We recently worked with the Protection Distributors’ Group on researching and compiling the first Protection Insights Survey 2026. The second part of the report, published at the end of March, focused on AI and has relevance for how insurers communicate about AI with protection advisers but also for protection advisers themselves as they embrace, explore or even rule out using AI in their own firms.
We are not going to relate all the report’s findings, but we wanted to give you a flavour to underpin some of our views.
For example, there is a striking difference between support for AI use in underwriting and in claims. Significantly 46% of advisers had a positive view about the use of AI in underwriting than a negative view at 24%. In claims, just 35% had a positive view with 36% having a negative view.
That may not be particularly surprising. Advisers may see a benefit in getting clients on risk swiftly while worrying about a modern version of the ‘Computer says No!’ to claims, this time with added AI.
Principals were more enthusiastic – a majority supported AI’s use in underwriting for example, but perhaps the most shocking result was that most opposition to AI came from those working at adviser firms who are under 30 – just 21% of the under 30s support AI use for claims with 45% against. Advisers over 50 were the next most sceptical, but much less than their younger peers.
In our work for insurers and advisers, we take an approach which we describe as combining human insight with AI-accelerated delivery. In other words, we emphasise the continuing and important role of the human. Looking at this research and some of the comments provided to the open questions too, it seems that advisers want this as well - for AI to augment the human, not replace them.
It feels as if being open about how the AI works, how it enables people in an insurer and, indeed, at an adviser firm to offer better, swifter service to clients along with an explanation of the appropriate safeguards and guardrails makes huge sense.
As for some reluctance among younger advisers, it may also make sense to discuss these matters with your younger staff. They may be more enthusiastic than our sample or, if they are worried about an AI risk to their job or of ‘hallucinations’ impacting clients, then it may make sense to work it into your general communications strategy especially in terms of how you approach younger clients and prospects.
We think that applies to change within advice firms as well. The survey did not indicate wholesale adoption of AI, at least not yet. But change is on the way. For this section, we cut the data to get the views of firm principals, so about 30% of our 322 respondents overall.
This showed that 16% of principals say their firms are using AI for suitability reports with 28% exploring the option, 25% of firms are using AI in their administrative processes, 21% of principals say they are using AI for web content, 20% for customer communications and 19% for social media content. Just 8% of principals say they are using AI in lead generation but 32% are considering doing so in the future.
When we asked about firms considering/exploring AI use it takes it close to or beyond 50% in most areas.
Put simply, we think change is coming rapidly in around half of adviser firms at least.
We know some firms will be using AI to speed certain tasks in an informal way, but where it is applying to certain fundamental functions including client comms, we think it is best to have a formal approach, a plan and perhaps even a firm-wide AI policy to govern use.
There are broad lessons available for advisers embracing AI, those who are still thinking about its adoption and indeed those of you who are in ‘wait and see’ mode.
One report last year from the famous Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) entitled ‘The GenAI divide State of AI in Business 2025’ found that “just 5% of integrated AI pilots are extracting millions in value, while the vast majority remain stuck with no measurable Profit & Loss impact”.
It added: “Most GenAI systems do not retain feedback, adapt to context, or improve over time. A small group of vendors and buyers are achieving faster progress by addressing these limitations directly.”
We must stress the report is for the US and we hope you have the potential to extract millions in value, but improvements to the tune of tens of thousands surely make sense for any small business too.
If your firm can obtain feedback and adapt and improve i.e. treat AI adoption as a process then it points the way to more efficiencies, better service and ultimately happier clients. If you are among the more cautious – an understandable position in a highly regulated sector where the client relationship is key – we think this year and next, you will likely see example of providers and advisers getting things right and a few getting things wrong.
But hopefully this survey will at least let you understand where your peers are. AI looks set to bring significant change.
