Tomorrow never lies – The importance of intelligence sharing to deal with evolving claims fraud

The intelligence gap in insurance 

James Bond aside, you don’t often hear much about the work of spies. Ordinarily, the work of intelligence agencies only reaches the news when something goes wrong, such as the recent issue of the Security Service providing false evidence to the BBC and the High Court. That aside, the way intelligence agencies most often make headlines is in the failure to share key intelligence with those who need it.

Whilst the head offices of insurers and their professional advisors are a world apart from the grubby grime of Le Carré’s Circus, the failure to share intelligence is a risk that is ever present. Just like the spooks in Langley or Thames House, insurers operating in silos can lead to key pieces of information not being shared, which can in turn create significant (albeit not as quite catastrophic) problems.

Fraud trends beyond motor and personal injury 

For the past few decades, counter-fraud measures have predominantly been focused on the motor and personal injury sectors. This is unsurprising given the claims volumes involved and the professional enablers which allowed for semi-organised fraud to become common place. In response, counter-fraud strategies were honed and refined to make these areas a hostile space for fraudsters.

One of the key developments in the fight against fraud was intelligence sharing. Fraudsters are the worst kind of loyal customer; they will perpetrate frauds across multiple insurance lines with multiple insurers if they can get away with it. As a result, an insurer facing a fraudulent policyholder or claimant has a wealth of data and intelligence to draw upon from a variety of different resources. In addition to an insurer’s own in-house data services, insurers can also rely on information from their professional advisors and the databases they maintain. Further, external, pooled resources are available such as the Claims Underwriting Exchange which allows for insurers to share motor, personal injury and home claims histories across sectors. 

The power and limits of intelligence sharing 

However, these systems have their limitations, including whether their usage extends beyond the areas that have traditionally combatted fraud. Given the evolving claims landscape, it is becoming an imperative that insurers begin to share more intelligence more freely than before. Given the vigilance of insurers successfully operating in the traditional areas, fraudsters have sought to operate in practice areas and lines of business which have less experience in sharing or accessing intelligence.

According to Association of British Insurers (“ABI”), in 2023 (the most recent available figures), £1bn worth of fraudulent claims were detected. Whilst motor claims were again the most exposed to fraud, there was a 16% increase in fraudulent property insurance claims, which were valued at £143m, itself a 7% increase on the previous year.

The rise in property fraud

Whilst the figures for 2024 have not yet been compiled by the ABI, reviewing individual insurer’s statistics paints a troubling picture. According to the Insurance Post, a number of insurers suffered increases in fraudulent claims in 2024:

• Aviva reported a 39% increase in 2023 with suspect property claims increasing by 89% and exaggerated or fabricated claims for household items now accounting for 1 in 10 of fraudulent claims.
• Zurich reported a 10% increase from 2023 with a 17% increase in the property sector.
• Allianz reported a 10% increase from 2023
• Ecclesiastical reported a £1m increase with a 37% increase in the property sector.

On the face of it, the figures are plainly concerning particularly in respect of property claims. However, they also demonstrate the robust measures in place to detect the increase. Now that a year-on-year rise is apparent, the need to apply the same basic but rigorous checks that apply to motor or personal injury sectors, to property damage is evident.

A call for broader collaboration

The insurance industry is beginning to adapt to this new reality. The Insurance Fraud Bureau (IFB) recently sought to expand its membership criteria to broaden its horizons from its traditional focus on motor-fraud matters, albeit its major outreach programme still revolves around one major motor-fraud issue, ghost-brokering. 

At the ABI Fraud Conference earlier this year, a number of those present highlighted and called upon the industry be willing to share more data amongst insurers. However, a key problem arises from the wealth of data and variety of sources from which it can be drawn; how should the intelligence be shared and by whom? 

The appeal to break down intelligence silos is in reality a call for reform and greater co-operation. Although it is understood from the ABI Fraud Conference 2025 that the IFB will be looking to provide such a one-stop-shop tool in 2026, a number of bodies which face volume claims such as local authorities, housing associations and retailers are unlikely to be members of the IFB or the ABI given their status. The intelligence and insights that they generate are valuable and lack of access to them is just as detrimental to the insurance industry as lack of access to any IFB data is to them. To this end, the key may well be for professional advisors, such as panel solicitors, to act as the bridge in facilitating the sharing of information by maintaining their own cross-sector databases and working groups as a means of breaking down silos. Whether that is Mission Impossible is a question for future analysis…