A claims laundry list is the bulk claims listing a cedent or broker sends: hundreds of pages, thousands of rows, every counterparty’s own layout. Reviewing one means finding the handful of claims that genuinely threaten your position, without reading every row.
Evaluating software rather than learning the process? Start at claims laundry lists.
Laundry list is the market’s own name for the bulk claims register that arrives with a renewal, a treaty discussion or periodic reporting. It summarises a book’s claims experience in one document: claim numbers, dates of loss, claimants, narratives, venues and amounts, in whatever layout the sender’s systems produce.
Because the signal hides in free text. The claims that matter announce themselves in narrative language, often misspelled, and in venue columns where one court name changes the complexion of a claim. Meanwhile totals rows masquerade as claims and the same insured is spread across files.
Six things, in rough order of how expensive they are to miss:
Narrative terms from your own severity vocabulary, including the misspelled variants a keyword search misses.
Plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions and specific courts. A named court always matters; a bare state only matters in a venue column.
Insureds whose accumulated incurred is approaching a layer attachment point, summed across every file they appear in.
Individual claims carrying an outsized share of the book’s incurred.
Totals, preambles and report artifacts counted as claims, inflating or hiding the real picture.
The same claim listed twice across sheets or files, double-counting incurred.
Match at three tiers against your own vocabulary: exact, synonym and fuzzy. A misspelled “electrocuted” should still hit; “decrease” must not match “deceased.” The vocabulary itself is judgment: it belongs to your team, not to a vendor’s generic list.
Tracking each insured’s total incurred loss against the attachment point of your layer, banded below, approaching or reached. It is the difference between a list review and an exposure review: the claim that matters most may be unremarkable on its own row.
The output is a banded, auditable review of the whole list, with every flag explained. Under the hood:
That is Brisc’s Claims Analyst at work. Product detail: claims laundry lists, the Claims Analyst, and first notice of loss intake.
No. A claims bordereau is periodic movement reporting, reconciled version over version. A laundry list is a bulk listing, often attached to a renewal or a treaty discussion, reviewed once to find the claims that matter. The documents overlap; the jobs are different. See claims bordereaux ingestion and validation.
It should, because your hazard vocabulary and your problem jurisdictions are underwriting judgment accumulated over years. In Brisc’s Claims Analyst they are tuned per client with no deployment, and a re-run rescores an ingested list instantly after a change.
It stops and asks. Confident hits are accepted, weak ones ignored, and borderline cases are adjudicated with written reasoning. A case that stays genuinely ambiguous is tagged for human review rather than being forced into a yes or a no.
Every flag shows why it fired: the term that matched, where it matched, and the jurisdiction signal that weighted it, including the near-misses the engine decided against. A score you cannot interrogate is an opinion; a review has to survive a market dispute.
Reinsurance claims teams reviewing cedent listings, delegated-authority carriers reviewing TPA and coverholder claims, and portfolio underwriters assessing a book at renewal. Anywhere a counterparty summarises thousands of claims into one document, someone has to find the ones that matter.
30 minutes, no slide deck. We run a real listing through the Claims Analyst, flags, reasoning and near-misses included. Your book is specific; the walkthrough should be too.
Book the walkthrough