Questions And Answers.

Kempron builds automation infrastructure for motor claims and sells it to property and casualty insurers. Detail is shared with prospective counterparties under a mutual non-disclosure agreement. The category-level answer is set out in full here.

None of those. Kempron is a technology company. We do not underwrite risk, sell policies, arrange cover, adjust claims or hold any licence to do so in any jurisdiction. Kempron does not offer insurance or solicit consumer business.

Kempron Inc. is incorporated in Ontario, Canada, with its head office in Mississauga. It has no other offices. We build for the Canadian and United States markets.

The site also covers the United Kingdom, continental Europe, South Africa, Australia, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, because the problem is global and those markets publish strong evidence about it. Kempron does not operate in them, has no customers in them, and does not hold itself out as serving them. That distinction is stated on the market pages themselves.

Two reasons. The first is that the supervisory direction of travel is consistent across all the jurisdictions described, and that convergence is useful information for anyone building in this space.

The second is that a compliance officer or a regulator should be able to find their own framework described accurately. Errors can be reported through the enquiry form and will be corrected.

Not published. Ownership, funding and personnel are disclosed to counterparties under NDA where relevant to a commercial or risk assessment. There is an investor route on the enquiry form.

Kempron Inc. is a corporation registered in Ontario, Canada, with its head office in Mississauga. The enquiry form reaches the company directly, and we will confirm corporate particulars, provide registration details and execute a mutual non-disclosure agreement on request from a legitimate business counterparty.

There are no open roles published. Speculative approaches from people with deep motor claims operations, collision repair or regulated-industry engineering backgrounds are read and kept on file.

In time. Anything published will be true, attributable and Kempron's to publish.

No. Kempron holds no SOC 2 report, no ISO/IEC 27001 certification and no security accreditation of any kind, in any jurisdiction. Kempron designs and documents against the AICPA Trust Services Criteria and the ISO/IEC 27001 control domains because those are the frameworks an insurer's third-party risk function assesses suppliers within. Where a specific engagement requires formal attestation, that is scoped and sequenced as part of the engagement. Our full security posture is stated here.

Claims data is personal information in the strict statutory sense and often includes sensitive categories. We work to PIPEDA federally, Quebec's Law 25, and the Alberta and British Columbia Personal Information Protection Acts as applicable, alongside the relevant United States state requirements.

Our operating posture is data minimisation. Collect what the process requires, hold it for a defined period, be able to state precisely where it is, and delete or return it on a contractual deadline. The detail is here.

The insurer's data belongs to the insurer; processing it does not give us rights in it. Residency commitments, including holding Canadian personal information in Canada, are made in writing in the contract rather than offered as a preference. Permitted use, retention period, sub-processors and return or destruction on exit are all settled in the agreement before any data is exchanged.

We do not publish our technical approach, including which techniques we do and do not use. What we will state as a design constraint is that any process touching a regulated claims decision has to be explainable after the fact, to the insurer, and if required to a regulator, an ombud or a court. We treat auditability as a requirement rather than a feature.

Kempron's full position, including the failure modes of the category, is set out here. A scoped pilot against your own baseline is the way to assess what a system does.

Where an insurer operates a programme under the NAIC model bulletin or an equivalent framework, a supplier's job is to make that programme evidenceable: documentation, logging, testing support and clear statements of where decision rights sit. We treat that as part of the engagement rather than an add-on, and we plan for it during risk assessment rather than after go-live.

No system should be described as unbiased. Proxy discrimination does not require a protected characteristic as an input, so the absence of such inputs proves nothing. Disparate outcomes are tested for continuously, and the testing can be shown. Where an insurer is obliged to test, Kempron supports the testing.

No. Kempron has no access to any insurer's files and no ability to open, view, expedite or decide a claim. Contact your insurer directly. If you are unhappy with how a claim has been handled, start with your insurer's internal complaints process, then escalate to the ombud service or insurance regulator for your province, state or country.

It will be corrected. There is a regulator route on the enquiry form. The jurisdiction pages are summaries for orientation, not legal advice.

We work with the networks insurers already have rather than displacing them. Suppliers who want to be considered for future work are welcome to use the supplier route on the enquiry form. We do not maintain a public vendor portal and we do not publish a supplier list.

We respond to written media enquiries. We do not brief on unannounced work, and we do not confirm or deny commercial relationships. A request to confirm a rumoured relationship will receive the same answer as a request to deny one.