How and Why to Use a Rules Engine in Insurance

‍Rules Engines as a Response to Real Insurance Challenges

Rules engines did not appear in insurance by accident. They are a response to very concrete, recurring problems that insurers have struggled with for years. Long IT delivery cycles. Strong dependency of business teams on development teams. Product changes blocked by release schedules. Regulatory updates treated like full scale system projects. Insurers must also adapt quickly to changing market dynamics and regulatory environments, highlighting the need for flexible systems.

Higson was created precisely as an answer to these challenges. It emerged from years of working with insurers and observing how pricing, underwriting, and product logic were implemented in practice. Business teams had ideas and urgency. IT teams had backlogs, governance constraints, and limited capacity. The gap between intent and execution kept growing.

A rules engine placed outside core systems changes this dynamic. It gives insurers a way to separate volatile business logic from stable system architecture and manage change where it actually belongs. Integrating rules engines with business process management platforms can further streamline and automate insurance workflows, enabling organizations to respond more efficiently to business events and regulatory changes.

To lear more about rules engine, read our article.

Why Insurance Needs a Dedicated Business Rules Engine

Insurance is built on rules. Eligibility conditions. Tariff thresholds. Product availability. Risk segmentation. Claims routing. These are not static definitions. They change frequently and often under time pressure.

Embedding such logic directly into policy administration systems or application code creates structural rigidity. Every change competes with other development priorities and inherits the same delivery process, regardless of its business urgency.

A rules engine addresses this by externalizing decision logic into a controlled, centralized layer. Centralizing all the rules in one place enables insurers to make consistent and compliant business decisions across products and channels. This is not about replacing PAS systems. It is about extending them. Core systems remain stable and secure, while business rules evolve independently and safely.

For insurers, this means shorter time to market, reduced operational risk, and a clear separation of responsibilities between business and IT.

Types of Rules Engines: Open-Source and Proprietary Options

When selecting a business rules engine, organizations typically choose between open source rules engines and proprietary solutions. Open source rules engines, such as Drools or Easy Rules, offer a cost-effective way to implement business rules management without incurring licensing fees. These platforms provide transparency, strong community support, and the flexibility to customize rule management to fit unique business needs. On the other hand, proprietary rules engines often deliver advanced features, dedicated support, and seamless integration capabilities, but may involve higher costs and less flexibility due to licensing fees and closed architectures. The right choice depends on factors like the complexity of rules, integration with existing systems, scalability requirements, and the level of community or vendor support needed. By carefully evaluating these aspects, organizations can select a rules engine that aligns with their business rules management strategy and long-term goals.

How Rules Engines Solve Multiple Business Logic Problems at Once

A well designed rules engine addresses several insurance specific issues simultaneously.

First, it reduces dependency on IT for frequent changes. Product managers, analysts, and actuaries can modify logic directly without touching application code.

Second, it centralizes business logic. Instead of having multiple versions of the same rule scattered across systems, there is one source of truth that governs decisions across channels and products.

Third, it increases transparency and auditability. Every change is versioned, testable, and traceable. Robust version control is essential for managing rule changes efficiently across different environments such as Development, UAT, and Production, ensuring seamless collaboration and flexibility.

Finally, it allows insurers to classify change by volatility. Stable logic stays in core systems. High frequency changes move to the rules engine. Rules engines are designed for complex rule management, enabling insurers to handle intricate decision logic and workflows with ease. This alone dramatically improves delivery speed without compromising governance.

How to Use a Rules Engine in Practice

There are many rules engines on the market, but not all of them are suitable for insurance organizations. A key differentiator is who the engine is designed for.

Higson was built with the assumption that many of its users will not be developers and do not need to become ones. Insurance expertise should not require programming skills to be operational.

Higson Studio provides an intuitive, user friendly interface designed for non technical users, where business users work with decision tables and visual logic instead of code. Rules are structured, readable, and easy to validate. Users can easily manage rules and modify rules as business needs evolve, ensuring the system adapts quickly to changing requirements. This lowers the barrier to entry and allows business teams to take real ownership of decision logic.

An important part of this approach is the introduction of Flows. Flows enable the creation and execution of workflow rules based on certain criteria, supporting complex decision processes in insurance. Flows allow users to model complex decision paths visually, making dependencies and outcomes explicit. This is particularly useful in underwriting and claims processes where logic branches quickly and clarity matters.

Business users can test scenarios, validate outcomes, and publish changes independently while IT maintains architectural integrity and performance guarantees.

‍

Watch also our webinars with practical cases.

Importance of High-Quality Input Data

The effectiveness of any business rules management system depends heavily on the quality of input data. Accurate, complete, and consistent data is essential for ensuring that business rules are applied correctly and that decision making processes yield reliable results. Poor-quality input data can lead to incorrect rule execution, costly errors, and diminished trust in automated systems. To address this, organizations must implement robust data validation and cleansing procedures, as well as ensure seamless data integration across all relevant systems. By prioritizing high-quality input data, insurers and other organizations can maximize the value of their business rules management efforts and achieve better, more predictable business outcomes.

Rules Engines as a Strategic Rule Management Capability

Using a rules engine in insurance is not just a technical choice. It is an operating model decision.

It shifts organizations from IT driven change to business led configuration. Most business rules engines today support real time decision making, enabling insurers to respond instantly to market and regulatory changes. It allows insurers to respond to regulatory changes without panic. It enables experimentation without destabilizing systems. It shortens feedback loops between market signals and product updates.

Higson rules engine addresses these needs not by adding layers of complexity, but by removing friction where it hurts most. It turns decision logic into a managed asset rather than a hidden liability.

For insurers operating in pricing, underwriting, fraud detection, or claims automation, a rules engine is no longer an optimization. It is an essential part of building resilient, adaptable systems in an industry where change is constant and speed increasingly defines competitiveness. Adopting a modern rules engine also delivers significant cost savings compared to traditional approaches, reducing both operational and development expenses.

‍