Case summary
The requested cover, exposure details and loss history, with missing information clearly marked.
Give underwriters the case and the reasons for referral.
Navi groups the broker's email and attachments into a case, checks it against appetite and delegated authority, and prepares a routing recommendation for an underwriter to review.
Check this submission against our appetite and authority rules. Summarise the risk and explain where it should be referred.
Appetite and authority are different checks.
A submission can fit a programme’s appetite while exceeding delegated authority. When the email, exposure details and loss history sit in separate places, underwriters have to reconstruct why a case needs referral and what evidence is still missing.
Within appetite, but over the authority limit.
This fictional programme requires referral above a £5m property limit. The submission requests £7.5m and lacks the latest loss run. These are sample rules, not industry thresholds.
Property submissionPrepared for review
Conversation with Navi
You
NaviCheck this submission against our programme guidelines.
This case needs a referral.
£7.5mRequested · £5m delegated authority
Referral required: requested limit exceeds delegated authority.
Submission checksPrepared for professional review
Prepared output
ILLUSTRATIVE RECORDS
Submission checks
Requested property limit
£7,500,000
Delegated authority
£5,000,000
2025 loss run
Missing
Routing
Senior property underwriter
Source excerptApplication · page 4
Requested property limit: £7,500,000.
How the work gets done
01
Create the case
Classify the submission from its contents. Extract insured details, requested cover, property schedules and loss history, with location and business enrichment where configured.
02
Apply your rules
Check appetite, underwriting guidelines and delegated authority. Keep missing information and authority exceptions separate so the underwriter can see what each finding means.
03
Recommend the next action
Prepare a quote, refer or decline recommendation with its reasons. Request missing information and pass validated fields to connected systems after review.
A triage result an underwriter can inspect.
Rule-by-rule findings
The appetite result, authority exception and supporting source for each finding.
Routing recommendation
A proposed destination and follow-up request, with the reasons for referral available to the reviewer.
Make the referral easier to assess.
The receiving underwriter gets the risk summary, the relevant rule and the information gap together. That gives the team a clear basis for requesting evidence and deciding how to handle the case.
The underwriter makes the decision.
Navi prepares the triage and recommendation. The underwriter confirms the applicable authority, assesses the case and approves what happens next.
- Confirm the programme and current authority wording.
- Resolve missing information before treating the case as complete.
- Approve the decision and any transfer to rating or policy systems.
Configure it around your team.
During implementation, we agree the documents, rules and outputs this workflow needs.
- Appetite, underwriting guidelines and delegated-authority wording
- Referral destinations and prioritisation rules
- Required enrichment, rating and policy-system connections
Part of Workflows: per-seat access, unlimited runs, medium-complexity extraction and a hard limit of 500 pages per run.
Explore Workflows →Walk us through a submission and your referral rules.
We'll start with the task your team handles, demonstrate how Navi prepares the work and discuss a custom demo you can test.