A new report from reports, published on 26 October 2026, charts how marine insurers are confronting what it describes as an "evidence gap" between opaque voyages and claims that can be defended in dispute. The piece traces the problem back to a pre-2022 investigative model and outlines why that model is now being re-examined.

Claims teams, the report emphasises, have two distinct responsibilities: conducting the loss investigation and making the ultimately binding pay-or-reject decision. Those twin duties sit at the heart of any claim and shape how insurers allocate resourcing and what evidence they require before settling.

In the pre-2022 environment, investigators and adjusters largely focused on establishing what had happened, confirming whether a loss fell within policy terms and processing the claim accordingly. The report notes that this approach was often supported by Automatic Identification System records, cargo documentation and standard loss-adjustment practice without the need for extensive forensic work.

The report frames the evidence gap as the space in which uncertainty about voyage circumstances, cargo handling and causation can leave a claims decision exposed to challenge. It suggests that the ability to assemble a defensible evidentiary record has become an increasingly central concern for insurers handling complex or high-value losses.

The piece does not offer a single prescription for change but highlights that the subject has moved from a technical detail within claim files into a matter of operational focus. Insurers and claims handlers, the report says, are reassessing what constitutes sufficient proof to support a pay-or-reject decision and how that proof is collected and preserved.

Why evidence matters now

The report positions evidence quality as more than an administrative issue: it is integral to managing risk, reputational exposure and the prospect of litigation. Where records are thin or voyage histories opaque, the report argues, the burden on claims handlers to justify a decision grows and outcomes become harder to forecast.

That dynamic affects not only individual claims but also the wider underwriting cycle. If losses cannot be confidently attributed or defended, the report implies, carriers must consider the consequences for pricing, coverage wording and the allocation of investigative resources.

The claims function under scrutiny

By restating the two core responsibilities of claims teams, the report places the investigative process under closer scrutiny. It underscores that a pay-or-reject decision is not simply a transactional end-point but a legal and commercial judgement that depends on the solidity of the underlying inquiry.

The report also draws attention to the range of documentary inputs traditionally relied upon, AIS tracks, cargo paperwork and customary loss-adjustment techniques, and notes that, in many cases before 2022, those inputs were judged sufficient to reach a decision without further forensic examination.

A brief factual précis in the report lists the principal elements that once underpinned routine investigations: the movement record provided by AIS, the paperwork trail for cargo and the established practices of loss adjusters. These remain core to many enquiries, the report states, but the conversation has shifted towards whether they alone will meet contemporary evidential demands.

The article from reports does not prescribe specific operational changes or name particular technologies or suppliers. Instead it presents the matter as an evolving area of practice in which insurers are increasingly attentive to how decisions will stand up to external scrutiny.

The report’s timing and tone underline that claims handling is not static. What was standard practice in the years before 2022 is now subject to reappraisal as reinsurers, underwriters and brokers look to ensure that claims decisions are both fair and defensible.

Key factual points drawn from the report include:

  • Claims teams are responsible for both loss investigation and the pay-or-reject decision.
  • In the pre-2022 environment, investigations commonly relied on AIS records, cargo documentation and standard loss-adjustment practice, often without extensive forensic work.
  • The report frames a contemporary problem as an "evidence gap" between opaque voyage circumstances and the need for defensible claims outcomes.

The report provides a compact overview of this issue and signals that the industry’s approach to evidential standards in claims handling is under active reconsideration. No detailed operational solutions or named initiatives are presented in the piece, which reads as a prompt for further industry debate rather than a policy manifesto.