Questions And Answers.

We build automation infrastructure for motor claims and sell it to property and casualty insurers. That is a complete description of our position in the market and an intentionally incomplete description of our technology. The category-level answer is set out in full here.

Because the specifics are the only thing we have that a larger competitor cannot simply buy, and publishing them on a website gives them away for nothing in return.

This is a deliberate trade and it has a real cost. It makes us harder to evaluate from the outside, and it means some people will assume there is nothing here. We accept that. Prospective counterparties get the detail under a mutual NDA, which is the ordinary mechanism for exactly this situation and one every insurer's legal team already has a template for.

We would rather be plainly reticent than vaguely impressive. Evasive marketing copy that gestures at a capability without describing it wastes a reader's time and tells a competitor more than silence does.

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. Nothing on this site is an offer of insurance or a solicitation of 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.

This site discusses the United Kingdom, continental Europe and Australia because the problem is global and those markets publish the best evidence about it. We do not operate in them and do not hold ourselves out as serving them. That distinction is stated on the Global Markets page itself.

Not published. Ownership, funding and personnel are disclosed to counterparties where they are relevant to a commercial or risk assessment, under NDA. There is no team page because there is nothing on it we are prepared to publish, and inventing one is not an option we consider.

Kempron Inc. is a corporation registered in Ontario, Canada, with its head office in Mississauga. The address on this site 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 is no careers page on this site because there is nothing on it that would currently be true. Speculative approaches from people with deep motor claims operations, collision repair or regulated-industry engineering backgrounds are read and kept on file.

Yes, at the point where saying more costs us less than the silence does. That point is a commercial judgement, not a fixed date. What will not change is the rule that governs it: anything published here will be true, attributable and ours to publish.

No. Kempron does not currently hold a SOC 2 report or an ISO/IEC 27001 certification, and we will not imply otherwise. We design and document 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 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 ombudsman or a court. We treat auditability as a requirement rather than a feature.

We are also aware that saying "we use AI" has become a claim carrying very little information. Our full position, including the failure modes we think the category has, is set out here. We would rather be assessed on what a system can be shown to do under a scoped pilot against your own baseline.

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 responsible vendor should answer yes to that question. Proxy discrimination does not require a protected characteristic as an input, so the absence of such inputs proves nothing. The honest position is that disparate outcomes are tested for, continuously, and that the testing can be shown. Where an insurer is obliged to test, we support the testing rather than assert that our part is exempt.