When Catastrophes Keep Coming: How Insurers Are Building Claims Teams That Last

The frequency and severity of weather events in Australia have changed. What were once described as one-in-fifty-year events are now occurring with regularity. 

The 2022 eastern Australia floods, successive storm seasons across Queensland and New South Wales, and repeated cyclone events in the north have each tested the claims handling capacity of the sector. Each one exposed the same structural limitations. 

The response has followed a familiar pattern: surge resourcing, temporary contractor uplift, extended hours, and staff burnout. What has changed is the recognition that this pattern is no longer sustainable as a permanent operating model. 

The high-severity environment is not temporary. It is the baseline, and workforce planning for claims needs to reflect that. This article examines what that means for employers building claims teams, and for the professionals those teams depend on. 

Why Is Claims Capacity Under Pressure in Australia Right Now? 

The volume problem is structural. The Insurance Council of Australia’s Catastrophe Resilience Report 2023-24 recorded almost 157,000 claims and $2.19 billion in insured losses from declared extreme weather events in a single year, with 66,000 more claims than the previous period. The 2022 floods alone remain the costliest extreme weather event in Australian history. Each event produces a claims spike that draws on the same finite pool of qualified assessors, loss adjusters, builders, and claims handlers. When events overlap geographically or in time, that pool is exhausted before the peak is reached. 

The supply problem compounds it. Claims handling is a skilled function. An experienced property assessor, complex liability handler, or large loss manager cannot be trained in weeks. The capability is built over years of: 

• Exposure to varied claim types 

• Negotiation and coverage interpretation 

• Relationship management with repairers, legal panels, and policyholders 

When experienced people leave through burnout, retirement, or move into risk and consulting, replacing them at the same level takes years. 

The regulatory environment adds a third pressure. Since the Hayne Royal Commission response, insurance claims handling has been a regulated financial service requiring an AFS licence. Combined with ASIC’s dispute resolution requirements under RG 271 and AFCA scrutiny of outcomes, capacity decisions now carry compliance consequences. 

The chain is direct: understaffed teams produce slower outcomes, slower outcomes produce complaints, and complaints attract regulatory attention. 

What Does a High-Severity Claims Environment Require from a Workforce? 

Four capabilities matter most when volumes spike. 

Volume management. The ability to triage, prioritise, and manage a growing caseload without losing quality or compliance discipline. This is not about working faster. It requires systematic thinking about what needs human attention and what can move through streamlined channels. Professionals who have worked through previous catastrophe events bring pattern recognition that newer staff cannot replicate. 

Coverage interpretation under pressure. High-severity events generate complex coverage questions at volume: 

• Flood versus stormwater determination 

• Business interruption triggers 

• Total loss thresholds 

• Policy wording disputes 

These need resolution at pace without creating liability exposure. The professionals who can do this reliably are among the least replaceable in the sector. 

Policyholder communication in distress. Catastrophe claims involve people who have lost homes and businesses. The claims professional is often their first consistent point of contact. Empathy under pressure, clarity about process, and the ability to manage difficult conversations about coverage limitations are core operational requirements. They directly affect complaint rates, AFCA referrals, and brand reputation. 

Repairer and supplier management. Claims resolution in property depends on a supply chain that is under the same pressure as the claims team. Builder capacity, material delays, and geographic access are all variables the claims professional must manage while keeping those relationships productive. 

Repairer and supplier relationship management. Claims resolution in property depends on a functioning supply chain that is under the same pressure as the claims team. Builder capacity constraints, material delays, and geographic access issues are all variables claims professionals must manage. Maintaining productive relationships with repairers and suppliers under pressure is operationally significant. 

How Are Insurers Approaching Surge Hiring, and What Are the Risks? 

The contingent workforce model is the most common surge response. Insurers and loss adjusting firms bring in contractors, temporary staff, and third-party claims managers to absorb volume spikes. 

Done well, it provides flexibility. Done poorly, it introduces inconsistent capability, limited institutional knowledge, and quality control problems that compound under pressure. 

The risks of poorly managed surge hiring are specific: 

• Contractors unfamiliar with an insurer’s policy wordings and systems take longer to reach productive output, and in a surge that lag matters 

• Coverage decisions made by under-briefed temporary staff create liability exposure 

• Policyholders who deal with multiple handlers across a claim report worse experiences and lodge more complaints 

A more effective approach. Pre-qualified contractor panels, maintained between events through regular briefings and system access, paired with a clear integration protocol for deployment. Insurers who invest in contractor relationships outside of surge conditions get better performance when conditions deteriorate. 

Panel agreements with specialist claims recruiters offer a related advantage. When an event is declared and volume builds, deploying pre-screened, insurance-experienced professionals within days rather than weeks is operationally meaningful. The time between event declaration and productive deployment is one of the most consequential variables in surge management. 

On offshoring. Some insurers have moved first notification of loss and administrative tasks offshore. The results are mixed, and the approach carries customer experience risk in catastrophe conditions, where communication demands are highest and tolerance for friction is lowest. 

What Retention Strategies Are Working in High-Pressure Claims Environments? 

Burnout in claims is a documented and growing issue. Sustained high volume, emotionally demanding interactions, and limited recovery time between events drive experienced people out of the sector. When the most experienced leave, the institutional knowledge loss is disproportionate to the headcount. 

Four levers consistently make a difference. 

Workload design. Sustained overtime is a short-term fix that produces medium-term attrition. Deliberate caseload management works better, including structured case allocation, clear escalation pathways, and protected capacity for complex work. 

Progression clarity. Professionals who cannot see a development pathway tend to exit when the market is favourable, and it is favourable now. Insurers who map how capability translates into progression, whether into large loss, technical claims, or team leadership, retain more of their mid-career people. 

Psychological support. The vicarious exposure to loss in catastrophe claims is not trivial. Structured debrief processes, access to employee assistance programs, and acknowledgement of the emotional demands of the work are all retention-relevant. 

Market-aligned remuneration. Experienced professionals in property loss adjusting, large loss, or complex liability have options. Insurers who have not reviewed their benchmarks against current rates are losing people to competitors who have. 

How Should Insurers Structure Their Claims Workforce for Long-Term Resilience? 

The core shift is from reactive to anticipatory workforce planning. 

Most insurers build their staffing models around historical average volumes with a surge buffer. That model underperforms when severity is elevated and events are frequent. A more resilient model starts from expected surge demand and builds toward it, rather than treating surge as the exception. 

Plan in granular terms, not just headcount. Resilient planning answers questions most insurers cannot currently answer with data: 

• How many assessors are needed for a category three event in a specific geography? 

• What is the realistic deployment capacity of the contractor panel at any given time? 

• What is the minimum permanent capability required to maintain coverage quality during a surge? 

Cross-train to build internal flexibility. Property and motor claims need different technical knowledge, but the foundations of coverage interpretation, customer communication, and supplier management transfer. Cross-trained teams can redirect capacity within an event. Siloed teams cannot. 

Use technology realistically. Automated triage, digital lodgement, and straight-through processing free up human capacity for complex work. But the net effect on headcount depends on the claims mix. Insurers who expect technology to substitute for experienced professionals in high-severity conditions are generally disappointed. 

Plan with recruitment partners, not just during a crisis. Knowing what experienced professionals are available, at what lead time, and under what conditions is a planning input most insurers lack until they need it urgently. 

What Does the Claims Job Market Look Like for Professionals Right Now? 

Demand for experienced claims professionals is high and is not expected to soften. The factors driving it are structural, not short-term: 

• Elevated weather event frequency 

• Expanding regulatory requirements 

• A pipeline shortage of experienced practitioners 

Professionals with property assessment, large loss, liability, or complex claims management backgrounds are in a market that favours them. The most competitive candidates combine technical knowledge with strong communication and analytical skills. Coverage interpretation capability, AFCA process familiarity, and experience with complex multi-party claims all command attention. 

The current market offers real optionality. Permanent roles, contract positions in specialised operations, and roles within loss adjusting firms and third-party managers each offer different conditions, income structures, and trajectories. It is worth thinking through which model suits your career stage and risk tolerance before accepting the most convenient offer. 

If volume pressure, limited development, or inadequate support are affecting your experience, the market provides alternatives. Experienced claims professionals are not obliged to remain in conditions that do not serve them. 

How Fuse Recruitment Supports Claims Teams and Professionals 

The intersection of climate risk and workforce planning is one of the more complex operational challenges in Australian insurance. Employers who treat it as a recruitment problem with a staffing solution tend to cycle through the same surge and burnout pattern. Those who treat it as a workforce design problem, requiring deliberate planning, retention investment, and informed recruitment partnership, build something more durable. 

Fuse Recruitment works with insurers, loss adjusters, and claims operations across Australia, on both permanent and contingent workforce needs. We place property and motor claims assessors, loss adjusters, large loss and liability specialists, and claims operations leaders, and we support clients with workforce planning, talent mapping, and surge capacity strategy. 

Whether you are building claims capacity ahead of the next event or considering your next move within the sector, speak with the Fuse Recruitment team.