtech didn’t appreciate this fully, and that this negatively affected their journey.


Insurtechs should do their background research on potential insurer partners, be aware of where they fit into their strategy, and how much of an impact they stand to make

In the interviews there was a disparity between the number of insurtechs the insurers met, and those that they did deals with. It was common for insurers to have met 30+ insurtechs in the past couple of years, but only do commercial deals with a few.

This might be because the gains are not big enough on their own, and so it would be worth insurtechs ensuring they target the most relevant potential customers. If they are only marginally better than the incumbent’s current process, perhaps they would have a stronger chance of partnering with an existing supplier instead.


Insights, challenges and recommendations

2.2. The insurtech perspective... on partnering with insurers 

Insurtechs are often categorised as nimble, dynamic, highly specialist teams, but how does it then feel to be faced with an established institution with its more traditional methods and formalised processes?

This section documents the insights from insurtechs when looking to partner with insurers seeking to incorporate the latest innovations. It gathers their observations and experiences, providing recommendations for future prospective partners on how best to support and nurture the insurtech company they select to work with to achieve the best out of their mutual endeavours.

The challenges, and subsequent recommendations, have been grouped into six main themes:

  1. Opaque processes can be difficult to understand
  2. Procurement and due diligence processes aren’t designed for insurtechs
  3. Legal and contractual requirements aren’t designed for insurtechs
  4. The culture of a slow no
  5. Absence of Payment for Proof of Concepts
  6. Lack of clear strategy for engagement with start-ups

1. Opaque processes can be difficult to understand

> Challenge

From the perspective of the insurtech firm attempting to secure a new customer, the various layers of approval and compliance at a larger insurer can often feel very opaque.

This can make it hard for teams to budget and plan finances as they have little confidence over their leads. It can also lead to a lot of wasted time, for example when a team will burn the midnight oil to prepare something for a given date, but then wait several weeks for it to be reviewed.

Interviewees commented that “people come out of the woodwork” to review solutions and can be barriers, with it typically requiring 5-6 stakeholders (or departments) to approve a solution, each with the ability to veto.


Insurers should clearly map (and consider publishing) their innovation process.

For each prospective project, a lead contact should be established, with other key stakeholder roles, responsibilities and decision-making authority clarified and communicated to the insurtech, with decisions sitting at a risk-appropriate level (lower risk = less senior sign off).

Some insurers interviewed were too small to have a formal process, but were given the flexibility within their role to engage with start-ups in a way which worked for them, and sign-off was clear. Other insurers had different processes for different types of prospective solutions, or for solutions which impacted different parts of the business. These are also valid, and in some cases may be better than having a rigid process, as long as it is still clearly communicated.

This recommendation is not intended to promote structures and processes where they aren’t needed, but is targeted towards insurers where there is no process, or an under-developed common understanding of how innovation should develop. If the insurer themselves aren’t clear on the process, the insurtech is unlikely to be able to understand what is going to be asked of them, or worse may be given empty or false hope when their point of contact is, themselves, unsure of the next steps required.

As part of creating or modifying an innovation process, roles and responsibilities should also be made clear. Importantly, they should also be risk appropriate – i.e. empowering project leads with the ability to progress with low risk decisions.

2. Procurement and due diligence processes aren’t designed for insurtechs

> Challenge

This challenge was raised by most of the insurtechs interviewed, as well as some insurers, with examples of start-ups being asked to complete security due diligence questionnaires of 500+ questions in less than a week. Survey templates were reported to sometimes be inflexible, add little value and ask irrelevant questions – “Buyers aren’t asking the right questions to manage their risk of working with these small businesses”.

Other insurtechs were concerned that they were being asked to provide details of their bank balance, and in one case a startup was asked for customer contact details for references before the business team had even validated that the startup’s solution was right for them – an example of a demand which causes additional work for a small business before they’ve even validated the lead.

It was clear in the interviews that this was an area of cost and stress for insurtechs, and a significant barrier to entry.


Insurers should review their procurement requirements for insurtech, ensuring these are risk appropriate (lower risk = fewer questions)

This could include incorporating “facilitating innovation” into the role objectives for key support functions (e.g. legal, procurement) to acknowledge this as key to wider organisational goals.

Insurers should work with their internal procurement teams to find ways of managing the risk of working with a startup appropriately. For example, if the solution is not business critical and does not handle sensitive data, the approval process should be more focussed around validating the value to the business, rather than lengthy, inflexible questionnaires.

3. Legal and contractual requirements aren’t designed for insurtechs

> Challenge

Wider examples of challenges faced by insurtechs included issues related to GDPR and data ownership, liability insurance requirements, and the costs of external legal support to review documents.


Insurers should:

  • review their legal requirements for insurtechs, ensuring these are risk appropriate and reasonable (lower risk = lower indemnity required)
  • consider how they can help equip insurtechs with the necessary understanding of obligatory legal requirements such as GDPR
  • be clear themselves why and what they need it for in the event of requesting ownership of IP and data

As with the procurement process, legal teams could helpfully consider how the contract terms and requirements might be amended to be most suitable to the proposed deal. Sometimes legal teams in big companies are just so used to working with other big companies that ‘normal’ is not a start-up friendly starting point. When transferring liability it may also be appropriate to consider what is appropriate in the shorter term for a pilot with a smaller insurtech, vs longer-term as a company matures or may be consolidated into a larger partner.

Rules like GDPR, an important development in consumer protection, are well-understood by bigger corporates, but sometimes less-so by early-stage start-ups pitching for initial pilots. Given the interdependence of insurers and their insurtech partners in ensuring GDPR is correctly adhered to across the full data chain it is vital that insurtechs understand and are able to execute the full extent of their obligations.  Insurers could consider arranging GDPR workshops, with speakers including the ICO, legal counsels from insurance institutions and legal advisers to insurance firms.

When it comes to IP and data, requirements by the insurer to own these should be considered relevant to what the solution is doing, and with what data.

4. The culture of a slow no

> Challenge

One of the more painful challenges faced by insurtechs is the culture of not wanting to say no. Instead, more questions are asked, more people review, and the process can drag out for a long time before either the product becomes irrelevant, or all parties get pulled into other priorities and it fizzles out.

It takes a lot of time and effort to continue chasing deals and answering queries, particularly when insurtech teams are very small, and so the slow no can be costly.  It should be acknowledged however that sometimes innovators within firms are trying to build support internally, which can take time and eventually lead to a slow yes.  Nevertheless, startups have finite funds and larger institutions need to be aware of this. Other recommendations in this paper will also help to address this issue – having a clear innovation strategy is key.  With that in place, internal advocates should have a forum to be heard, and can expect more rapid decision-making.


Insurers should be mindful of a startup’s funding runway

  • don’t delay decisions if possible
  • say no quickly if this is the most likely outcome
  • be focused and refer to the insurer’s innovation strategy to determine fit early on
  • if you are interested but currently lack resources, say so

Being clear with the start-ups that you are in discussions with, and being realistic about the likelihood of this opportunity becoming a reality, can really help insurtechs themselves to accurately assess and prioritise prospective projects. This also complements the recommendations to address challenges 1 and 6.

5.  Absence of Payment for Proof of Concepts

> Challenge

Current approaches were very inconsistent across the interviews conducted. Some insurtechs won’t do Proof of Concepts (PoCs) unless paid-for, others accept that they won’t get paid. However, it was a consistently held view that PoCs should be paid for – even if the amount is small and only covers certain elements.

The benefits of paid-for PoCs was not just for short-term cashflow, although clearly this is important for many, but it is also a signal that the incumbent has the authority to engage, the problem / opportunity is significant enough to put budget towards it, and that they are serious about this solution.


Insurers should offer paid Proof of Concepts where possible.

  • Where this is not possible PoCs should be short and focussed to gain evidence to proceed further.
  • In-kind value may also be acceptable to an insurtech.

In most cases, PoCs should be paid for – whilst it is not necessarily expected that this should generate profit, it is generally reasonable to cover the insurtech’s costs.

There are examples where the insurance firm is investing significant effort on their side, whether through time, tech, or data, and this can justify no direct payment to the insurtech for the PoC. It could be seen as a matter of value exchange – if both parties are bringing value to each other, this may be enough.

6. Lack of strategy for how to engage with start-ups

> Challenge

Some interviewees highlighted a greater need for insurers to have an overall strategy for working with insurtechs. This goes beyond the individual recommendations above, extending to actively considering how insurtech solutions could form part of an insurer’s overall business strategy.

Interviewees commented that it wasn’t always clear which budget would be paying for a new solution, and that sometimes decisions to proceed could be in conflict with business as usual, making it more difficult to agree if not embedded into a wider, longer-term plan.


Insurers should develop a clear strategy for working with insurtech startups.

This could include:

  • a separate innovation P&L or ring-fenced budget within BAU focused on innovation

A separate innovation P&L or ring-fenced departmental funds for innovation might lead to better decisions and visibility of spend. Whether to separate innovation from BAU within a larger organisation is an ongoing discussion.  Separation can lead to a “not invented here” cultural barrier, but embedding in BAU can lead to innovation being deprioritised or timescales being overwhelmed with firefighting.  The interviews found a strong steer towards separation, alongside clear objectives on BAU functions to support, review and embed solutions.  Regular secondments are also recommended, supported by a core innovation team.

  • a key point of contact to help insurtechs understand the insurer’s innovation strategy and navigate internal processes

A single point of contact, who knows their way around the business and processes, and ideally has budget authority, was seen as a must-have in many cases.

  • providing an opportunity for insurtechs to profile themselves in a targeted manner

This could be setting out specific needs or challenges the insurer is currently considering, allowing them to navigate towards those institutions most likely to welcome a specific interest at that time.

  • developing or working with an incubator or structured accelerator programme

Whilst some insurtechs will prefer to remain independent and source their own advice and insurance expertise, several interviewees mentioned the benefits of working with incubators and accelerators. Larger firms may want to consider developing their own programmes, whilst smaller or medium-sized insurers may find partnering with external initiatives helpful if they otherwise struggle to find and engage with the most appropriate startups.

  • a clear demonstration of how the business is working collaboratively with with start-ups

If working with start-ups forms part of an insurer’s strategy, then it is worth stepping back to consider whether the business is attractive for them to work with. InsurtTechs collaborate and network a lot, and companies with good reputations will attract the best talent.

A culture where compliance trumps curiosity - is this unnecessarily hampering innovation?

Beyond process and procedural steps, the research interviews also raised the question of how to increase an entrepreneurial culture throughout insurance institutions - to reach a point where innovation is recognised and rewarded, rather than restrained.

Some contractual and compliance challenges that arise throughout onboarding and procurement processes may occur either as a result of regulations, or the interpretation of relevant rules.  Following the 2008 financial crisis there was a strengthening of compliance regulation and practices for understandable reasons, but in some cases this may have produced “one size fits all” rules and fostered an overall culture of lower risk taking in all circumstances, including small pilots. The prevailing culture may now be that it is easier to do nothing than take a chance with limited downsides, constraining the potential to take advantage of the newest, most innovative developments within the sector.  

The “tone from the top” can make a significant difference here, if Executive teams genuinely want to encourage a culture of entrepreneurship they need to send the right signals. Proactive statements from regulators like the PRA and FCA can also help firms feel more confident in determining the appropriate risk frameworks to apply to smaller, innovative pilots.


Conclusions and
next steps

There is clearly appetite and ambition amongst both insurtechs and insurance firms to drive higher levels of innovation across the industry. This research has enabled us to draw together recommendations on both sides to smooth the partnership process to enable quicker, more efficient collaborations, and the Insurtech Board will continue to work with partners across the industry to support implementation of these proposals.

As an immediate next step to demonstrate a commitment to clear, transparent onboarding processes for partnering with insurtechs and to address many of the challenges outlined throughout this report, insurance firms are invited to sign the UK’s Fintech Pledge and implement its key principles within six months.

This research has focused on how insurance firms can best work with insurtechs, but there also remains the wider related challenge of how to drive technological change across the whole insurance supply chain. Insurance is a complex business with interactions spanning many organisations. From a retail perspective this might be limited to broker, insurer, re-insurer, but in other scenarios such as the London market there are many more parties involved from customers (with several internal teams involved from the risk owner, data owners to insurance buyers); retail and then sometimes wholesale brokers, insurers, reinsurer and sometime retrocessionaires.  

Change can be held up because new approaches need data to flow through the whole chain. Yet with discontinuous communication channels and multiple differing legacy systems it can be very challenging to innovate. These issues can also act as a barrier to disruptive change from insurtechs, and each step in the chain should be encouraged to embrace the latest technology and data applications for the UK to secure its transformation to a modern, responsive insurance sector.

UK Fintech Pledge

The Fintech Pledge sets globally leading standards for the establishment of partnerships between the UK’s largest financial institutions and fintech firms - be it fintechs, insurtechs, regtechs or the many other start-up tech firms supporting the future of financial services.

The 5 principles of the Fintech Pledge are:

  1. Provide clear guidance to technology firms on how the onboarding process works through a dedicated online landing page
  2. Provide clarity to tech startup firms on their progress through the onboarding process
  3. Provide a named contact, guidance and feedback
  4. Encourage good practice and improvement
  5. Commit to implementing this process 6 months from signing the Pledge and providing bi-annual feedback in the first year

Further information about the Fintech Pledge can be found at:


Download the report

Complete the form to download the report PDF.



This report has been produced by the Insurtech Board for general information purposes only. While care has been taken in gathering the data and preparing the report the Board does not make any representations or warranties as to its accuracy or completeness and expressly excludes to the maximum extent permitted by law all those that might otherwise be implied.

We accept no responsibility or liability for any loss or damage of any nature occasioned to any person as a result of acting or refraining from acting as a result of, or in reliance on, any statement, fact, figure or expression of opinion or belief contained in this report. This report does not constitute advice of any kind.

The views expressed in this report have been collated from a wide range of interviews across the insurtech ecosystem, and therefore do not necessarily represent the views of every organisation for whom the board members work.


Research approach

Over the course of autumn 2020, at the request of the Insurtech Board, the Lloyd’s Lab team interviewed 26 insurers, insurtechs, and other relevant innovators in the market with the aim of understanding the barriers that insurtechs face when working with established institutions, and what could be done to start to address these obstacles. The team found challenges on both sides of the debate, but also found a large number of positive stories.

The report lays out these insights and a number of recommendations, which are targeted not only at insurtechs and insurers, but also at the wider industry, government, and regulators, who can all play a part in promoting productive partnerships.


We are grateful to the Lloyd’s Lab team for carrying out the interviews and drafting the initial findings. The following people were consulted or commented on earlier drafts of the report, attended workshops and 1:1 meetings, and provided their time and support to the project; we would like to thank them all for their invaluable contributions.

Lloyd’s Lab

Trevor Maynard
Ed Gaze
Femi Williams

Insurtech Board

Ben Luckett, Aviva
Ed Leon Klinger, Flock
Fraser Edmond, Broker Insights
John Warburton, Konsileo
Kieran Borett, Plug and Play
Louise Birritteri, Pikl
Louise o’Shea,
Luisa Barile, BoughtByMany
Paolo Cuomo, Brit Insurance
Parul Kaul-Green, Axa
Rob Moore, Swoop
Ruta Mikiskaite, Swiss Re
Shan Mille, Bright Blue Hare
Stephen Brittain, Insurtech Gateway
Tom Dixon, Hiscox
Trevor Maynard, Lloyds
Yannis Korgialos, Munich Re
Jemima Pitceathly, Tech Nation
Ravi Shukla, Tech Nation
Victoria Roberts, Tech Nation


Alastair Goodwin, Adoptech
Anastasia Dokuchaeva, ClauseMatch
Andrew Johnston, Willis Re
Anna Antimiichuk, ClauseMatch
Anna Dalglish, Aviva
Chris Lovick, MS Amlin
Dave Higginson, Adoptech
David Dewhurst, Dale Underwriting Partners
Dominic Coyne, Munich Re Syndicate
Gareth Arnott, Lloyd’s
Harry Franks, Zego
Ian Bartholomew, Floodflash
Kieran Borrett, Plug and Play
Kristian Feldborg, Vesuvio Labs
Laurent de la Porte, Allphins
Luisa Barile, Bought by many
Martin Canavan, Lloyd’s
Matthew Greaves, Atrium
Niall Barton, Wrisk
Ori Cohen, Parametrix
Paolo Cuomo, Brit
Parth Patel, Ascot
Peter Clarke, Insurercore
Richard Gunn, hx
Sabine VanderLinden, Alchemy Crew
Stuart Conibear, Phinsys