What defines multinational claims reality

For clients, the expectation is simpler. “It’s the same approach anywhere around the world. And at the end of the day, that’s what they want,” he said.

Delivering that expectation depends less on eliminating differences than on managing them. Burgess describes multinational claims through a set of core disciplines: “consistency, communication, clarity, collaboration.” Those principles underpin governance and oversight but also define how programmes operate in practice.

Where global intent meets local reality

The tension at the centre of multinational claims is structural. Global programmes are designed to create oversight, visibility and control. Claims, however, are governed by local law.

“The main tension lies between global oversight and local reality,” Burgess said.

Those stakeholders often operate across different time zones, regulatory environments and reporting structures. Tension can arise not only between global and local teams, but also between local entities and parent organisations, particularly where priorities differ.

Data fragmentation compounds the issue. Systems vary across markets, reporting standards are inconsistent, and information does not always move cleanly between participants. The result is an uneven view of claims activity, affecting both decision-making and oversight.

Expectations around performance have also shifted. “They’re much more demanding,” Burgess said, pointing to the growing expectation for real-time visibility and faster decision-making. Speed of settlement has become a differentiator, particularly where complex processes risk slowing outcomes.

That pressure is not purely operational, it is also relational. Claims remain the point at which the insurance proposition is tested most directly, requiring both technical execution and clear communication.

Designing for reality, not assumption

A persistent challenge in multinational programmes is the gap between design and delivery.

“There can be a disconnect between how programs are designed and how they operate in practice,” Burgess said.

Too often, claims considerations are not embedded early enough, leaving programmes exposed when tested.

“The claims proposition needs to be included from day one, because without that it’s going to fall apart,” he said.

Where that alignment is missing, assumptions fill the gap.

“People make assumptions and normally get it wrong,” Burgess said, particularly when global frameworks are applied without sufficient regard for local practice.

That risk is amplified when firms expand across borders without fully adapting to local conditions. As Burgess put it, “you cannot be parochial.” Approaches that work in one jurisdiction cannot simply be replicated in another.

Instead, the emphasis shifts to understanding and visibility. Local practices need to be understood, communicated and reflected in programme design. Differences are not removed, but they are anticipated and explained.

Consistency, in that sense, is not defined by uniform outcomes. It is defined by whether those outcomes are understood before they occur.

First seen in Insurance Business Mag.