Why Independent Insurance Agencies Still Re-Key Data Across Carrier Portals

01

Re-Keying Is the Visible Problem. Disconnected Work Is the Larger One.

The repeated entry of information is not an isolated frustration in the independent agency market.

Applied Systems and Ivans reported findings from their 2026 Carrier-Agency Connectivity Survey, which included 702 independent agents who voluntarily participated in an online survey between April and May 2026.

Among the respondents, 74% named re-keying as their leading workflow pain point, 98% reported re-keying information that already existed in their agency management system, and 79% identified commercial submission automation as the most requested carrier capability. A further 61% wanted real-time AMS data upload capabilities. [1]

These figures provide a useful indication of the industry's connectivity concerns. They do not establish how frequently every agency repeats data, how many hours are lost, or whether the same underlying cause exists across all respondents.

A separate 2026 Big 'I' technology report found that 43% of agencies ranked multiple carrier interfaces among their top three technology problems. [2]

Together, these findings point to a broader operational issue. Agencies are not necessarily lacking software. They may be dealing with systems and processes that do not consistently exchange the information needed to complete a submission.

That distinction matters because the number of systems an agency owns tells us very little about how effectively its work moves between them.

02

An Agency Management System Does Not Automatically Connect the Entire Submission

An agency management system can serve as an important source of client, policy, activity, and renewal information. But storing information is different from making that information available throughout every transaction.

Consider a commercial property submission. The agency may already have the client's legal business name, address, locations, building details, and historical policy information in its records. The employee then prepares an application, checks the exposure information, selects a carrier, and moves the submission through the appropriate channel.

Some of the information may be available for reuse. Other information may have changed. A carrier may also require additional details that were not previously collected.

If the agency's existing systems do not support the required exchange for that specific transaction, employees may have to transfer information manually.

This is where a common assumption becomes problematic: receiving information from a carrier does not necessarily mean the agency can send a complete new-business submission back through the same connection.

ACORD's property and casualty standards illustrate why the distinction matters. ACORD describes AL3 as a one-way batch communication standard designed for policy and commission data. Its XML standards support real-time business transactions through request-and-response messages. [3]

These standards provide different capabilities. Their existence does not establish that a particular carrier, agency platform, product, or transaction has implemented or enabled the relevant connection.

An agency therefore needs to understand what each connection actually supports. Receiving policy downloads, transferring application data, submitting a risk for quotation, retrieving a quote, updating status, and completing binding are separate capabilities that must be evaluated individually.

A carrier integration should never be treated as an all-purpose connection without verifying its scope.

03

Commercial Submission Data Is Not One Uniform Package

A commercial submission contains multiple types of information, and they do not all follow the same rules.

There is information already held by the agency, such as the insured's business identity or existing policy details. There is information that must be updated, such as changes in operations, locations, payroll, revenue, vehicles, or building details. There are also carrier-specific questions and additional documents required to evaluate a particular risk.

These categories should not be treated equally.

Re-entering a current, verified business address from an existing agency record may represent an avoidable duplicate step. Collecting updated information about a new location is different. So is confirming an exposure change with the client or answering an additional underwriting question.

The objective should not be to eliminate every repeated question or prevent employees from reviewing existing information. It should be to distinguish between information that can be reliably reused and information that must be collected, updated, or verified.

This distinction becomes especially important when commercial risk information changes over time. Reusing an outdated value simply because it exists in a system can create a different problem from the one the integration was intended to solve.

A reliable submission process must preserve the origin of important information, its last verification, and the appropriate review responsibility.

04

The Submission Also Moves Between People

Even when information transfers correctly, the submission still requires people to manage the work.

In some agencies, a producer gathers the initial client information. An account manager or service representative prepares the application. A processing employee organizes documents. A marketing team member selects appropriate carriers and submits the package. Smaller agencies may combine several of these responsibilities within a single role. Larger agencies may divide the work among specialized teams.

The exact structure varies, but the underlying requirement remains the same: someone must own the next action.

A submission can be technically complete at one stage and still remain inactive because the next person has not received the information, accepted responsibility, or understood what needs to happen.

Consider a straightforward sequence: a producer receives updated information from a client; the account team prepares the application and supporting documents; a marketing employee submits the package to selected carriers; an underwriter requests additional information; the account team follows up with the client; the updated information returns to marketing; and the submission is revised and sent again.

Several handoffs have occurred. If the next owner, current status, outstanding requirement, and due date are not visible in the agency's working process, employees may need to reconstruct the submission's status through messages, calls, and individual tracking methods.

Connecting applications can move information between systems. It does not automatically establish who is responsible for acting on that information.

An integration connects systems. An operating model determines how people use that connection.

05

Why Another Submission Tool May Not Be the Answer

The insurance technology market already offers products designed to reduce manual submission work.

For example, EZLynx documents a Commercial Lines Application Submission workflow that supports pre-filling applications from existing records, generating ACORD forms, importing certain exposure information, managing documents, selecting carriers, and submitting applications through its Submission Center. [4]

This is important because it demonstrates that agencies do not necessarily need to build every submission capability themselves. Existing products may already address parts of the workflow.

However, the presence of a feature does not establish that it is available in every product edition, configured for every agency, supported by every carrier, or suitable for every line of business.

The agency must still establish whether the existing application supports the relevant carrier and transaction; whether the available data is accurate and eligible for reuse; whether the product supports the required fields and documents; whether employees use the workflow consistently; whether submission status and exceptions return to the agency's working records; and whether someone owns failures and outstanding actions.

Adding another platform before answering these questions can create another place to maintain information and monitor activity.

The decision should be based on a verified capability gap, not simply on the availability of another product.

06

Diagnose One Submission Before Redesigning the Entire Operation

A more useful starting point is to follow one representative commercial submission from initial client information to its final disposition.

This means observing what actually happens rather than relying entirely on how the process is supposed to work.

Start with a single line of business and a manageable group of carrier relationships. Then examine the information and activities across each stage.

First, map the information. Identify which values already exist in the agency's records, which are manually transferred, which are changed, and which must be collected from the client or supplied through carrier-specific questions. For each important field, establish its source, verification date, owner, and destination.

Second, map the submission channels. Record how the application reaches each carrier. Is it submitted through an approved interface, a comparative rater, a submission platform, a carrier portal, email, or a wholesaler? Do not assume that the same method supports every product or transaction.

Third, map the human responsibilities. Identify who gathers information, prepares documents, selects markets, submits the risk, follows up with carriers, resolves questions, reviews terms, and updates the agency record. Establish who owns the next action at every handoff.

Fourth, map the exceptions. Identify what happens when a field fails to transfer, a document is missing, the carrier asks a new question, or a submission remains unanswered. An effective process must account for these situations rather than designing only for the ideal path.

The result should be a clear picture of where information, responsibility, and status become disconnected.

07

Measure the Work Before Estimating Its Cost

A lengthy submission turnaround does not automatically mean employees have spent that entire period working on it.

The time may include active staff time spent gathering information, preparing documents, entering data, checking submissions, and responding to requests; internal queue time while work waits for another employee or team; client waiting time for information or confirmation; carrier waiting time between submission and response; and external dependency time involving wholesalers, vendors, or other external parties.

Combining these durations into one turnaround figure makes it difficult to identify the actual constraint.

A useful baseline should therefore examine more than total elapsed time. Relevant measures include repeated-entry incidence, eligible data reuse, active handling time, first-pass submission completeness, rework by cause, ownership of open submissions, and elapsed time between clearly defined workflow stages.

Each measure needs a consistent definition and an agreed observation period.

For example, the number of manually repeated fields should not include new underwriting information that the agency legitimately needed to collect. Similarly, a carrier's request for an additional underwriting detail should not automatically be recorded as an avoidable submission error.

Without these distinctions, the measurement itself can become misleading. The objective is not to produce an impressive efficiency percentage. It is to establish where the work actually goes.

08

Choose the Intervention That Fits the Verified Problem

Once the current process is understood, the agency can make a more informed technology decision.

If ownership is unclear, the first intervention may be a better submission workflow and responsibility model. If existing tools already support the necessary capabilities, improved configuration or user adoption may be sufficient. If specific carrier transactions require repeated transfer of verified information and an approved interface exists, integration may address that particular gap. If standard submissions work well but exceptions remain difficult to manage, a controlled review and escalation process may be more valuable.

A purpose-built coordination layer should only be considered when existing platforms and authorized interfaces cannot meet an important requirement that has been established through discovery.

This sequence avoids building technology around assumptions. It also recognizes that commercial insurance submissions involve sensitive information and professional responsibilities.

Any technical change must preserve appropriate access permissions, information security, auditability, carrier requirements, client approvals, and the review performed by authorized insurance professionals.

The NAIC Insurance Data Security Model Law provides a model framework for information-security programs, risk assessment, and service-provider oversight. However, it is a model law, and its requirements depend on state adoption and the applicability of the relevant enacted law. [5]

Automation should support the work without bypassing the controls required to perform it responsibly.

09

The Real Issue Is Continuity

Independent insurance agencies do not necessarily need another application every time a workflow becomes difficult to manage.

They need to understand where information already exists, where it must change, how it reaches the right destination, and who remains responsible for moving the work forward.

A carrier portal may be necessary. A separate submission tool may be appropriate. Some integrations may be available, while others may not support the transaction an agency needs. The objective is not to force every system into one universal workflow.

It is to create controlled continuity across the tools, carrier requirements, and people involved in the submission.

Better systems are not defined by how many applications an agency connects. They are defined by how reliably the agency can move accurate information and accountable work from one stage to the next.