Aftermarket Software Solution

 Overview: Supplier recovery rate doesn't improve by working the existing manual process harder. It improves by removing the specific manual steps- liability identification, contract cross-referencing, deadline tracking, documentation compilation, and negotiation follow-up- that each introduce their own chance of failure. Industry benchmarks show manual claims processing costs 5 to 7 times more per claim than automated processing and takes roughly 10 times longer, a gap driven almost entirely by how many separate manual touchpoints a typical claim passes through before resolution. For OEMs looking to raise supplier recovery rates, the fastest, most direct path is a step-by-step audit of exactly which manual tasks are still standing between an eligible claim and actual recovered money. Introduction Ask most OEM warranty teams why their supplier recovery rate sits below where it should, and the answer usually comes back vague: "our process could be tighter" or "...

Overview: Warranty claim leakage, the gap between what a claim should recover and what gets reimbursed or recovered, is largely a data connectivity problem rather than a policy problem. U.S. automotive OEMs spent over $20 billion on warranty claims in a recent fiscal year, and a meaningful share of that spend traces back to claim data trapped across disconnected systems: the DMS where the repair order originates, the warranty platform where the claim is adjudicated, and the ERP where the financial recovery is tracked. When these systems don't share a common data spine, claims get denied on technicalities, resubmitted claims lose their history, and supplier recovery windows quietly close before anyone notices the claim was ever eligible. Integrating DMS and warranty software directly at the data layer closes most of these leakage points at the source, rather than trying to catch them after a claim has already been processed. Introduction: Every warranty claim starts life as a re...

Overview Electric vehicle aftersales isn't a lighter version of combustion vehicle service; it's a structurally different service model built around fewer, higher-complexity repairs performed by a smaller pool of specially certified technicians. According to a 2026 dealership leadership survey, 43% of technicians report they don't have adequate EV training for the work coming through their service lanes, and a baseline OEM EV certification alone takes 40 to 80 hours before a technician can safely touch high-voltage components. A dealer management system built for combustion-era scheduling logic, where any qualified technician can be assigned to any job, doesn't match this reality. EV OEMs are adapting their DMS around certification-aware scheduling, battery health data integration, and a service model that trades routine maintenance volume for fewer, higher-margin, higher-stakes repairs. Introduction A combustion vehicle service department can reasonably assign mo...

Overview Roughly 12% of dealership repairs aren't completed correctly on the first attempt, and among customers who experience that kind of comeback, half never return to the same facility again. A significant share of that failure chain traces back to the diagnostic stage, where technicians working from outdated, hard-to-search service manuals are more likely to misdiagnose a fault, treat a symptom instead of a root cause, or follow a superseded repair procedure. Each repeat repair costs a dealership an estimated $847 on average once labor, parts, and administrative overhead are counted, and a meaningful share of those repeat repairs eventually surface as a warranty claim once the underlying issue resurfaces. Introduction A comeback, a vehicle returning to the shop because the original repair didn't hold, is one of the more expensive and reputationally damaging events in a service department's daily operation. It's also frequently traceable back to a single momen...

  Overview: Dealers submit warranty claims to get reimbursed for a repair, not to determine whether the underlying component failure is legally the responsibility of a supplier rather than the OEM. That distinction rarely factors into how a dealer fills out a claim form, which means a significant share of supplier-liable warranty cost goes unflagged at the point of submission and simply gets paid out as a standard OEM warranty expense. Intelli Warranty's supplier recovery module closes this gap by automatically linking every approved claim's failed part to its supplier contract, identifying recoverable liability that the original claim never mentioned, and generating the recovery claim without requiring a dealer or reviewer to have caught it manually. Introduction A dealer replacing a failed alternator under warranty is focused on one thing: getting the customer's vehicle back on the road and getting reimbursed for the repair. Whether that alternator failed because of...