Every claim with its trace. Every policyholder, without leaving your environment.
In insurance a step without control is cover wrongly applied, and a policyholder travelling to an external model is a data protection problem. BiVelio turns every claim into a stateful process, pseudonymizes policyholders before any AI sees them and leaves the decision to the claims handler on anything unclear.
Illustrative scenario with fictitious data — not taken from any customer.
How a claim flows through BiVelio
The same BiVelio flow, explained in the claims handler's vocabulary: what comes in, what is protected, what it costs and who decides.
The claim enters its process
Every notice opens a case file with its process: policy, period of cover, adjuster, deadlines and who decides at each step.
Privacy protects the policyholder
Names, identifiers, bank accounts, addresses and claim details that identify a person are replaced with reversible placeholders before any external AI sees them. The key never leaves your environment.
Savings measures what it costs
Every model query is priced against the provider's own meter. You know what automating a type of claim costs before scaling the volume.
Studio puts the gate in the claims handler's hands
The case file moves through a stateful flow: what fits the policy goes through; doubtful cover, a date outside the period of cover or an adjuster's report that doesn't match the notice stops before the claims handler and is recorded.
The hard cases — and what happens to them
What sets a governed system apart from a tool is not the easy case, but where the exception ends up.
A loss on the edge of the policy period
The declared date falls a day before or after the renewal. The process flags it against the period of cover; the decision on cover belongs to the claims handler.
Declared cause and established cause that do not match
The notice says “burst pipe” and the adjuster says “leak due to lack of maintenance”. The discrepancy doesn't resolve itself: it is flagged and waits for the person with the full context.
Several insured parties and third parties in the same file
Policyholder, insured, opposing driver, injured party. Pseudonymisation placeholders are stable within the file: the AI reasons about each party without ever knowing who they are.
A step the model wants to “skip”
If an agent proposes paying a settlement without the approval the policy requires, the gate blocks it. No payment leaves without the claims handler.
What gets automated
- Opening and classifying notices, adjustments and payments
- Checking policy, period of cover, coverage and amounts at every step
- Pseudonymising policyholders and third parties before any AI
- Cross-checking notice ↔ policy ↔ adjustment ↔ payment
- Moving the case file forward when every step fits the policy
What stays in the hands of the claims handler
- Every exception the policy cannot resolve on its own
- The decision on cover, exclusions and deductibles
- Any discrepancy between what was declared and what was established
- Approval of the payment and of the amount
- Communication with the policyholder and with third parties
Regulation and trust: what we can state
Only what we already publish and you can verify. Sector and data protection regulation remains yours; the gate gives you technical facts to support it.
Personal data under GDPR and LQPD
Policyholders, third parties and claim details that identify people are pseudonymised in your environment before anything leaves; the definition in Art. 4(5) GDPR describes exactly that mechanism. Data hosted in the EU.
Fail-closed when in doubt
If sensitive data detection cannot be completed with confidence, the request does not go out. In a sector where a file contains health data or third-party data, the gate closes rather than take the risk.
Traceability of the file
Every step of the process is recorded, and so is every approval: who, what, when and under which policy. An audit is answered by pointing, not by reconstructing.
Who it is for — and who it is not for
It fits if…
- You handle a volume of claims that no longer fits manual follow-up
- You want to use AI on claim files without policyholders travelling to an external provider
- You need every step of the case file to have a trace you can show the regulator
- You would rather have anything doubtful stop in front of the handler than an automatic decision on a cover
It does not fit if…
- You are looking for a core insurance system or a policy administration system — BiVelio is not that: it works on top of yours
- You want AI to decide on cover or approve settlements without human intervention
- Your volume is a handful of case files a month: manual follow-up pays off
How it's implemented: a two-week pilot, no project
No migration, no integration up front. We start with one of your real processes, in measure-only mode, and you decide on what you see.
Week 1 · your process, nothing touched
Together we pick one repetitive process and trace it step by step: what triggers it, which systems it touches, who approves and where it gets stuck. Savings measures what the AI would cost. You watch; nothing changes yet.
Week 2 · the human gate with your team
Together we define what gets automated and what stops in front of a person in your operation, and who reviews. Privacy is switched on in front of the models you already use. The flow runs with your people inside it.
Decision · with your figures, not ours
You see how many runs went through on their own, which ones stopped before a person and why, and the cost measured against the provider's meter. If it doesn't pay off, you say so and nothing happens. If it does, the pilot is already the implementation.
Frequently asked questions from insurance
Does my policyholders' data reach ChatGPT, Claude or any external model?
No. Privacy replaces it with reversible placeholders before the request leaves your environment; the provider only sees placeholders and the answer is reconstructed locally. If detection is in doubt, the request does not go out.
Does it decide whether a claim is covered?
No. It cross-checks period of cover, coverage and amounts and leaves the case ready; the decision on cover, exclusions and amount belongs to the claims handler and is recorded.
What happens when a step in the claim doesn't add up?
The flow doesn't adjust it by itself: it stops before the claims handler with the full context in front of them — which rule failed and with what data — and their decision is recorded. Nothing moves forward by inference.
Does it replace my policy administration system?
No. It governs the process — cross-checks, validates and routes — before anything reaches your system, and leaves the case file and the payment to your team and your core. It works on top, not instead.
Bring a claims process and watch it run.
In the demo we trace one of your processes — with test data — and you see every step with its rule, its trace and its human gate.
Last reviewed: September 2026
Keep exploring BiVelio
Sibling pages that dig into the same topic from a different angle. Useful to see how BPM, automation, AI and operating blueprints fit together.