In particular, recent claims indicators do not support an assumption that annual production volumes rise smoothly.
| Evidence | Period and observed change | Buyer interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| LexisNexis home claims trends | In 2025, frequency declined for all perils except fire and lightning; overall severity was 93.2% above 2019, while loss cost fell 4.4% from 2024 | Higher claim values do not establish more files or proportionate growth in production fees. (risk.lexisnexis.com) |
| Crawford US Property & Casualty segment | $74.1 million revenue in Q2 2026, down 10.2% year on year | A broad claims-service provider can face revenue contraction during continuing technology investment. Crawford states that comparisons reflect its January 2026 operating realignment. (sec.gov) |
| SeekNow estimate-writing expansion | 29 December 2025 announcement described increased estimate volume and a broader range of claim types during 2025 | A supplier can expand its production offering even when underlying market activity is weaker; no numerical growth rate was disclosed. (seeknow.com) |
| Claims labour outlook | BLS projects 6% employment decline across claims adjusters, appraisers, examiners and investigators from 2025–2035, alongside approximately 21,600 annual replacement openings | Automation and replacement hiring can coexist. This is an all-lines occupational forecast, not a property-production forecast. (bls.gov) |
Desk inference: production-service revenue depends on at least three separate variables—eligible claim volume, the share externally purchased and price per unit. Software adoption could increase the external share while lowering labour content or the price of routine work. The reviewed sources do not quantify the net effect.
Accordingly, the supplied forecasts of 5–10% service growth and 10–20% automation growth should not be published as market findings. No like-for-like, independently measured series was found to support them.
How should buyers budget for that uncertainty?
Use three procurement scenarios rather than one industry CAGR:
| Scenario | Inputs to vary | Commercial response to test |
|---|---|---|
| Quiet claims year | File arrivals and utilisation | Lower minimum commitments; avoid paying for unusable reserved capacity |
| Stable daily claims | Repeatable water, wind and other defined loss cohorts | Measured unit economics and predictable revision terms |
| Catastrophe surge | Arrival concentration, input completeness and reviewer availability | Capacity reservation, overflow arrangements and acceptance-quality safeguards |
These are recommended budgeting tests, not forecasts of the next catastrophe season.
Sources cited on this page
- risk.lexisnexis.comrisk.lexisnexis.com
- sec.govsec.gov
- seeknow.comseeknow.com
- bls.govbls.gov