How Sedgwick scaled AI in legacy claims workflows
For CIOs, the important lesson is not that AI can summarize documents faster, but that scaling AI in a claims operation is primarily a governance and operating-model decision. Sedgwickโs approach shows how value comes from fitting AI into existing workflow controls rather than treating it as a standalone innovation layer. That matters in regulated, high-volume environments where speed, defensibility and customer experience all have to hold at once.
The management trade-off is between automation depth and control. Sedgwick kept human decision-making in place while using AI to narrow the work that reaches the examiner. That is a pragmatic model, but leaders should note the implied constraint: the benefit is strongest when the process already has clear rules, clean inputs and an auditable path. The next question is not โcan we use agentic AI?โ but โwhich steps can be standardized enough to make AI safe, repeatable and measurable?โ
There is also a portfolio issue. Sedgwick did not chase a broad platform replacement; it layered AI around existing services and APIs, then monitored performance and data protection closely. That suggests a funding and prioritization lens built around incremental production value rather than lab success. CIOs should ask whether the organization has the observability, data discipline and cross-functional ownership to support multiple AI use cases without creating hidden operational debt.
Finally, trust cannot be treated as a communications problem after deployment. Parallel testing, provenance, clear fallback behavior and early user adoption are operational controls, not optional extras. The practical question for leadership teams is whether they have defined who owns AI accuracy, who signs off on workflow changes, and how quickly a model, prompt or vendor can be swapped if results drift. In this type of program, speed matters โ but so does the ability to explain every decision after the fact.
The constraint: The claims workflow challenge
Claims examiners and adjusters at Sedgwick often must sift through thousands of pages of medical records and other documentation while working under time-sensitive conditions. For Safieh and his team, the challenge was finding ways to help employees process large volumes of information more efficiently while maintaining the speed and consistency clients expect from claims operations. “How do we support the examiner in their everyday job with tools to give them information at their fingertips, instead of them searching and hunting [and] reading documentation?” Safieh explained. Because client-facing technologies also fall under Safieh’s responsibilities at Sedgwick, he and his team had to consider how the AI tools would affect the claimant experience.The decision point: Finding the right AI use case
Given Sedgwick’s scale, the company uses a number of technologies, including optical character recognition (OCR), robotic process automation (RPA) and a claims platform with automation resources to support the claims management process, Safieh said. OCR enables RPA bots to see and scan documents. With the rise of AI, the company sought specific use cases for the technology: How could AI shorten the amount of time that a claim is open? How could it provide adjusters and examiners with real-time information to support their decision-making? To drive faster claims resolution and deliver the right information to users, Sidekick is designed to simplify AI prompting for examiners and adjusters by handling the prompting process in the background. “We give them a button that allows them to just get the information that they need, and we handle all of the prompting in the background,” Safieh said.What changed, what stayed the same: AI layered into existing systems
While Sidekick was designed to streamline claims workflows, Safieh and his team still had to contend with the architectural realities of building these tools and integrating them into Sedgwick’s existing ecosystem. Key architectural priorities included:-
Integrating AI into existing services and APIs.
-
Avoiding disruption to legacy claims platforms.
-
Monitoring system observability and performance.
-
Maintaining human oversight in claims decisions.
The friction: Building trust in AI outputs
Safieh said he knew he and his team would have to build trust with the people who would be using the Sidekick tools internally. Sedgwick approached building that trust by running pilots and then parallel testing. Through pilots, the team works to ensure the right prompts are in place and that the tool provides the right output. Then, through parallel testing, the output an examiner or adjuster provides is compared with the output from Sidekick. “In something like a document summarization, we’re seeing 98% to 99% accuracy from what an examiner or adjuster would output [compared] to โฆ Sidekick,” Safieh said. Sedgwick built a team to facilitate conversations across its operations and different business teams. “We have to understand what the business case is. We have to understand what the outcome is,” Safieh said. “We built [a] team that is able to have those conversations in the right manner to address those use cases.”The cost of getting it right: The guardrails behind the AI rollout
The company’s very first GenAI use case with Sidekick took approximately three months to implement. Sedgwick was already an Azure Cloud user, enabling it to quickly and securely deploy the OpenAI model in its environment, according to Safieh. He described setting up the architecture to support security, performance and access as the most time-consuming part of the process. “What may have taken a little bit more time than maybe anticipated was making sure that, one, we’re getting the best results out of the model, and two, how do we deploy this appropriately across the org and teach users how to use it,” he said. Ensuring that the use of a tool like this is right requires recognition of what could go wrong and putting necessary guardrails in place. The company handles a massive amount of sensitive data during the claims management process and must ensure that Sidekick will not compromise data protection. Key guardrails included:-
Keeping sensitive claims data inside Sedgwick’s ecosystem.
-
Preventing company data from training their-party LLMs.
-
Using anonymized data for internal model training.
-
Managing hallucination risk through prompting controls and clean data sets.
-
Maintaining provenance and audibility claims for claims decisions.
-
Architecting the platform to reduce vendor lock-in.
Preparing to scale AI agents: Questions to answer
Safieh said the Sidekick solution has a solid foundation that Sedgwick can use to roll out more AI capabilities. “From a scalability perspective, as we introduce more and more agents, what we need to do is continue to make sure we have observability in place, performance monitoring in place, and that data security is in place,” he said. Scaling AI also raises broader architectural questions about orchestration and workflow design, Safieh added:-
“How do we want the services to be orchestrated, especially with agentic AI?”
-
“Do we stick with services, move to more model context protocol(MCP)?”
-
“And how do we string along sequential steps in the process with the foundation of services?”
The tradeoff: Decisions need to be made quickly
Sidekick has taught Safieh that finding value with AI is different from other technology projects. As a CIO, he has less time to get there. It is all about efficiency. “Many times with other projects, they are built and executed differently, whether it’s a several-month project, multi-year projects, where there’s a spend allotted to it. You have time to make certain decisions throughout the lifecycle of that project to fix things,” he explained. “With this type of technology, you make a decision very quickly that it works or it doesn’t work, and you move on.”What other CIOs might get wrong: Don’t chase every new AI tool
Safieh said that in his conversations with other CIOs, he hears a lot of excitement about the many new tools available in the market. He advised his peers to take a measured approach rather than chasing the latest and greatest offering. Ripping out and replacing tools too often actually slows an enterprise’s velocity, he cautioned. “If you have a tool that is working, that meets your needs, stick with it as long as you can because it will continue to evolve and change. If it doesn’t meet your needs, then switch,” he said.The one thing he would do differently: Build trust early on
Looking back, Safieh said the one thing he would do differently is focus on user adoption earlier in the process. “The earlier you can get people on board and using the solutions and trusting them, the better adoption you’re going to have, the better scalability you’re going to have because everyone’s on board,” he said.Enjoyed this article? Sign up for our newsletter to receive regular insights and stay connected.
