Use Readable text for larger type, or zoom in on the pages.
Resilience Council
To: commercial insurers
Open letter to commercial insurers on claim decision times
Document: RC/RS/2026/23
Kind: Letter
From: Gregorio Yap, Chair, Resilience Council; and the Council Rapporteur
Subject: Claim decision times and the reopening of small businesses after disaster
Open letter
To commercial insurers,
We write on behalf of the Resilience Council of Reseated’s Founders Assembly, a global assembly of small-business owners. The Council’s work is to describe recurring practices affecting business resilience and to develop practical changes that can help owners keep operating, or reopen, after a disruption. Our members are anonymous unless they choose to speak publicly. Their reports are not presented as allegations against any named insurer, and this letter does not attribute a particular practice to any company.
Our mandate is to turn owners’ reported experience into proposals that can be examined and adopted. We collect reports, test patterns for volume, frequency, consistency, spread and corroboration, draft a proposed fix, consult publicly, and submit proposals to an Assembly ballot. The Council has applied that process to RS-001, the Reopen Standard. The standard asks for insurance claims to be decided within 30 days, bridge funding to be made available within 10 days of a declared disaster, and continuity-planning support to be accessible to micro businesses.
We are asking commercial insurers to treat claim decision time as a central part of business recovery. A claim that remains unresolved can leave an owner unable to judge whether to repair, replace equipment, pay staff, secure premises, or restart trading. A timely, reasoned decision does not guarantee that every claim will be paid. It does give a business a clearer basis for deciding what to do next.
What the evidence shows
As of 24 August 2026, the Resilience Council had 112 members in 45 countries and had received 168 reports from 44 countries. The median amount at stake in the reports was approximately US$4,903. The reports recorded situations involving disaster; all 168 reports in this dataset were classified as disaster situations. The Council records the business team sizes represented as follows: 39 per cent were businesses with one person; 44 per cent had 2–9 people; 14 per cent had 10–49 people; and 3 per cent had 50–249 people.
The reports came from a geographically varied group of owners. The countries with the largest report counts were the United States, 26; Canada, 12; Spain, 11; the United Kingdom, 11; the Philippines, 9; Mexico, 8; Japan, 8; and Nigeria, 6. The remaining reports came from other countries represented in the Council’s dataset. These are counts of reports, not estimates of the prevalence of a problem in any country. They should not be read as national rankings or as a measure of the performance of insurers in those jurisdictions.
Sixty-five resilience reports were filed in the 30 days before the data cut-off. That recent activity reinforces the practical value of making recovery processes legible to small firms. The Council’s records describe owners’ reported circumstances and amounts at stake; they do not establish the processing time of any individual insurer, the share of claims accepted or denied, or the causal effect of a particular insurance practice.
The dataset does not establish that every reported owner had insurance, that every loss was covered, or that every delay arose from an insurer. The requests below are therefore directed at transparent procedures and measurable decision times, rather than at a claim that all cases are alike.
The wider policy context is clear that small and medium-sized enterprises are important to economic activity and need practical resilience measures. The United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction has reported that SMEs bear approximately 75 per cent of business disaster losses, and that disaster risk reduction can reduce losses by up to a third.1 The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 calls, in paragraph 30(o), for business continuity to be integrated into business practice, particularly for micro, small and medium-sized enterprises. Paragraph 36(c) addresses the role of the private sector in disaster risk reduction. These provisions provide a policy basis for cooperation; they do not prescribe a particular insurance claims deadline.
Evidence summarized by UNDRR from a Japan METI survey reports that 8 per cent of prepared SMEs had not recovered sales, compared with 19 per cent of unprepared SMEs.2 This finding concerns preparedness and recovery, not claims handling. We cite it as context for the value of continuity planning, not as proof that insurance decision time determines sales recovery.
Legal and policy context
Commercial insurance is governed by the applicable law, regulatory requirements, policy wording, and dispute-resolution arrangements in each jurisdiction. The evidence and materials available to the Council for this letter do not establish a single legal claims deadline that applies to all commercial insurers or all policies. We therefore do not assert that the 30-day period in RS-001 is already a legal obligation, nor do we ask insurers to disregard statutory duties, contractual terms, or legitimate investigation needs.
We ask insurers to adopt the 30-day period as a clear service standard for reaching a decision, with a documented exception process where a decision cannot reasonably be made within that period. In jurisdictions where a legal or regulatory requirement is stricter, that requirement remains controlling. Where local law requires additional steps or a different process, the insurer should explain the applicable process to the policyholder in plain language. This letter is not legal advice and does not replace the review of local rules by insurers, regulators, or policyholders.
Our request is consistent with the policy direction of the Sendai Framework: continuity and resilience are relevant to business practice, including for MSMEs. It is also consistent with the practical need to distinguish a prompt decision from a promise of payment. A decision may be to accept, partially accept, decline, or request further information. In each case, the policyholder should be told what has been decided, the basis for the decision, what remains outstanding, and what review or appeal route is available.
Requests to commercial insurers
We invite insurers to take the following steps, individually or through industry bodies and other appropriate channels:
Adopt a 30-day decision standard. For a business property or interruption claim following a declared disaster, aim to issue a written decision within 30 calendar days after receiving the information reasonably required to assess the claim. Tell the policyholder promptly when the relevant time period begins and identify any material information still required.
Explain exceptions rather than leaving claims open-ended. If an insurer cannot decide within 30 days, provide a written explanation before the period expires. State the specific unresolved questions, the steps being taken, who is responsible for the next action, and the date by which the policyholder will receive an update. Give a revised target date and update it if circumstances change. An exception should not become an indefinite status.
Make the decision understandable. For an accepted, partially accepted, or declined claim, provide the reasons in plain language, identify the relevant policy provisions, distinguish confirmed facts from matters still disputed, and explain how the policyholder may request reconsideration or use the applicable complaint or dispute process. Where a decision depends on missing evidence, specify what evidence is needed and why.
Provide a named route for urgent cases. Publish a clear contact route for small businesses whose premises, equipment, stock, or ability to trade have been affected by a declared disaster. Make it possible for an owner to identify the team handling the claim and to escalate a case where a critical deadline, safety issue, or reopening decision is involved.
Consider bridge funding within 10 days of a declared disaster. Establish a process to assess whether an insured small business can receive an appropriate interim payment or other bridge support within 10 days of a declared disaster, where policy terms, available information, and applicable law permit it. Explain eligibility, the evidence needed, how interim amounts will be reconciled with the final decision, and how a policyholder can raise a concern. This request does not assume that every business has cover or that every loss qualifies for an advance.
Support continuity planning for micro businesses. Make proportionate continuity-planning guidance available to micro businesses before a loss occurs. It should cover practical records and contacts to keep, steps for reporting a loss, how to protect affected property where safe and appropriate, and how to maintain a record of interruption and recovery costs. The guidance should be usable by an owner who has limited time and no specialist risk team.
Measure and report performance responsibly. Consider publishing aggregate information on claim decision times for small-business disaster claims, including the period measured, the number of claims included, the proportion decided within 30 days, and the main reasons for cases extending beyond that period. Explain exclusions and limitations so that figures are comparable and not misleading. Protect policyholder confidentiality and do not use aggregate reporting to identify an individual business.
Engage with small-business owners. Invite small-business representatives to review claims communications and continuity materials. Test them with owners who have experienced a disruption, including micro businesses and businesses with limited administrative capacity. Make adjustments where owners cannot readily understand what to do, what is expected of them, or when they will hear back.
Offer to share anonymized evidence
The Resilience Council is prepared to discuss how its anonymized, aggregated data may help insurers, public authorities, and business organizations understand the practical period between disruption and reopening. We can explore a structured exchange that protects members’ privacy and does not identify individual policyholders, businesses, insurers, or claim files. Any exchange would protect members’ privacy, serve a clearly stated purpose, and specify permitted uses.
Our records are based on voluntary owner reports. They are not a claims database, an audit of insurer performance, or a representative sample of all businesses affected by disasters. We would be glad to work with insurers on questions that can be answered responsibly from this evidence, and to identify where further data would be needed. We also welcome information about existing approaches that help small businesses understand claims steps and resume operations.
We invite insurers receiving this letter to consider the requests, identify an appropriate point of contact, and indicate whether they are willing to discuss practical implementation.
Faster, clearer decisions can make a difficult period more manageable for an owner, even when a claim is complex or the final answer is not the one the owner hoped for. A decision standard, transparent exceptions, proportionate bridge support, and useful continuity guidance are practical steps toward that goal.
Respectfully,
Gregorio YapChair, Resilience CouncilTacloban, Philippines
The Council RapporteurResilience Council, Reseated Founders Assembly
Annex: evidence and reference materials
A. Resilience Council data at 24 August 2026
Members: 112, in 45 countries.
Reports: 168, from 44 countries; all 168 recorded situations classified as disaster.
Median amount at stake: approximately US$4,903.
Top countries by report count: United States 26; Canada 12; Spain 11; United Kingdom 11; Philippines 9; Mexico 8; Japan 8; Nigeria 6.
Team sizes: one person 39 per cent; 2–9 people 44 per cent; 10–49 people 14 per cent; 50–249 people 3 per cent.
Reports filed in the preceding 30 days: 65.
B. Reseated documents
RC/RS/2026/1, Call for evidence: Resilience Council agenda item RS-001, 10 February 2026.
RC/RS/2026/S.1, evidence submission, 7 March 2026.
RC/RS/2026/S.2, evidence submission, 5 May 2026.
RC/RS/2026/S.3, evidence submission, 20 July 2026.
RC/RS/2026/20, Open letter: Before the storm — a continuity checklist for owners, 12 March 2026.
RC/RS/2026/21, Letter to UNDRR offering Reseated days-to-reopen data as a contribution to the Sendai Framework review, 18 May 2026.
RC/RS/2026/22, Letter to national disaster agencies in the Philippines and Indonesia on bridge funding for micro businesses, 29 June 2026.
C. External references
United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, “Supporting disaster risk reduction and resilience practices for small and medium-sized enterprises.” The cited page reports the approximate share of business disaster losses borne by SMEs and the potential reduction in losses from disaster risk reduction.1
United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, Resilience of SMEs report, including the Japan METI survey finding on recovery of sales among prepared and unprepared SMEs.2
Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030, paragraphs 30(o) and 36(c). The Council cites these provisions as policy context; no external URL is supplied here.
Notes and sources
Sources
This document has no standing until adopted under the Founders Charter. Reseated Councils is not affiliated with the United Nations.