.jpg)
Carriers have three boxes to check when it comes to meeting policyholder communication expectations: be timely, be accurate, and show up on the channels policyholders actually use. To be clear, these aren't differentiators, they're the baseline. Policyholders aren't open to negotiating on any of them.
The data backs that up. Carriers who engage policyholders through their preferred channels see 25% higher retention rates than those who don't. Receiving timely and adequate updates consistently ranks as one of the top drivers of customer satisfaction throughout the digital claims process… yet insurers deliver on that expectation just 22% of the time.
Policyholders are very clearly stating what they need, but carriers are still falling short 78% of the time. In reality, that means what customers considered ‘quality communication’ even 2–3 years ago just isn’t making the cut anymore.
Omnichannel doesn't just mean the ‘top’ channels
Email and text top just about every list of preferred communication channels. Voice comes in close behind, though it skews older, with 49% of Gen Z consumers actually reporting anxiety around phone-based interactions. That generational shift matters. Younger policyholders aren't just a growing segment of the market; their preferences are actively reshaping the baseline for what carriers need to support.
Insurance is no exception. A recent OneInc study reported a 183% increase in two-way texting between claimants and claim handlers, while 58% of consumers still cite access to a live human representative as important. And across all of it, 90% of policyholders share one expectation in common: the ability to engage through whatever channel works for them.
But supporting the 'big three' of SMS, email, and voice isn't enough to stay competitive. In-app experiences have become a key driver of satisfaction throughout the claims process. A policyholder dashboard or portal — one that provides real-time notifications and live visibility into claim progress — directly addresses one of the most consistent frustrations in claims: feeling left in the dark.
That dynamic gets especially pronounced in high-value lines of business. Homeowners who describe their insurer as 'very easy to communicate with' report an average property claims satisfaction score of 777. Among those who find communication difficult, that score drops to 337. Same policy, same claim type, but an entirely different experience based on how well the carrier communicates.
And then, there's fax. A channel that raises eyebrows in a lot of digital-first conversations, but one that carriers can’t be quick to write off.
For claims involving bodily injury or liability, the exchange of sensitive documents like medical bills, reports, and legal filings demands levels of compliance (like HIPAA) that out-of-the-box digital channels and solutions usually can't match. Fax delivers it natively. In litigated claims specifically, fax provides immediate, documentable confirmation of receipt that prevents delays in proceedings. That’s something email can’t offer with accuracy or consistency due to the constant evolution of email privacy, mobile device security measures, and more.
Nevermind that the evolution of digital fax environments has long taken this channel out of its analog origins and firmly placed it in the cloud conversation. But its ability to be shared across both environments can make it a practical bridge for document exchange with third-party providers who don't share a common digital infrastructure. Add to that the fact that an (albeit small) segment of P&C policyholders, mainly older generations, still actively prefer it, and the case for fax inclusion becomes clear.
A 2025 Insurity study found that only 15% of policyholders want a fully digital experience. That leaves 85% who expect something more. Carriers that build their omnichannel strategy around digital-first without accounting for the full communication spectrum are missing the mark.
Omnichannel is only effective when communications are fully integrated
Back to in-app experiences for a moment. Industry data shows satisfaction scores peak when policyholders receive claim updates through their insurer's app. Yet only 36% of auto insurance customers and 31% of homeowners’ customers actually receive updates that way. Most still rely on email, phone, or text.
The first takeaway is straightforward: in-app experiences and customer portals matter. If you don't have one, build one.
The second takeaway looks between the lines. Policyholders aren't holding out for a specific channel. They're holding out for accurate, real-time updates through whatever channel they already use. The satisfaction spike that shows up in app usage isn't necessarily about the app itself. It's about what the app environment provides. Proactive, accurate information delivered without the policyholder having to ask for it.
The channel is the vehicle. The outcome is what matters.
Queue the default answer echoing across the industry—automation, automation, automation. Trigger templated texts when milestones are reached, and send scripted emails at key touchpoints. Send updates to every preferred channel a policyholder selected at onboarding at once, so they can’t miss it.
It’s all valid, and it all moves the needle. A little.
But automated communications alone don’t answer all the questions.
Are those updates accurate? Do they reflect the most current information on the claim, down to the second they're sent? Have they been validated against the details of every applicable exposure? Do they account for every communication that's happened across claim stakeholders, liable parties, vendors, and litigation specialists?
When a contractor completes work, when a body shop faxes over a document that needs immediate attention, or when a vendor misses a critical SLA, is that activity updating in your claims system in real time (the same one that’s sending those communications)? Is it triggering the right policyholder notification, flagging missing documentation, or catching an error before it causes a delay?
That is where the gap between 'omnichannel' and ‘integrated’ communication becomes impossible to ignore. Satisfaction among policyholders who report their claim digitally sits at 903 when the claim closes in under three weeks. After 31 days, that score drops to 727. Cycle time is a direct driver of customer experience, not just an operational metric. And nothing extends cycle times faster than disconnected systems that require manual handoffs to keep pace.
Every time an adjuster toggles between their email inbox and an SMS portal, uploads a vendor estimate by hand, chases down a status update to verify it's current, or manually logs a communication in the claim file, the claim slows down. The more your tech stack depends on patchwork connections and adjuster oversight to transfer information between systems, the more you've introduced risk, and the more your policyholders pay for it in cycle time and frustration.
Having one place to send texts and emails is a start. Having a centralized system that houses every communication, claim milestone, vendor update, and piece of activity (in real time) is the only way it matters.
When the boxes are checked, it all comes down to empathy
Superior communication is never more mission-critical than in high-stakes claims: catastrophe losses, severe home damage, business interruption, loss of income, complex commercial liability, to name a few.
The higher the stakes, the more emotional the policyholder experience becomes, and the more dangerous it is for a carrier to lean on automation when human judgment and connection are what's actually called for. Individuals facing the total loss of their home, families navigating months of displacement, or business owners staring down the impact of losing their primary source of income aren't customers filing a routine transaction. They're people in the middle of one of the most significant events of their lives.
To be clear, automation can yield results in these moments that could never be achieved without it. Fast first contact sets a strong tone from the start and immediately signals to an anxious policyholder that their claim is moving. Timely milestone notifications keep policyholders connected to their claim status and prevent that 'left in the dark' spiral that tanks satisfaction scores and erodes trust.
Those are legitimate, high-impact use cases for automated communication. But the moment carriers start handing off complex, emotionally charged interactions to scripted responses and pre-built templates, they trade short-term efficiency for a long-term loss.
The research is direct: 83% of consumers still prefer some level of human interaction in their brand engagements. 60% actively choose brands based on demonstrated empathy. And 43% have walked away from companies that failed to show it.
Even the most AI-forward organizations have found that human agents remain indispensable for the complex, high-judgment interactions that automation can't handle. In some cases, AI manages upwards of 95% of customer interactions, but that remaining 5% of complex issues still requires a human. In P&C claims, that 5% can represent your highest-value, highest-risk, most litigated, and most emotionally loaded cases. The ones where getting it wrong costs the most.
This should be the guiding star for where your adjusters need to allocate their time. Every minute an adjuster spends toggling between disconnected systems, uploading documents, hunting down a vendor status, or manually verifying an update before sending it to a policyholder is a minute they're not spending on the part of their job that actually requires them: building trust, managing expectations, and being present for a policyholder who needs more than a status update.
Omnichannel communication isn't a feature. It's a fully integrated component of an effective claims operating system that doesn't stop at supporting multiple channels. It continuously keeps the ease, speed, and quality of every communication at the center of every phase of the claim lifecycle. From first contact to final resolution, and every step in between.
