Understanding the Domain

Before designing the product, I needed to understand the context in which it would be used. This included the basic role of insurance in drivers’ lives, legal requirements across Europe, and the current digital landscape of insurance apps. My research focused on three key areas:

Basics of the Industry

Drivers need insurance not just because it’s legally required, but because it protects them from financial loss, legal consequences, and work disruption. For commercial drivers, especially those using vans or taxis, insurance plays an even more critical role. It allows them to operate their vehicle legally and maintain their income stream. If they’re uninsured, they’re off the road — and out of work.
While personal drivers may seek peace of mind or minimum legal coverage, commercial drivers are more focused on speed, documentation, and uninterrupted service. They often repeat the process more frequently (e.g., due to contracts or vehicle changes), and tend to be familiar with what’s needed — but less tolerant of friction or delays.

I reviewed public information from various European markets to understand whether legal requirements differ between countries. I found that while terminology and exact document names may vary slightly, the core obligations remain consistent across most regions.
Drivers are usually required to submit:

• Vehicle registration

• Driver’s license

• Proof of address

Some countries may also request additional verification, such as prior insurance records or declarations of no-claims. What varies most is the format and flow of submission, not the data itself. In some countries, integrations with government databases allow real-time checks, while others require users to manually upload scanned documents or photos.

Legal Requirements

To understand what users are likely to expect from a digital insurance product, I reviewed apps and platforms from major providers:

• AXA Drive – Offers a usage-based insurance model and guides users through step-based flows with document uploads

• Allianz – Known for clear, trust-focused interfaces, with strong legal transparency and a traditional insurance approach

• Generali – Uses conventional design patterns and emphasizes reliability, often with dense legal language

• Mapfre – Popular in Southern Europe; highlights accessibility and policy summaries early in the flow

• Cuvva – A modern, mobile-first product focused on short-term and flexible insurance, with a minimal, user-centered interface

Competitor Search

Competitive Audit

To design a legally compliant and user-friendly MVP, I needed to understand what already exists in the European digital insurance landscape. I selected five relevant competitors — AXA Drive, Allianz, Generali, Mapfre, and Cuvva — and audited their products with a focus on core flow structures, UI behaviors, and functionality.

UI Pattern Analysis

This sub-section focuses on the functionality and flow structures used by competitors. The goal was to understand what competitors offer overall, and more specifically, what they ask users to do at each step — such as what data to enter, what documents to upload, and when key moments like pricing or confirmation appear.

Cuvva

Cuvva is highly simplified and mobile-first. It uses short-term or on-demand insurance models. The user selects the duration and type of coverage first, enters license and vehicle info, uploads images, and receives a price in just a few screens. Its structure is minimal but functional, with very little legal friction. Functionality list:

• Login / Registration

• Step-by-step onboarding

• Driver details entry

• Vehicle details entry

• Insurance duration selection or input

• Document upload

• Address autofill or manual input

• Real-time pricing calculation

  Coverage summary before payment

• Legal terms acceptance

• Payment processing

• Downloadable or visible policy confirmation

• Live chat or support access

• Reminder or notification system

AXA Drive

AXA Drive focuses on usage-based insurance, but still follows a traditional onboarding structure. The app opens with a short introduction, then guides the user through vehicle and driver information entry. It offers plan summaries early and calculates pricing dynamically. Users are asked to upload documents mid-way through the flow. The app also offers policy management after purchase.

Allianz

Allianz provides a more formal, multi-step structure. It separates vehicle, driver, and coverage sections clearly, with long forms broken into short screens. Pricing is calculated at the end of the flow. Users must upload their license and vehicle registration during onboarding. Legal texts are shown clearly before purchase confirmation.

Generali

Generali uses a multi-screen flow with minimal visual distraction. The app prioritizes legal disclaimers, long explanatory texts, and step-by-step structure. Functionally, it asks for user data early, uploads in the middle, and displays final pricing only after verification. Some elements, like address lookup, are automated.

Mapfre

Mapfre offers a very straightforward process — the user enters their vehicle and personal data in sequence, uploads documents, and receives a calculated quote. The app also allows viewing coverage summaries and terms before continuing. The tone is supportive and guidance-focused.

Competitor Functionality Matrix

This matrix maps key functionalities across all reviewed competitors. The goal was to identify:

• Must-have functionalities — features that all competitors include and are therefore considered standard in the market

• Feature functionalities — added-value features used by some competitors to differentiate themselves

This analysis is about understanding what functionality exists in the market and how competitors position themselves through features.

From this matrix, I identified that the must-have functionalities (present in all five competitors) include:

• Login and registration

• Input of vehicle and driver data

• Document upload

• Legal agreement and pricing summary

• Payment and confirmation steps

These represent the industry baseline — functionalities users will expect and trust. Failing to include them would create friction or credibility issues.

The feature functionalities — used by some competitors to compete and differentiate — include:

• Auto-fill features

• Real-time price calculation

• Notifications and reminders

• Support access options (e.g., live chat or FAQs)

Heuristic Evaluation

This heuristic evaluation aimed to assess how user-friendly and intuitive the competing insurance apps are, using Jakob Nielsen’s 10 Usability Heuristics as the evaluation framework. The goal was to identify common usability mistakes, friction points, and best practices in the market

This evaluation helped surface which competitors offer polished, user-centered design — and which suffer from friction, legal overload, or confusing flows.

Cuvva stood out as the strongest in overall usability. It consistently followed best practices across all heuristics: clear status updates, intuitive navigation, real-world terminology, and simple forms. This validated minimalist design principles as a successful approach in this industry.

AXA Drive was mostly aligned with heuristic principles but occasionally suffered from minor usability issues, like limited user control during form completion or crowded layouts in pricing sections.

Allianz and Generali struggled most with usability, especially due to formal or legal-heavy language, limited flexibility in navigation, and lack of clear explanations around required documents or steps.

Mapfre was somewhere in between — offering mostly smooth experiences with only minor points of confusion.

Analyzing competitor reviews and identifying user pain points

To understand the real problems of users, I analyzed reviews in the App Store and Google Play for insurance apps. I filtered negative (1-3 stars) and positive (5 stars) reviews to identify the main pain points and positive moments.

Most negative reviews are related to the lengthy registration process, the complexity of the interface and the lack of autosave. Positive reviews note the speed of registration and the convenience of managing policies. Users encounter inconvenient rates, difficulty uploading documents, an overly long registration process and a lack of convenient payment methods.

MVP Flows

Once the final scope was aligned with the client and project manager, I began working on the seven main flows that would shape the product. Each one was grounded in research and structured with attention to legal requirements, platform limitations, and user expectations.

The MVP flows included:

• Onboarding

• Registration

• Login

• Insurance price calculation

• Insurance purchase

• Viewing purchased insurance

• Profile and settings

Each of these flows had its own logic, variations, and hypotheses — for example, handling returning users differently from first-time users, or supporting flow differences between taxis and vans. All flows were designed to be linear, minimal, and mobile-friendly.

Insurance Purchase

The insurance purchase flow was one of the most critical parts of the product. It’s where the user completes all necessary steps to activate their policy — including submitting documents, reviewing pricing, and making payment. By this stage, I had already completed a heuristic evaluation, analyzed competitor flows, and gathered real user pain points through app store reviews.

Across the market, this part of the process is often overcomplicated. Competitor apps frequently require users to re-enter information they’ve already submitted, hide the logic behind price calculations, or offer limited payment options. Reviews also pointed to common issues like failed document scanning with no fallback, unclear pricing, and friction during payment.

Problem Statement:
How might we design an insurance purchase flow that allows commercial drivers to complete their transaction quickly and confidently — with transparent pricing, minimal re-entry of data, fallback options for scanning, and convenient mobile payment methods?

With this in mind, I identified a set of user needs that would shape the structure of this flow:

• Users need to complete the purchase quickly, especially under time pressure

• Users need to know what is required upfront to avoid interruptions

• Users need to understand how the price is calculated

• Users need a fallback when scanning fails

• Users need fast, familiar payment methods

• Returning users don’t want to enter the same information again

• Users need clear proof that coverage is active

• Users need to fix mistakes easily before final submission

• Users need a frictionless mobile experience

• Users want to know how far they’ve come and what’s next

Understanding these user needs allowed me to formulate clear hypotheses and design targeted solutions for each one. Rather than focusing on UI elements too early, I used these hypotheses to shape the structure and logic of the flow — ensuring that every step addressed a real pain point or expectation uncovered during research. This approach helped me create a process that was not only compliant and technically feasible but also fast, understandable, and comfortable for commercial drivers to complete, even under time pressure.

Once the solutions were defined, I began structuring the user flow

With the user flows finalized, I began creating mid-fidelity wireframes to visualize the structure.

Wireframes

Before diving into visual design, I needed to structure the core screens and flows at a functional level — keeping the focus on clarity, speed, and user reassurance. Since the MVP included registration, quote estimation, policy purchase, and account access, I used wireframes to explore:

• How to reduce visible complexity without hiding critical steps

• Where to introduce smart defaults and auto-filled fields

• How to visually support decision-making around plans and pricing

• What the user sees first and how they move through each scenario

Keeping the layouts low-fidelity helped focus stakeholder feedback on logic and structure rather than visuals.

This stage clarified which interactions needed the most friction reduction and where users might feel uncertain or overloaded. It also helped me test how well the structure supported various user goals — from fast insurance purchase to plan comparison and profile updates.

By grounding wireframes in both user pain points and system-driven flows, I was able to make early design decisions that respected constraints while directly addressing core user needs.

Establishing Visual Consistency

Before moving into high-fidelity UI design, I created a small interface system to ensure visual consistency across the MVP. The goal was to maintain clarity, accessibility, and scalability — even within a lightweight product scope.

This included:

• A modular UI kit with essential components (buttons, inputs, cards, tags)

• A restrained color palette optimized for trust and readability

• A typographic scale with clear visual hierarchy

• Design rules for spacing, elevation, and alignment

• Layout patterns aligned with mobile-first constraints

Building this structure upfront made it easier to scale the design efficiently, maintain clarity across screens, and ensure consistency between flows.