In This Article
Introduction
One of the most striking documented OpenClaw use cases involves a user whose agent independently initiated a dispute with an insurance company over a rejected medical claim. The user had instructed the agent to "deal with the insurance rejection for the March procedure." Over three days, the agent: accessed local files for documentation, used browser automation to navigate the insurer's portal, submitted the dispute with attached documents, monitored for response via Heartbeat, and reported back when the claim was under reconsideration. The user spent ~10 minutes reviewing; the same task manually would have taken 2–3 hours. This is the power of outcome-based automation: you delegate the outcome, the agent handles the process.
Insurance disputes are the perfect storm of bureaucratic friction. You need to gather documents. You need to find the right form. You need to navigate a portal that was clearly designed by someone who never had to use it. You need to wait on hold. You need to follow up. The process is well-defined — there's a playbook — but executing it is soul-crushing. That's exactly the kind of task agents excel at. Repetitive. Multi-step. Boring. The agent doesn't get frustrated. It doesn't put it off. It just executes.
The Use Case
Medical claim rejected. User doesn't want to spend hours on hold, navigating web forms, gathering documents. User tells OpenClaw: "Deal with it." Agent takes over. The key is that the user defined the outcome ("get the claim reconsidered") rather than the steps ("call this number, fill this form"). The agent figured out the steps. That's the shift from tool-use to delegation. See outcome-based automation for the pattern.
What the Agent Did
The agent started by locating relevant documentation. It searched the user's files for procedure notes, receipts, prior authorization — the kind of evidence that supports a dispute. It found them. It organized them. Then it navigated the insurer's dispute portal via browser automation. It found the right form. It filled the fields. It attached the documents. Before submitting, it paused. High-consequence actions require user approval. The agent presented what it had prepared. The user reviewed. The user approved. The agent submitted. Then it monitored. A Heartbeat ran every few hours, checking the portal for status updates. When the claim moved to "under review," the agent reported back. Mission accomplished.
User authorized final submission after reviewing. Agent did the legwork. The agent didn't make decisions the user hadn't delegated — it executed the process. High-consequence actions (submitting the dispute) required explicit confirmation. That's the right boundary. The agent can prepare. The agent can navigate. The agent can monitor. But the final "submit" — the action that commits the user to a formal dispute — that's a human decision. OpenClaw's architecture supports that. You configure which actions require confirmation. The agent respects the boundary.
User Involvement
~10 minutes total. Review what agent did, approve submission, answer any follow-up. vs 2–3 hours: phone hold, form navigation, document gathering, resubmission. The time savings are dramatic for routine but tedious tasks. Insurance disputes are a perfect fit: bureaucratic, multi-step, well-defined process. The agent doesn't need creativity — it needs persistence and the right tools. See personal assistant for how to configure similar workflows.
Imagine the alternative. You get the rejection letter. You sigh. You put it aside. You tell yourself you'll deal with it this weekend. The weekend comes. You don't want to spend it on hold. You put it off again. Weeks pass. The dispute window might close. With an agent, you delegate once. "Deal with it." The agent works while you sleep. You wake up to a summary. You spend ten minutes approving. Done. The psychological burden — the dread of the bureaucratic task — disappears. You delegated it. The agent owns it.
Implementation
Requires: browser automation skill, file access, form-filling capability. User must provide clear instructions and document locations. High-consequence: configure explicit confirmation before submission. Don't let the agent submit disputes without user review. The agent can prepare everything; the user approves. See web browsing and insurance for the full setup.
Wrapping Up
The insurance claims use case demonstrates OpenClaw's value for bureaucratic, multi-step tasks. See personal assistant for setup.