Home · Solutions · Legal & compliance

Solution · Legal & compliance

Every damage report opens a file with its deadlines counted from the delivery date

Claim files complete before the deadline, not after it

A damage report from any channel opens a claim file, pulls the evidence your systems already hold, names what is missing, and starts recovery against the carrier and the insurer.

DepartmentalMicrosoft TeamsHuman in the loopAI where it earns its place
260claim files a month are opened at this illustrative logistics group, and most of them start with the customer's deduction rather than with the damage.

Executive summary

Challenge

The customer deducts the damage; the note, the photographs and the temperature record are in four places.

What changes

We build the claim as a record rather than a thread.

Business value

The file exists from the first hour, so a position is prepared while the evidence is still retrievable and the windows are open.

Systems involved

the claim record and the load in the TMS; WMS handling events; the SharePoint claim archive

Business problem

Claims and liability

A cargo claim is not correspondence. It is a file with dates attached, and the dates belong to the delivery rather than to the office. What the company pays depends less on who was at fault than on what it can show, and when.

The evidence almost always exists somewhere. The signed note with the consignee's remark is in a mailbox or an archive, the photographs are in a driver application or on a phone, the temperature record sits in telematics as long as retention allows, the order and the subcontracting chain are in the TMS. None of it is indexed by claim, so a person becomes the index and fetches each item by email from whoever might have it.

That search runs against a clock the office does not control. Where the CMR governs the carriage, reservations for damage that is not apparent must be sent within seven days of delivery, Sundays and public holidays excepted; for delay the period is twenty-one days; Article 32(1) allows one year to bring an action. When the load was subcontracted, the notification owed to the carrier who moved the goods runs from that same delivery, not from the day the deduction landed. So the desk triages: large claims get a file, small ones get absorbed.

How it works today

Channels and systems differ between operators; the sequence rarely does.

  1. PersonA damage report arrives as an email, a portal message, a remark on a returned delivery document or a phone call
  2. WaitingIt waits in whichever mailbox it landed in until the desk works through the backlog, typically days
  3. PersonA case is opened in a spreadsheet, then evidence is requested one email at a time from four systems and three people
  4. Risk of errorThe notification window is counted, if at all, from the day the office noticed rather than the delivery
  5. WaitingThe subcontractor is chased when somebody remembers, and recovery is raised only where the amount justifies the work
  6. Risk of errorThe insurer is notified late, or not at all, below an amount nobody has written down
  7. PersonThe file closes when the deduction is accepted, and the reasoning survives as a sentence in an email
PersonWaitingRisk of error

Why the current process costs more than it appears

Nobody planned this work; it accumulated.

  • Evidence is cheap on the day of delivery and expensive a month later. Photographs are deleted from phones, telematics records age out of retention, and the warehouseman who saw the pallet remembers a different one.
  • Weight decides the ceiling, and nobody files it. Where the CMR governs the carriage and the 1978 Protocol applies, liability is capped at 8.33 units of account per kilogram of gross weight short, so a file without the packing list lacks the number that limits the exposure.
  • Recovery follows workload rather than entitlement. A desk assembling every file by hand writes off the claims too small to justify the assembly, and those are most of them.
  • Nobody prices the exposure while it is open. Claims live in mailboxes rather than a register, so the amount at risk this quarter is answered with an estimate.

Cost of inaction

A year of evidence gathered after the fact≈ €65,780
Two new contracts and a fifth more claims≈ €78,960
Three years before anyone looks at this desk again≈ €197,400

A missed window does not produce an argument. It produces a payment, entered as a deduction on a freight invoice or a goodwill credit, and neither entry records that the loss belonged to somebody else. The rows above count desk time only: nothing about the small claims never passed on, the deductions accepted because a note could not be found in time, or what a poor loss record costs at the next renewal.

Volume makes this worse in a way hiring does not fix. Every new contract adds a customer whose terms differ, every new subcontractor a party whose response time is unknown, and the desk answers by triaging harder. It becomes visible at a renewal, and by then the loss record has been made.

Illustrative scenario

A plausible organisation with realistic proportions. The figures are there to be recalculated on your data; they are not a client result.

Organisation

A Central European logistics group: a groupage network with three cross-docks, two contract-logistics warehouses, 90 vehicles of its own and around 300 subcontracted carriers; a TMS, a WMS, Microsoft 365 E3, a claims desk of four.

Volume

260 claim files a month: roughly 150 damage in transit or at a cross-dock, 60 shortages, 30 delay claims, 20 total losses and refusals. About 60% of the underlying loads moved on a subcontracted carrier.

Current process

Reports arrive through four channels into three mailboxes. A spreadsheet holds the open cases, evidence is requested by email, and the deadline is whatever the handler remembers.

Bottleneck

Around 55 minutes per claim of gathering and chasing before anyone can take a position, and a recovery leg opened for large claims and skipped for the rest.

Solution

Every report opens a file with its dates calculated from the delivery; robots attach the evidence your systems hold, name what is missing and task whoever can supply it; the recovery notice and the insurer pack come out of the same file.

Potential outcome

In the modelled case the file is complete while the windows are open, recovery is opened on every claim instead of the large ones, and the desk spends its day deciding claims rather than finding documents. It is a design intention expressed as a model; no client's numbers are behind it.

Proposed solution

We build the claim as a record rather than a thread. A report arriving in any channel creates a file with its reference, the load, the loss type, the amount claimed and a set of dates: the delivery, your customer's admissibility window, the window on the leg you must pass on, your policy's notification period and the limitation date. The rules that produce those dates belong to the claims lead.

Evidence collection is deterministic and unglamorous, which is the point. Robots take the load reference and fetch what your systems hold: the note and any remark on it from the archive, the order, the rate and the subcontracting chain from the TMS, the handling events from the WMS, the temperature record from telematics, the photographs from the driver application. UiPath Document Understanding reads what arrives as a document: the damage report and protocol, the invoice that establishes value, the packing list that fixes weight, the repair quotation. What cannot be fetched becomes a named gap, with an owner and a date.

People are asked for exactly what is missing, in Microsoft Teams, with the claim reference and the deadline on the card. A file that passes the completeness rule for its loss type reaches the desk with everything attached, a recovery notice drafted from the transport order's terms and an insurer pack indexed as the policy asks.

Native capabilities used

UiPath Document Understanding pre-trained models for invoices, packing lists and bills of lading, plus a model configured on your own damage reports; Validation Station in UiPath Action Center; UiPath Orchestrator queues, triggers and audit; UiPath Integration Service connectors for Microsoft Outlook 365 and Microsoft OneDrive & SharePoint; Action Center tasks inside Microsoft Teams; Microsoft SharePoint under Microsoft Purview retention; Power BI

What we build

The claim record, the deadline rules per loss type and contract, the evidence map, the completeness rules, the collection robots, the gap tasks and their escalation, the document templates and the reporting

Custom integration

The TMS and the WMS through whatever interface each product offers, usually a scheduled file exchange or an API; the telematics export; customer portals where a report sits behind a login

How the automated process works

  1. AutomationA report in the claims mailbox, a portal message, a reservation flagged on a returned transport document or a depot form opens a claim file in an Orchestrator queue
  2. AutomationDocument Understanding reads the report, protocol, invoice, packing list or quotation and returns the consignment reference, the delivery date, the packages and weight affected, the amount claimed
  3. SystemA robot matches the file to the load and order chain in the TMS, then calculates every date from the delivery: your customer's window, the window on the subcontracted leg, the insurer's period, the limitation date
  4. AutomationEvidence already held is filed against the claim: the note and its remark, the proof of delivery, the WMS events, the telematics record, the photographs, the order and the rate
  5. PersonWhat is missing becomes a task in Microsoft Teams naming the claim, the item and the date it is due; the subcontractor gets the same request by email
  6. PersonThe complete file reaches the desk with the recovery notice and insurer pack drafted; liability and the position taken are decided by a person
  7. AutomationEach morning the open files are aged, those approaching a window escalate in Teams, and exposure and recovery feed a Power BI view
AutomationSystemPerson

Human-in-the-loop model

Automation handles

  • Opening the file from any channel, reading the documents and matching the claim to the load and order chain
  • Calculating every date from the delivery and warning before each falls due
  • Collecting the evidence that exists, and naming, assigning and chasing what does not
  • Assembling the recovery notice and the insurer pack, and recording who supplied what, and when

People decide

  • Liability: what is admitted, what is contested, what is offered
  • Whether a loss is passed to the subcontractor, to the insurer, or carried
  • The rules: notification periods per contract, completeness per loss type, the wording of the notices

Before and after

BeforeAfter
File opened after a damage reportdays, once someone reaches the mailboxminutes, from any channel
Evidence assembledby email, one item at a timepulled from your systems, with a named gap list
Notification windowcounted from when the office noticedcounted from delivery, warned before it closes
Recovery against the carrierraised where the amount justifies itopened on every claim, on the same evidence

Systems and integrations

Where a rule suffices we do not use a model. Where judgement is needed, a person decides.

Inputs

  • claims mailbox in Outlook
  • customer portals
  • reservations flagged on returned transport documents
  • a depot damage form
  • subcontractor replies

Automation layer

  • UiPath Orchestrator
  • UiPath Robots
  • UiPath Document Understanding
  • UiPath Integration Service
  • UiPath Action Center

Target systems

  • the claim record and the load in the TMS
  • WMS handling events
  • the SharePoint claim archive
  • Power BI

Human touchpoints: evidence tasks and deadline warnings in Microsoft Teams; Validation Station for unreadable scans; the claims-desk decision

claims mailbox in OutlookUiPath OrchestratorUiPath Robotsthe claim recordevidence tasks

Technologies used

UiPath Document Understanding (IXP)

reads damage reports, protocols, invoices, packing lists, quotations; Validation Station for the unreadable

A
UiPath Robots + Orchestrator

open the file, collect the evidence, run the daily ageing, retries and audit

A
UiPath Integration Service (Microsoft Outlook 365, Microsoft OneDrive & SharePoint connectors)

watches the claims mailbox, files the documents

A
UiPath Action Center

evidence gaps and the desk decision as tasks with due dates

A
Microsoft Teams

evidence requests, deadline warnings, recovery status

A
Microsoft SharePoint

the claim file, with customer, carrier and loss-type metadata under Microsoft Purview retention

A
Power BI

open exposure, recovery rate, deadline compliance, damage by carrier and lane

A
The TMS, the WMS and the telematics system

sources of the load, the order chain, the rate, the events, the temperature record

C
Averified product capability (vendor documentation)Cillustrative model — the figures on this page

Illustrative economic model

Start by questioning the assumptions.

Illustrative model
260 claim files a month × 55 minutes of gathering and chasing= 238 h / month
238 h × €23 fully loaded hourly cost= €5,482 / month
× 12 months≈ €65,780 / year
Annual capacity released (illustrative)≈ €65,780

Gathering is the only part of a claim that behaves like a repeatable task, so it is the only part priced here: the note and its remark, the photographs, the temperature record, the order chain, the subcontractor's answer. What the loss costs and what is finally recovered sit outside the arithmetic. €23 an hour is a fully loaded claims-desk cost in Central Europe, and every input is illustrative.

Run the numbers on your data

hours released per month
of annual capacity released

An illustrative estimate from your own inputs. It models released capacity; it is not a promise of savings.

Business benefits

  • The file exists from the first hour, so a position is prepared while the evidence is still retrievable and the windows are open
  • Recovery is opened on every claim, not only on the ones large enough to justify the assembly, which is where the absorbed losses sit
  • Notification to a subcontracted carrier goes out on a date calculated from the delivery, not from the day the customer wrote
  • An answer carrying the note, the photographs and the record reaches the customer earlier, and ends more disputes than a promise to look into it

The management view

  • Exposure becomes a number instead of a feeling: claims open, amounts claimed, admitted and under recovery, by customer, carrier and loss type
  • Deadline compliance is measured on the files rather than promised in a procedure, and a missed window becomes an event with a reason
  • Damage stops being anecdotal: loss frequency per carrier, lane and cross-dock is a fact for the next rate negotiation

Board-level KPIs

share of files complete inside the notification windowrecovery rate against carriers and insurersdays from report to complete fileclaims cost per shipmentopen exposure by age

Security and governance

Trust in automation is built on the audit trail, not on a promise.

  • Each robot has its own identity and the narrowest rights that work: read on telematics and WMS records, write on the claim record alone, mailbox access scoped to the claims address
  • Portal and system passwords are held in the credential store instead of a shared file, so rotating one does not require a developer
  • The claim file, its documents and its decisions stay in your Microsoft 365 tenant, and the robots that assemble them run from the EU region of UiPath Automation Cloud
  • Retention follows Microsoft Purview labels set to what your contracts, your insurer and the limitation period require; deadline rules and standard wordings are versioned and approved by the claims lead, which is what makes a missed window explainable

Why now

01

More of the freight your company sells moves on somebody else's truck, and every subcontracted leg adds a party you must notify inside a window counted from delivery. IRU's report published on 30 June 2026 puts unfilled truck driver positions in Europe at around 502,000, with some 660,500 European drivers expected to retire by 2030.

02

The modelled €5,482 a month is spent whether or not a claim is recovered, and it buys only the search; the losses absorbed because a file was never assembled sit outside that figure.

03

Assembling a file from systems that already hold the evidence is now configuration rather than a development project: pre-trained document models, connectors watching a mailbox and an archive, tasks completed inside Microsoft Teams.

Relevant executive roles

CFO

Deductions and goodwill payments stop being a cost of doing business and become a recovery rate with a number against it

Operations Director

Depots and dispatchers are asked for one named item with a date on it, instead of being chased for a file somebody else is assembling

Head of Claims

Every claim gets the same file, the same clock and the same evidence, whatever its size and whoever is on holiday

Common questions and objections

Most of our claims are too small to justify a file.

That is the current process talking, and it is why the small ones are absorbed. When assembly costs minutes rather than an hour, recovery is worth opening on a claim of a few hundred euro, which is where the volume is.

Our subcontractors never answer inside a deadline.

The file does not wait for them. The notification goes out on the date calculated from delivery with what you hold, the request is timestamped, the answer chased on a clock. A carrier's response time becomes a figure for the next rate conversation rather than a complaint.

Are you letting a robot decide claims?

No. Robots open the file, fetch the evidence, count the dates and draft the notices. Liability, the amount admitted and the position taken belong to your claims desk, and every decision is recorded with its author.

When this is not the right solution

  • Below roughly one claim a working day, where one experienced person carries the register and a folder of templates is the cheaper answer
  • The delivery date and the order chain are not reliably recorded, so no clock can be started and no leg identified; the transport records come first
  • Your transport orders say nothing about liability, notification or the documents a carrier must return; the contract terms come before any automation

A question for the next management meeting

For every euro our customers deducted from us last year, how many did we recover from the carrier or the insurer who was liable, and what happened to the rest?

Implementation approach

We start with one slice of the process and extend only once it is proven.

We deliver

  • A read of one quarter of your claims: channels, loss types, amounts, assembly time, missed windows
  • The claim record, and the deadline rules per loss type, contract and regime
  • The evidence map: which system holds each item, how a robot fetches it, how long it survives there
  • The document model for your damage reports, the completeness rules, the robots, the gap tasks in Teams
  • The recovery and insurer documents, the claim archive with retention, the Power BI view and a runbook

We need from you

  • Three months of claims with their evidence, the dates each was reported, answered and closed
  • The notification and liability terms in your contracts and transport orders, and what your policy requires
  • A process owner on the claims desk, and technical accounts for the mailbox, the TMS, the WMS and telematics

Stages

Discovery

One quarter of claims by channel, loss type and amount; where each piece of evidence lives

Design

The claim record, the deadline rules, the evidence map, the completeness rules, the security model

Build

Collection robots, the document model, the TMS and WMS integration, the Teams tasks

Validation

A replay on historical claims: would the file have been complete, would the window have been met

Go-live

One loss type and one branch first, then the rest, with hypercare and rule tuning

Departmental. Effort is driven by the number of systems holding evidence, how many notification regimes your contracts create, and whether a load and a claim share a reference a machine can match.