From a claim in plain language to cash booked in SAP.
Warranty automation breaks down when partners file claims by email, extra costs get disputed blind, and defective parts pile up with no case management. Here's how a guided, AI-triaged approach replaces that, stage by stage — from two real manufacturer deployments.
Built for a solar and water-heater manufacturer’s 700+ service partners across Australia and New Zealand, and presented to the VP of Service at a European welding-equipment manufacturer with 200 dealers — replacing manual, Excel-and-email claims with guided submission and AI-triaged approval.
Four places the current process fails.
Partners start from a blank email or a spreadsheet row — missing data, wrong parts codes, no photo evidence. Every claim needs a back-and-forth before it can be assessed.
Repeat claim patterns, inflated labour hours and mismatched part costs are buried in the backlog. No single analyst can see patterns across hundreds of claims.
Identifying which supplier is liable, attaching the right evidence, and chasing recovery takes significant resource — most manufacturers recover a fraction of what they're owed.
Returned parts accumulate in a corner with no case management — no record of what arrived, no decision on scrap, refurbish or salvage, no link back to the original claim.
What manual warranty claims handling actually looks like.
What it looks like when claims run on a pipeline, not a queue.
Based on active deployments.
Partner & Dealer Claim Submission
Natural-language, template-based claim submission — no more claims filed by email or built from scratch in a spreadsheet.
Partners start from a guided template instead of a blank email or a spreadsheet row.
AI parses the natural-language description into a structured claim automatically.
The partner is guided to the right parts and the exact documentation and photos required — which can vary by component, such as different photo evidence for each part of a multi-component system versus a single unit.
Partners choose to repair with a locally available part or request a full product replacement, with the system guiding which option is actually authorized under policy.
Return of the failed part or unit is initiated as part of the same guided flow, not a separate request.
Built for a solar and water-heater manufacturer's 700+ service partners across Australia and New Zealand — replacing fully manual, Excel-and-email claim submission.
Frequently asked questions
A partner or dealer starts from a guided claim template and describes the fault in plain language. AI parses that description into a structured claim, guides them to the right parts and required documentation or photos, and initiates the defective-part return — all in one flow instead of a separate email, spreadsheet, and return request.
Three checks run before a claim reaches a human analyst: a duplicate check against existing claims on the same asset, a coverage check against warranty entitlement and product history, and a fraud/anomaly check for unusual patterns — plus a check that required documentation and photos are attached and consistent with the claim.
Yes. Photo and documentation requirements can be configured per component, not just per product — so a multi-part system can require different evidence for each part, rather than one generic checklist for the whole product.
Returns are tied to the original claim automatically, logged on arrival, and dispositioned — scrap, refurbish, or salvage — as part of the same case, instead of accumulating with no tracking.
It's an extension of the same dealer-facing platform — dealers use one authenticated portal for warranty claims, technical documents, FAQs, sales pricing and proposals, instead of a separate system for each.