Home and Car Insurance application - CommBank
Company: CommBank
Success metric:-25% Form Fields
I designed the quote-to-purchase experience for CommBank's Home and Car Insurance — rebuilt on a new platform, with a quarter fewer fields to fill and one standard held across two companies.
- Services Provided
- Product Design, UX & UI, Design Systems
What the product is
CommBank sells Home and Car Insurance, underwritten by Hollard — four Home covers, three Car tiers, managed in NetBank and the app.
- The backend it ran on was being switched off, so every screen had to be rebuilt.
- Existing policyholders had to keep their cover without noticing anything had changed.
Four Home covers — building, contents, both, landlord — and three Car tiers, all rebuilt.
Customers buy and manage their policies inside the banking they already use.
CBA built quote-to-purchase. Hollard built claims. One journey for the customer.
Impact
Fields removed from the quote flow by pre-filling data the bank already held.
Both Home and Car live, completing the transition to Hollard.
Existing policyholders moved to the new platform without a break in cover.
In 2026, after the relaunch, CommBank won Canstar's Most Satisfied Customers awards — car insurance in Victoria, home insurance in Western Australia. Customers named a simple sign-up, particularly for people already banking with CommBank, and managing the policy in the app.
Both products launched mid-2025, completing CommBank's move to Hollard. Quote completion rates improved on the streamlined flow; figures shown as reported at launch.
The problem I was there to solve
The backend was being decommissioned, so this was a rebuild, not a refresh — an opening and a risk at once.
- A rebuild is the one chance to fix what was wrong instead of reproducing it.
- But a perceived downgrade would send policyholders to a competitor mid-transition.
- And the product wasn't ours alone: Hollard owned the backend and service, CommBank the front end.
Rebuild, don't replicate
A forced migration is the only time you get to remove the things customers had learned to live with.
Move people without them noticing
Existing policyholders had to land on a new platform with no friction and no perceived downgrade.
One product, two companies
CommBank owned the front end, Hollard the backend. What we could design was bounded by their platform.
The quote-to-purchase flow
The full journey from quote to purchase, across both products. I was in it from the early workshops onward.
- Pre-fill what we already know — the bank held the data, so we stopped asking for it. A quarter fewer fields, and a faster quote.
- One flow, two products — Home and Car share a spine but ask different things. One flow had to serve both.
- Tested, then changed — usability testing sessions fed straight back into the designs.
From the first question through to the quote summary.
Working inside CBA's design system
These products had to feel like the rest of the bank, not like something bolted on beside it.
- The design system as the default — components came from CBA's system, so insurance felt like part of the bank.
- Critique as validation — I presented in CBA's design forums, frequently on my own, to win the approvals the work needed.
- Accessibility as a standard — a condition of the work, not a pass at the end of it.
Designing on someone else's backend
CommBank owned the front end; Hollard the backend, service and claims. Decisions moved at the speed of two organisations agreeing.
- Weekly reviews, daily contact — sessions reviewing what engineering built. I fed back on execution; they fed back on cost.
- Feasibility as a design input — explorations the backend couldn't support were dropped. Knowing early beats defending a design that can't ship.
- Holding the line across the seam — claims was Hollard's to build. I reviewed it against CBA's system so the handover wouldn't show.
What I assumed — and what I got wrong
The polished result hides the part that matters: what I believed going in, and what I argued about along the way.
I assumed what we designed could be built.
Feasibility came back from engineering, not from us. Explorations the backend couldn't support were dropped — and knowing that early beat defending a design that couldn't ship.
I assumed decisions would move at our pace.
CommBank owned the front end, Hollard the backend, service and claims. Decisions moved at the speed of two organisations agreeing, not at the speed of the design.
I assumed good work would carry itself through review.
It needed advocacy. I presented in CBA's design forums, frequently on my own, to win the approvals the work needed.
What I'd change now
What I'd set up differently at the start of an engagement split across two companies.
Engineering in the room from the first exploration
Feasibility arrived as review feedback rather than as an input. I'd have Hollard's constraints on the table before the first concept, not after it.
One decision forum across both companies
Two organisations approving separately is where the time went. I'd agree a single joint forum, and who can say yes in it, at kickoff.
