ML Loss Prediction for Faster Vehicle Claim Triage

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing SaaS providers face inefficiencies in claim processing, particularly in insurance claims, due to time-consuming manual procedures and suboptimal use of computational resources, leading to frustration for policy holders and delays for providers.

Innovation Solution

A computing system that optimizes claim processes using machine learning and large language models (LLMs) for efficient information gathering, real-time communication, and automated negotiation, integrating with user and call center representative devices to streamline claim handling and reduce processing time.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Measurement precision

If manual procedures are used for claim processing, then accuracy can be maintained through human judgment, but processing time increases and productivity decreases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveclaim processing accuracyVSAvoidclaim processing speed
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent replaces manual mechanical review processes with machine learning models that automatically analyze incident data, communicate with users, and negotiate settlements. The ML system substitutes human reviewers while maintaining accuracy through algorithmic analysis of claim patterns and outcomes.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #28Mechanics substitution (Replace mechanical system)

Solution Approach 2:

The system enables self-service through automated ML-driven communication with users and automatic negotiation processes. The machine learning model independently handles claim assessment, user interaction, and settlement negotiation without requiring continuous human intervention, thereby increasing productivity while maintaining quality through automated decision-making.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #25Self-service

2Loss of information

If comprehensive information gathering is performed manually, then complete claim data can be collected, but computational resources are wasted and processing efficiency decreases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveclaim information completenessVSAvoidcomputational resource efficiency
Core Design Contradiction:
Loss of informationVSLoss of energy

Solution Approach 1:

The machine learning model performs partial information gathering by selectively requesting only the specific data needed for accurate claim assessment. Rather than manually collecting all possible information, the system intelligently determines the minimum necessary dataset, reducing computational overhead while ensuring completeness of essential claim information.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #16Partial or excessive action

Solution Approach 2:

The system dynamically adjusts information gathering parameters based on the specific claim type and incident characteristics. The ML model modifies its data collection strategy in real-time, requesting different sets of information for different scenarios, thereby optimizing computational resource usage while maintaining information completeness for accurate claim processing.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

3Productivity

If automated systems are implemented for claim processing, then productivity increases and processing time decreases, but system complexity increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveclaim processing throughputVSAvoidsystem architecture complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
ProductivityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The machine learning model serves multiple functions within a single system architecture: it analyzes incident data, communicates with users, negotiates settlements, and makes decisions. This multi-functionality consolidates what would otherwise require separate systems for each task, increasing productivity while managing complexity through a unified ML-driven platform.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #6Universality (Multi-functionality)

4Productivity

If machine learning models are used for automated negotiation, then processing time decreases and productivity increases, but measurement precision of settlement outcomes may be compromised

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvenegotiation speedVSAvoidsettlement accuracy
Core Design Contradiction:
ProductivityVSMeasurement precision

Solution Approach 1:

The machine learning model incorporates feedback mechanisms that learn from negotiation outcomes and user responses. The system continuously refines its negotiation strategy based on actual user behavior patterns and settlement results, maintaining accuracy while operating at high speed. The feedback loop ensures that automated negotiation precision improves over time through experience.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

Data Source

PatentUS20260050990A1Machine-learning method of loss prediction using incident information
Publication Date: 2026.02.19 ASSURED INSURANCE TECH INC
  • US20260050990A1 patent drawing
  • US20260050990A1 patent drawing
  • US20260050990A1 patent drawing

AI summary

Embodiments include a computing system, computing device, computer-implemented method and non-transitory computer-readable medium for generating loss predictions. In embodiments, incident data is received, corresponding to an incident involving a vehicle of a user, and based on the incident data, a total loss prediction is generated for the vehicle, where the total loss prediction is indicative of whether the vehicle is repairable or totaled.