For independent insurance agencies

The loss-run analysis that checks its own work.

Drop in a carrier loss run. LossLens reads every claim the way an underwriter would — totals, trends, the risks worth flagging, a renewal-ready write-up — then independently re-checks every figure against the source before you rely on it.

No signup to try itRuns on a real sample in secondsYour PDF is never stored
Reconciled, not guessedEvery total is re-derived from the claim rows in plain arithmetic — no AI in that step.
Traceable to the pageEach claim carries a source reference so you can check any number against the document.
Built by insurance-techMade for commercial-lines back offices, not a generic “summarize this PDF” tool.
The problem

A loss run is where renewals slow down — and where mistakes hide.

Thirty to sixty minutes of reading and re-keying per account. One transposed reserve and the whole risk picture is wrong. A generic AI tool will hand you tidy numbers and hope they’re right. LossLens does the reading and proves the numbers tie out.

How it works

From a messy PDF to a verified analysis in three steps.

1

Drop it in

Upload the carrier PDF — several policy years or carriers at once — or paste the text. Scanned runs work too.

2

Read like an underwriter

Every claim, the totals and year-over-year trend, the risk flags worth raising, and a tight renewal-ready narrative. In seconds.

3

Verified, not just generated

Every figure is re-added in plain arithmetic and reconciled to the total printed on your run. Green means it ties out; amber points you to the one number to check.

Why LossLens

It checks its own work.

Most AI tools give you an answer and move on. LossLens re-derives every total straight from the claim rows — no model involved in that step — and cross-checks it against the figure printed on your carrier’s run. If anything doesn’t reconcile, it flags the exact number to look at.

  • Every claim foots: paid + reserve = incurred, on every row.
  • The rows sum to the report’s headline totals.
  • The total ties to what’s printed on the loss run.

You never bind on an unverified figure — and every report still says to confirm against the carrier run before you underwrite. How we handle your data →

What you get

A submission-ready analysis, not a chat transcript.

Totals & trend at a glance

Incurred, paid, open reserves, claim counts, and the year-over-year severity trend.

Risk flags an underwriter cares about

Severity concentration, open development, frequency trends, recurring loss types — quantified.

Claims table with a source column

Every claim, with a reference back to where it appears in the document.

Renewal-ready narrative

A neutral, editable paragraph you can drop straight into a submission file.

Share link & branded PDF

Send an underwriter a clean, login-free view, or export a PDF with your agency’s name.

A verification record

A dated, referenceable receipt (LL-XXXX) of what reconciled — it ships in the export.

Built to be trusted

Straight about what it does — and its limits.

Your documents aren’t stored

The PDF is processed to produce the analysis and not written to our database — only the structured results are saved to your account.

Not used to train models

Analysis runs on Anthropic’s Claude API under commercial terms, which state inputs and outputs aren’t used to train their models.

Pre-launch, and we say so

We don’t yet hold SOC 2. The Security page lays out exactly how data is handled — no hand-waving.

An analysis aid, not a determination

LossLens doesn’t make coverage, admissibility, or compliance calls. You and your carriers make every decision.

Founding agencies

Get in early, shape the product.

I’m signing a handful of agencies at founder pricing in exchange for shaping what gets built and a direct line to me. Month-to-month, no long contract. Tell me the workflow that eats the most time and we’ll start there.

Run the sample first →

See what it does with a real loss run.

A synthetic sample — no signup, no real client data. Takes about ten seconds.

Run the sample analysis →