Underwriting
Teams summarize submissions and compare risks. Applications can contain health, financial and property information.
Underwriters paste risk submissions into AI tools. Claims adjusters use AI for damage estimates. Actuaries upload loss-run data to analysis platforms. Your policy administration system logs none of it. A DNS log audit does.
Sample report
View all 11 pages
Opens in your browser · PDF
Insurance data is among the most sensitive in any industry: medical records, financial statements, claims histories and underwriting models. Every unsanctioned AI tool that touches this data creates errors-and-omissions liability.
Underwriters paste submission data, loss histories and financial statements into AI tools for risk assessment shortcuts. Confidential insured data reaches third-party servers without NDA coverage.
Adjusters use AI tools for damage estimates, fraud pattern detection and settlement letter drafting. Claimant PII, medical records and accident details flow to unvetted AI vendors.
Actuaries upload loss-run data, mortality tables and pricing models to AI analysis platforms. Proprietary pricing algorithms and competitive intelligence reach external servers.
Product teams use AI to draft endorsements, exclusions and coverage forms. AI-generated policy language may contain errors that create unintended coverage obligations.
SIU analysts paste claim narratives into AI tools for inconsistency detection. Investigation details, surveillance notes and witness statements reach commercial AI platforms.
Brokers use AI to draft placement summaries, market updates and client advisories. Client risk profiles, premium data and competitive quotes flow through unvetted AI tools.
| Requirement | Source | Shadow AI Risk | What the Audit Produces |
|---|---|---|---|
| Data Security | NYDFS 500 / State regs | Policyholder data in unvetted AI tools | AI tool inventory with data-handling policies |
| Privacy Protection | NAIC Model Law | Consumer data shared without consent | Vendor-by-vendor privacy assessment |
| AI/ML Model Governance | NAIC AI Bulletin | AI tools used without model governance | List of AI models accessed for governance review |
| Unfair Discrimination | State insurance codes | AI tools may embed bias in underwriting | AI tool identification for bias testing |
| Third-Party Risk | NYDFS 500.11 | AI vendors not in TPRM programme | Complete third-party AI vendor list |
| Record Retention | State record requirements | AI-generated documents not retained | Usage patterns for records policy updates |
Sample excerpt from a shadow AI audit of a regional P&C carrier (800 employees).
AI adoption rarely begins as a formal platform project. It begins when a person finds a faster way to finish a familiar task. For underwriters, adjusters, actuaries, brokers, claims teams and service staff, that convenience can put policyholder records, claims narratives, medical information, pricing models and fraud indicators into services the organization has not assessed.
Teams summarize submissions and compare risks. Applications can contain health, financial and property information.
Adjusters rewrite notes, analyze photographs or summarize reports, moving claim evidence into services outside the claim file.
Analysts debug code and discuss model behavior, risking proprietary assumptions and unapproved changes to governed processes.
Investigators combine identifiers, narratives and suspicion indicators that require careful access and retention controls.
Producers draft coverage explanations and renewal messages using customer-specific schedules and loss histories.
Agents adopt transcription and coaching tools that process entire customer conversations rather than isolated prompts.
A useful program does more than count domains. It connects observed use to data, purpose, identity and vendor terms. That context lets security, privacy, compliance, model risk and product leadership choose a proportionate action and explain it later.
| Question | Why it matters | Practical outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Is the tool approved? | Approval confirms that ownership, terms and intended use were reviewed. A familiar brand is not evidence that the account or feature in use is sanctioned. | Label the service approved, restricted, under review or blocked. Record the account tier and approved purpose, not only the vendor name. |
| What data could reach it? | The same assistant can be low risk for public research and high risk for policyholder records, claims narratives, medical information, pricing models and fraud indicators. | Define prompt examples by data class. Give users concrete red lines and a safe route for the useful workflow. |
| What do the terms say? | Training, retention, subprocessors, location, deletion and administrative controls vary by plan and can change over time. | Capture a dated vendor decision. Recheck material services on renewal and whenever the report shows a new domain or product. |
| Who is using it? | Ten hits from one lab, practice or branch call for a different response than ten hits spread across public-research roles. | Start with the highest-risk identity cluster. Ask about the task before deciding whether to coach, migrate, investigate or block. |
| Does an existing tool cover the need? | Shadow adoption often signals that an approved platform is unavailable, difficult to use or poorly communicated. | Remove friction, publish the approved route and measure whether users migrate during the next comparable audit window. |
The strongest first audit is narrow enough to explain and repeat. Use a normal operating period, preserve the source details and state the limits of DNS or proxy evidence in the report.
Start with 14 to 30 days that avoid a shutdown, migration or major outage. Record the dates, networks, identity coverage and exclusions. That scope statement makes comparisons honest and prevents a partial export from being mistaken for an enterprise census.
From enterprise DNS, secure web gateways, claims-network egress and managed endpoint logs, retain timestamp, hostname, action and the most useful identity field available. Do not add URL paths, request bodies or prompt content. Inventory work needs enough attribution to act, not the maximum amount of personal data.
Remove known test traffic, shared resolvers and infrastructure identities before interpreting user counts. Look for repeated use over several days and clusters within a team. A single lookup may be an email link or background process; a stable pattern deserves a conversation.
Meet the relevant team with neutral questions: what task is being completed, what information is entered, which account tier is used and why the approved route does not work. Document the answer beside the technical observation so reviewers can distinguish evidence from inference.
Block services built for abuse or those with unacceptable terms. Migrate useful work to an enterprise product when controls can make it safe. Coach occasional low-risk users, and escalate suspected disclosure through the existing incident process rather than inventing an AI-only procedure.
Use the same source and similar window after remediation. Compare tool prevalence, active identities and sanctioned share. A decline supports closure; persistent traffic can reveal browser extensions, mobile devices, alternative domains or a workflow the replacement failed to solve.
Shadow AI crosses technical, contractual and operational boundaries. A central policy works only when each function knows which decision it owns and where to send an exception.
Maintain discovery coverage, investigate technical anomalies and operate access controls. Security should explain what the logs prove and where visibility ends. It also checks whether sanctioned services support identity, logging, retention and configuration standards.
Translate observed workflows into data, confidentiality and notification questions. Review terms for training, retention, location and subprocessors. When facts suggest a disclosure, use the established legal and privacy assessment process rather than deciding from a domain count.
Prioritize services that employees actually use. Confirm the exact plan, contracting entity and product features because one vendor can offer several materially different data practices. Preserve the assessment date and schedule a review for important services.
Explain the task, data and reason for adoption. Decide whether the workflow is valuable enough to sanction, redesign or replace. Owners also nominate local guidance, test approved alternatives and confirm that remediation works in daily practice.
Give employees examples they recognize, a simple approved-tool directory and a route to request new uses. Communications should avoid implying that DNS reveals prompts. Training is more credible when it solves the workflow that led users to the tool.
Test whether scope is documented, findings have owners, exceptions expire and follow-up runs verify change. Assurance can sample the chain from source export to final disposition without needing access to every identity in the operational report.
In insurance, the relevant obligations can include insurance privacy rules, GLBA safeguards, state unfair-practice rules, GDPR and special-category data, model governance expectations. A domain inventory does not satisfy those frameworks by itself. It supplies a dated factual layer that existing governance processes can use.
Identify the log source, dates, included networks and available identity types. List known blind spots such as unmanaged mobile data, direct IP connections or sites that use a different resolver.
This keeps later readers from giving the numbers more certainty than the collection method supports.
Keep the service name, matched domains, category, first and last observation, identities and sanctioned status. Store dated vendor-term research beside the observation rather than silently overwriting old decisions.
The result becomes a practical subset of the wider AI system inventory.
For each material tool, name an owner, intended use, permitted data, account requirement and disposition. Include the reason for approval, restriction or blocking in language a business user can follow.
A short rationale is more useful than a color with no explanation.
Attach tickets, procurement decisions, configuration changes, user guidance and incident references where applicable. Link each artifact back to the finding it addresses.
This traceability shows that discovery led to controlled action rather than a report that was filed and forgotten.
Some teams need a restricted tool temporarily. Record the business reason, data limits, accountable owner, compensating controls and expiry date.
Time-bound exceptions prevent urgent workarounds from becoming permanent, invisible policy.
Preserve a comparable later report and explain major changes in scope. Track whether targeted identities moved, whether alternative domains appeared and whether approved services gained adoption.
Trend evidence makes the control testable instead of merely aspirational.
A large raw hit count is rarely a useful board metric because DNS caching and automated traffic distort volume. Favor stable measures tied to coverage, decisions and follow-through.
No. It proves that a covered identity or network resolved a domain during the selected period. Confirm the workflow through interview, endpoint evidence or the vendor’s administrative logs before making a disclosure finding.
Immediate blocking can interrupt legitimate work and push users to personal devices or less visible services. Discovery first lets the organization protect urgent risks, preserve useful workflows and provide an approved alternative users will actually adopt.
No. The inventory tells vendor risk which services are actually present and which deserve priority. Procurement, privacy, legal and security still need to assess terms, controls, subprocessors, location, retention and the intended data.
Quarterly is a practical baseline for a stable environment. Monthly review suits fast adoption, active remediation or higher-risk groups. Repeat after major policy, network or approved-tool changes, using comparable scope whenever possible.
Keep the device identity and map it through the asset system only when investigation requires it. Network-level attribution is still useful for locating a site or function, and the report should state that it does not represent a unique-user count.
Explain the business purpose, data sources, fields used, retention, who can see results and how findings will be validated. Clear notice supports trust and prevents a domain observation from being presented as surveillance of prompt content.
Name the product and account tier, approved purposes, permitted data classes, required settings, owner and review date. A vendor-level approval is too broad when consumer and enterprise plans have different training and administrative controls.
Use the organization’s existing incident criteria. Escalate when validation indicates that protected information entered an unauthorized service, credentials were exposed or contractual and regulatory duties may apply. The domain match alone is a lead, not the final conclusion.
Every AI tool with a verdict for insurance, as a CSV and ready block lists, from our sister site AI Tools Blocklist. One-time $790.
Upload your DNS or proxy logs and get a regulatory-mapped shadow AI inventory with E&O risk flags.
Start Your Free Audit