How legacy underwriting workbenches are failing modern insurance

Legacy underwriting workbenches were built to digitize paper files and route documents—not to support dynamic decision-making or real-time portfolio insight. What once seemed like an upgrade now functions as a drag on performance, talent retention, and growth.

This post explores why even well-intentioned modernization efforts fall short when they rely on traditional workbench systems and why underwriters and insurers need a better way to work. We’ll break down 3 ways legacy systems create hidden costs in the underwriting workflow, and what leading insurers are doing instead.

3 hidden costs of legacy underwriting workbenches

Legacy underwriting workbenches were never built to support strategic underwriting. They were designed to digitize paperwork, not to inform decisions or adapt to change. What once passed as innovation now slows teams down, reinforcing the very inefficiencies insurers are trying to escape.

1. Fragmented workflows and manual rework

Despite claims of centralization, most legacy workbenches force underwriters to jump between 6 to 10 systems just to get a basic quote out. Each switch creates friction, increases the chance of error, and wastes valuable time. Additionally, these systems often lack integration with analytics or third-party data, turning every decision into a scavenger hunt across disconnected tools.

2. Static guidance in a fast-moving market

Legacy systems are misaligned with today’s rapidly evolving risk environment. Many underwriters still rely on static PDFs, spreadsheets, or informal communications to interpret appetite guidelines—tools that were never designed for real-time decision-making.

Over half of underwriting teams continue to use outdated documentation for risk evaluation. These workarounds not only hinder consistency and speed, but they also limit an insurer’s ability to dynamically manage exposure, accumulation risk, and portfolio strategy.

3. Time wasted on the wrong deals

Without tools to assess winnability, many underwriters are stuck in FIFO queues, working every submission as if it has equal value. The result? According to Federato’s State of Underwriting Report, 1 in 4 submissions falls outside of appetite, and 26% of underwriters’ time is spent on deals that were never winnable to begin with. 

Legacy systems offer no way to prioritize the best opportunities or route work to the right people, which drags down productivity and performance.

What high-performance underwriting requires

Underwriting inefficiency is a workflow issue and a strategic liability. It affects profitability, responsiveness, and talent retention. More than half of insurers cite failure to adopt advanced technology as their most significant missed opportunity in underwriting.

To meet the demands of modern insurance, forward-looking organizations are moving beyond digitized paperwork and toward intelligent, AI-supported underwriting platforms that:

• Embed real-time appetite indicators and tiered routing to prioritize high-fit, high-impact submissions.
• Consolidate internal and external data sources into a unified interface, reducing friction and accelerating decisions.
• Align every deal with both individual risk metrics and portfolio-level objectives through embedded analytics and decision intelligence.

Legacy workbenches weren’t built for today’s underwriting complexity, and they weren’t built to evolve. As insurers strive to improve hit ratios, manage accumulation risk, and achieve profitable growth, maintaining the status quo with outdated tools comes at a steep cost.

Modern platforms must do more than digitize the old way of doing things. They need to guide decisions, align teams, and enable real-time action at the point of underwriting.