Catching the same invoice submitted on three different claims
A property insurer that suspected duplicate documentation across its claim portfolio but had no way to see across files.
Who they are.
A property insurer with a large claim portfolio and a suspicion it could not act on: that the same repair documentation was being presented on more than one claim. Each claim was reviewed on its own merits, by whichever adjuster picked it up.
Anonymised at the client’s request. Client names are never disclosed without written permission.
What had to be solved.
Nothing in the process compared an incoming document against the portfolio. A duplicate invoice only surfaced by accident, when the same adjuster happened to recognise it. Fraud suspicion was a feeling, and a feeling cannot be put in a file or defended in a refusal.
What success looked like.
- Compare every incoming document against the whole portfolio, not just its own claim
- Turn a suspicion into a sourced finding that can be defended
- Cross-check the file against official registries, not only against itself
What Ceertia does here.
Portfolio-wide cross-checking on receipt, alongside the usual internal consistency rules. A document already seen elsewhere is flagged with both claim references attached as evidence, and each external lookup — ownership, address, contractor identity — is recorded with its result and its impact on the confidence score.
Flag any document already used in another claim file, citing both file references as evidence.
How it runs, step by step.
The file arrives with its documents, in any format, from whoever sends it.
Every page is identified and mapped against the expected document list. Missing documents, duplicates and out-of-scope pages are flagged on receipt.
Each rule asks the file a question and answers it directly on the documents, with page, zone and source text attached to the verdict.
The team approves, requests a fix, or rejects. No file is approved or rejected automatically.
What changed.
One invoice was found on three separate claims. More usefully, refusals became defensible: the risk level cites its sources, so a decision survives the complaint that follows it.
- Each claim was reviewed in isolation; nobody compared documents across files.
- Duplicate invoices only surfaced by accident, when the same adjuster recognised one.
- Fraud suspicion was a feeling, not something you could put in a file.
- Every incoming document is checked against the whole portfolio.
- A reused invoice is flagged with both claim references as evidence.
- The risk level is sourced, so a refusal can be defended.
Anonymised case. Client names are never disclosed without written permission. Figures describe the file volumes and checks in this scenario.
Other files, same engine.
A mid-sized insurer receiving motor claim files from policyholders, garages and experts, with volumes that spike after every storm.
Read the case → InsuranceBrokers fix their own incomplete claim filesAn insurer receiving claim files through a network of brokers, where every incomplete submission meant a phone call and a week of delay.
Read the case →See it run on your own files.
Bring one real file to a 30-minute demo. Watch the verification run, evidence on screen.