Paul Burgess serves as the Senior Vice President and Global Head of Multinational Claims at Sompo, where he navigates the intricate web of international insurance regulations and client expectations. With years of experience managing risks that span continents, he understands that the true test of any insurance policy is the moment a claim is filed. His approach emphasizes that while a global program provides the architecture, the local execution defines the success of the partnership. In this discussion, we explore the delicate balance between maintaining a unified corporate vision and respecting the distinct legal landscapes of various jurisdictions, highlighting how clear communication and early strategic planning are the cornerstones of effective global risk management.
This dialogue delves into the structural tensions between global oversight and local legal realities, emphasizing that multinational programs must prioritize predictable processes over identical outcomes. We examine the operational hurdles of stakeholder coordination and data fragmentation, while stressing the vital importance of integrating claims expertise into the very first day of program design to avoid the pitfalls of a parochial mindset.
Multinational insurance programs often strive for consistency rather than absolute uniformity. How do you distinguish between these two concepts in practice, and what specific steps can be taken at the outset of a program to ensure all stakeholders understand their roles without any surprises?
In the world of global risk, the distinction between consistency and uniformity is fundamental. Uniformity suggests that every claim will be handled in exactly the same way regardless of where it occurs, but the reality of local laws and cultural norms makes that an impossible standard to meet. Consistency, however, is about providing a reliable approach and a predictable experience for the client, regardless of the jurisdiction. To achieve this, we lean on four core disciplines: consistency, communication, clarity, and collaboration. Right at the outset, the most critical step is sitting down with all parties to map out exactly who is going to do what, when, and where. This avoids the friction that occurs when a local office or a broker has a different expectation of the reporting chain than the global headquarters. When everyone has a clear roadmap from day one, you eliminate the “surprises” that usually lead to frustration and financial leakage.
Global oversight often clashes with local legal realities, such as varying procedural timelines between different countries. How do these jurisdictional differences affect final claim outcomes, and what strategies are most effective for managing client expectations when local laws dictate the pace of a settlement?
The main tension in our industry lies between the desire for global oversight and the unavoidable nature of local reality. While a corporate headquarters might want a claim settled in thirty days to close their quarterly books, the local legal system in a place like the United States or the UK might have procedural norms that stretch that timeline into months or even years. These differences can drastically affect the final outcome because the pace of litigation and the regulatory framework in one country might favor a quick settlement, while another might require exhaustive documentation. To manage this, we focus on setting expectations early by explaining the “why” behind the delay rather than just reporting the status. If a UK-headquartered client understands that a US claim is moving through a system with different discovery rules and timelines, the delay becomes a managed part of the process rather than a failure of service. Ultimately, managing the client’s expectation is just as critical as managing the technical aspects of the claim itself.
Coordinating diverse stakeholders like brokers, loss adjusters, and third-party administrators across various time zones creates significant friction. How does data fragmentation between these entities hinder real-time visibility, and what specific processes can streamline communication to meet the growing demand for faster decision-making?
Coordination is easily the primary challenge we face because you are trying to align an army of stakeholders—brokers, loss adjusters, third-party administrators (TPAs), and our own internal offices—all of whom might be using different systems. Data fragmentation is a massive hurdle; when information is trapped in silos or formatted differently across markets, it creates a clouded view of the claims activity. This is particularly stressful in an era where clients are becoming much more demanding and expect real-time visibility into their losses. To counter this, we prioritize the relational side of claims management, using dedicated multinational claims advisors who act as a single point of truth to bridge the gap between fragmented data sets. We have found that establishing strong first impressions and clear reporting standards early on helps build trust, which is the only way to move fast when the data itself is lagging. Speed of settlement has become a true differentiator, but you can only achieve it if your communication channels are as robust as your technical expertise.
Programs can fail if claims expertise is not integrated during the initial design phase or if a parochial approach is applied to global risks. How should these considerations be embedded from day one, and what are the primary risks of assuming one region’s practices will function in another?
There is often a significant disconnect between how a program is designed on paper and how it actually operates when a real-world loss occurs. If you don’t include the claims proposition from day one, the entire program risks falling apart at the exact moment the client needs it most. The danger of a “parochial” approach—where someone assumes that what works in their home market will work everywhere else—is that it ignores the nuances of local practice. People frequently make assumptions about legal standing or local administrative requirements and, as I often say, they normally get it wrong. Instead of trying to force a home-office template onto a distant market, we need to ensure that local practices are understood, communicated, and reflected in the program’s initial design. Consistency is not defined by forcing uniform outcomes, but by ensuring that everyone understands what the local outcome will be before it even happens.
What is your forecast for the evolution of multinational claims management?
I believe we are moving toward a future where the role of the multinational claims advisor will become even more central as complexity continues to rise. While technology and data integration will eventually help reduce the friction caused by fragmentation, the human element of “clarity and transparency” will remain the most valuable asset an insurer can provide. We will see a shift where speed of settlement and real-time reporting are no longer “value-adds” but the baseline requirement for any global program. Success will belong to those who can master the art of being “local everywhere,” blending sophisticated global oversight with a deep, non-parochial respect for local legal realities. As clients face more volatile global risks, the ability to provide a predictable process in an unpredictable world will be the ultimate measure of a successful multinational partnership.
