d. Kalepa says work volume on its platform has quadrupled over the past year and that customers reported writing more than 58% more premium per underwriter, which is a roundabout way of saying “the same staff can process more business.” The big question is whether speed and automation improve productivity without weakening “risk selection” – choosing good risks and pricing them correctly – because any shortcuts can show up later as higher claims.
Why should I care?
For markets: Kalepa’s “58% more premium per underwriter” is a potential cost lever for insurers like W.R. Berkley.
For insurers, a key yardstick is the combined ratio, which compares claims and operating costs with premium earned. Tools that help underwriters quote faster typically show up first in lower operating costs per policy, since insurers can scale written premium without hiring in lockstep.
If Kalepa’s customer-reported results hold, early adopters could look structurally more efficient than peers that still rely on heavier manual workflows, especially in specialized commercial lines where submissions are complex. But the efficiency story only lasts if automation doesn’t lead to underpricing: higher future claims would push up the loss ratio and can wipe out any savings on the expense side.