Faster, clearer claims handling
is now a trust issue.

The Insurance Appeals Tribunal (IAT) and the Insurance Regulatory Authority have, in recent months, converged on a message that the insurance industry cannot afford to treat as optional: the way claims are handled — and the way policies are written — is directly undermining public confidence in the sector.

The trust deficit

Speaking at the 65th CEO's Breakfast Meeting at Serena Kampala Hotel on 11 September 2025, IAT Chairperson Ms. Rita Namakiika Nangono identified the core issue: complex policy terms, lengthy claims processes and inadequate claims support are eroding the trust that policyholders place in their insurers.

"We have seen vague policy documents with clauses that leave the policy illusory and almost unenforceable," she told the meeting, which was organised by IRA under the theme "From Rulings to Reform: How the Insurance Appeals Tribunal findings are influencing insurance practice." She urged industry players to conduct policy audits to ensure that contracts are clear.

The significance of this observation goes beyond policy wording. When a policy is ambiguous, the claims process that follows it will be ambiguous too. Ms. Nangono noted that they had reviewed policy documents where the claims process was vague and the insurer had not taken steps to guide the insured on how and when claims ought to be made. "This could amount to bad faith for which the insurer is likely to be held liable," she said.

The role of the Tribunal

The IAT was established in 2022 as an independent appellate body to handle disputes that could not be resolved through IRA's Complaints Bureau — itself a second-tier mechanism operating above the claims handling desks at individual insurance companies. By the time of the September meeting, the Tribunal had handled 51 appeals, of which 41 had been concluded. Ten remained at various stages of hearing.

The majority of disputes involved group life, motor comprehensive and medical claims — classes where both the volume of claims and the emotional stakes for policyholders are high. The existence of a functioning appeals mechanism is itself a confidence-building measure; it provides a route for policyholders who feel they have been treated unfairly to have their grievance heard by an independent body.

IRA CEO Alhaj Dr. Kaddunabbi Ibrahim Lubega reported that the IRA Complaints Bureau had received 198 complaints, of which only 51 progressed to the Tribunal — a figure he cited as evidence that the Bureau was functioning as an effective first filter.

Mis-selling and the quality gap

The conversation at the breakfast meeting extended beyond claims. The Tribunal identified mis-selling as a growing concern: products being sold to clients without full disclosure of associated risks, sometimes resulting in a policy that did not match what the client actually needed.

For the claims chain, however, the more immediate challenge is the quality of loss assessment reporting. Ms. Nangono was explicit: some loss assessors and adjusters are not equipped to carry out proper investigations or produce reports of the standard the Tribunal requires. "Every detail in the report matters," she noted, explaining that incomplete or poorly reasoned reports make it difficult for the Tribunal to render a decision.

IRA CEO Kaddunabbi reinforced the point, urging loss assessors and adjusters to exercise professionalism irrespective of who instructs them: "You are doing a service for underwriters to make decisions, do it professionally." He also called on insurers to adopt a claims philosophy oriented toward finding reasons to pay, rather than reasons not to pay.

"The fastest claim is the one that is documented correctly the first time."

What this means for independent assessors

Delay in a claim is rarely caused by a single decision. It accumulates: an incomplete first report, photographs that do not show the disputed area, a scope of damage that has to be revisited, a file that cannot be closed because the evidence does not answer the underwriter's questions. Each of these failures creates friction, extends timelines and erodes confidence — not just in the individual claim but in the institution of insurance itself.

For independent loss assessors, the Tribunal's findings and the CEO's directive point to a clear practical standard:

• Attend the site early. Evidence degrades quickly, particularly in property and agricultural claims. The assessor who attends within 48 hours of notification produces a materially better report than one who attends three weeks later.
• Define the scope at the first visit. A defined scope — what was damaged, what was not, what evidence is available and what is missing — prevents the revisits and scope extensions that slow claims to a crawl.
• Document with the reader in mind. The report will be read by a claims officer who was not present at the site. Every photograph, measurement and written observation should allow that reader to understand the evidence and reach a decision.
• State findings plainly. Where the evidence supports a conclusion, say so. Where it does not, say that too. Partial or evasive reports do not serve the client or the process.
• Share the report with both parties. As CEO Kaddunabbi noted, assessor reports should be shared with both the insurer and the client or policyholder, so that each party has the same information.

Trust in insurance does not rest on policy documents alone. It rests on the experience of making a claim — the speed, the clarity, the sense that the process is fair. For assessors, that experience begins with the report they produce.