Workflow — Subrogation Review

Subro viability calls in hours, not weeks.

Closed claim files, third-party docs, police reports, witness statements — triaged for subrogation viability, recoverable amount, statute-of-limitations dates, and comparative-negligence exposure. Demand-letter drafts and SoR updates into Guidewire ClaimCenter, Duck Creek, or Origami. Replaces 20–35% contingency BPOs at a fraction of the per-file cost.

Take the AI Assessment Get a Per-File ROI Model

20–35%

Contingency on recovery at the subrogation BPO

30–60 days

Typical viability-review backlog at vendor intake

60–85%

Volume off the contingency line after AI cutover

What This Replaces

The Subrogation BPO Sitting on a Closed-Claim Backlog

The work the contingency vendor does on every closed claim — and the cost of leaving it there.

The labor

Subrogation review today moves through contingency BPOs at Patriot Subrogation, Subrogation Recovery Services, Praxis Consulting, and adjacent firms. Pricing structures around contingency — typically 20–35% of recovered amounts — which means the carrier pays disproportionately on the highest-recovery files and walks away from anything below the vendor's minimum-viability threshold. A mid-size carrier can leave low-six-figures of small-claim subro on the table per year because the vendor economics don't support pursuit.

The cycle time

Subrogation viability backlogs of 30–60 days at vendor intake are routine, with longer cycles when the file requires police-report retrieval and witness-statement reconstruction. Every week a recoverable file sits in queue is a week the statute-of-limitations clock keeps running — and the carrier loses leverage with the responsible party's carrier on demand timing.

The Workflow

Input · Analysis · Output

What goes into subro review, what we do to it, and what shows up in your claims system.

Input

Closed claim file + ancillaries

Closed claim file from Guidewire, Duck Creek, or Origami
Police reports and incident documentation
Witness statements and recorded interviews
Third-party documentation (vendor invoices, repair estimates)
Photos and inspection reports
Adjuster notes and prior subrogation history
Policy and coverage detail at time of loss

Analysis

Identify, calculate, contend

Subrogation viability determination (responsible-party identification)
Recoverable amount calculation (paid losses + ALAE)
Statute-of-limitations dates per jurisdiction
Comparative-negligence exposure analysis
Anti-subrogation rule screen per jurisdiction
Made-whole doctrine application
Confidence score per finding; exceptions to subrogation specialist queue

Output

Demand draft into the SoR

Guidewire ClaimCenter (REST API or EDGE)
Duck Creek Claims (OnDemand APIs)
Origami Risk (REST API)
Subrogation queue assignment with viability tier
Demand letter draft to responsible carrier
SOL clock alert and escalation rules
File-level audit trail per finding

Side by Side

Subrogation Review Today vs. With Last Rev

The numbers that matter: cycle time, per-file cost, accuracy, and recovery posture.

Dimension	Contingency Subrogation BPO	Last Rev Subrogation Review
Cycle time, closed file to viability call	30–60 days at vendor intake	2–4 hours per file
Cost structure	20–35% contingency on recovery	Per-file flat rate, benchmarked at low-single-digit % of recovery
Coverage of low-recovery files	Skipped — below vendor minimum viability threshold	All closed files reviewed — recovery economics work at scale
Audit log per finding	Vendor notes, no field-level lineage	Source doc + finding basis + model version + confidence per element
SOL date tracking	Manual calendaring, missed-deadline incidents	Per-jurisdiction SOL calculated and alerted at intake
Claims-system integration	Vendor portal, separate workflow	Direct via documented Guidewire / Duck Creek / Origami APIs
Renegotiation leverage at next vendor renewal	None — you're locked in on contingency	60–85% of viability review off the vendor

How It Works

From Closed File to Recoverable Demand

Five steps. Every one logged. Every one reversible if your confidence threshold isn't met.

Submission Lands

Closed claim file from Guidewire ClaimCenter, Duck Creek Claims, or Origami Risk — with police report, witness statements, third-party documentation, photos, and prior subrogation history.

Extraction & Classification

Responsible-party identification. Recoverable amount calculated from paid losses and ALAE. Per-jurisdiction SOL dates. Comparative-negligence exposure analyzed. Anti-subrogation and made-whole doctrine screens applied.

Validation Against Recovery Bar

Findings validated against the carrier's subrogation playbook and per-jurisdiction recovery rules. Anything below your confidence threshold per finding is routed to a human exception queue — your call which queue, ours or yours.

Push to System of Record

Subrogation queue assignment with viability tier and recoverable amount. Demand letter draft to responsible party's carrier. SOL clock alert and escalation rules into the claims system.

Audit Log Persisted

Every viability call, recoverable-amount calculation, and SOL determination logged with the source document, model version, prompt, and confidence score. Defensible chain of custody for opposing-counsel pushback.

Compliance & Defensibility

Built to Meet the Quality Bar Subrogation Operations Already Run On

Per-jurisdiction SOL accuracy

Statute-of-limitations dates calculated per the loss jurisdiction with the rule cited. Tort, contract, and uninsured-motorist claims each have distinct SOL clocks; the audit log tracks which rule applied to each file.

Anti-subrogation and made-whole doctrines

Per-jurisdiction anti-subrogation rules and made-whole doctrine applications surfaced at intake. Files where the doctrine forecloses recovery are tagged with the basis so the carrier doesn't pursue work that won't recover.

Defensible recovery posture

Demand drafts trace back to the source documentation — paid losses from the claim file, responsible-party identification from the police report or witness statements, comparative-negligence findings from the underlying facts. Cleaner chain of custody than vendor reconstruction.

PII and claim-data residency

Closed-claim files contain claimant PII, financial data, and litigation-prep work product. Deployable in your VPC or our SOC 2 environment. Encryption in transit and at rest; retention policies tied to your DOI guidance.

Common Questions

What Carriers Ask About Subrogation Review

Guidewire, Duck Creek, and Origami are the systems where subrogation files live once a viability call is made — but most carriers still rely on a contingency vendor to make the actual call on each file. The competitor on this page is the contingency BPO line on your subrogation budget — Patriot Subrogation, Subrogation Recovery Services, Praxis Consulting, or a captive vendor charging 20–35% of recovery. We undercut that contingency, integrate directly into your existing claims system, and deliver viability findings, demand drafts, and SOL alerts into the system of record.

Most carriers keep the contingency vendor in place during pilot and early production — we route exceptions, complex multi-defendant files, and any case that genuinely requires senior-recovery expertise to the vendor you already have. Volume to the vendor drops 60–85% on routine viability review once cutover completes. You renegotiate at the next renewal from a much better position, or shift the relationship to higher-complexity work like litigation subrogation.

Our pilot success threshold is structured-finding extraction accuracy at parity with or above your incumbent vendor, measured on the same shadow-data sample of closed files and validated against the subrogation team's calibration set. Anything below your defined confidence threshold per finding is routed to a human exception queue — your call which queue, ours or yours.

Per-jurisdiction anti-subrogation rules and made-whole doctrine applications are encoded as configurable rules. When a file falls under a rule that forecloses recovery, the file is tagged with the basis cited so the carrier doesn't pursue work that won't recover. The audit log records which rule applied to each file at the time of review.

The recovery economics that make low-recovery files unprofitable for a contingency vendor work fine for AI workflows running at scale. We review every closed file and surface the viable ones regardless of recovery size — even small-claim subrogation contributes meaningfully when you're capturing 100% of the population instead of 20% above the vendor's minimum threshold.

Yes — through the documented integration surface each platform supports. Guidewire via the ClaimCenter REST API or EDGE; Duck Creek via OnDemand APIs; Origami Risk via the REST API. Your IT team reviews and approves a service account, and we connect through the documented integration. We do not require platform-side custom development.

Subrogation pilots typically run 6–8 weeks: 1–2 weeks of integration and per-jurisdiction rule mapping with the subrogation team, 4 weeks of shadow-mode running on closed files with no system-of-record writes, 1–2 weeks of supervised cutover on a constrained scope (one LOB, one region). Production rollout is staged after the pilot meets your accuracy and SLA bar.

We benchmark against your current 20–35% contingency rate on actual recoveries, with the per-file flat-rate translated into a low-single-digit-percent of recovery on a fully-loaded basis. The economics improve materially when you're reviewing 100% of closed files instead of 20% above the vendor's threshold. Pricing structures around volume tiers and outcome SLAs, not contingency percentages.

Two Ways to Start

Take the AI assessment for a structured read on subrogation feasibility in your operation. Or talk to us if you already know your contingency vendor is leaving recoverable files on the table.

Self-serve · 8 minutes

Take the AI Assessment

A short structured assessment that maps your monthly subrogation volume, current contingency vendor, and claims system to AI feasibility and ROI.

Talk to a specialist

Get a Per-File ROI Model

Send us your monthly subrogation volume, current contingency arrangement, and target system of record. We'll come back with a per-file unit-cost comparison and a 6–8 week pilot plan in 5 business days.

Other Workflows

More Insurance Workflows We Replace

The same approach, applied to the other claims-document labor lines on your operating budget.

FNOL Intake

First-notice-of-loss extracted, validated, and pushed into Guidewire, Duck Creek, Origami, or Snapsheet in minutes.

SIU Document Review

Fraud-flagged claim files — timeline reconstruction, ISO ClaimSearch, recommendation memo for the SIU desk.

Demand Package Review

Attorney demand packages — claim valuation drivers and reserve recommendations in days, not weeks.

WC Medical Bill Review

CMS-1500, UB-04, and provider notes — fee-schedule compliance, duplicates, and treatment-plan checks.