Recruitment & HR technology
An overlooked qualification or a biased ranking can cost someone an interview. Explore coverage for claims involving your hiring technology.
For hiring platforms and recruitment teamsHelp recruiters review applications and arrange interviews.
Example agent profile
The submitted CV and job requirements.
Each claimed qualification has a source.
A recruiter checks gaps and proposed actions.
Only the approved status or invitation is applied.
Final hiring decisions, automatic rejection and changing selection criteria without the hiring team's approval.
A recruiter checks recommendations against the original application. A named person handles requests for an accessible interview or assessment format.
Illustrative workflow
The CV lists the required certification and its issuing body.
Fictional example. No live action is taken.
Extract the stated qualification with a link to the CV passage. Do not label it independently verified.
Hypothetical examples, not reported customer incidents. The profile and illustrations describe a possible deployment, not a named company's controls or test results.
Errors can change who gets considered.
The examples below concern the application record, the recommendation and the action taken. They do not describe incidents at a named employer.
A two-column CV is read in the wrong order. The summary leaves out a required qualification that the applicant holds.
A qualified candidate may lose an interview because the recruiter sees an incomplete summary.
Link each qualification to the original CV. Test difficult layouts and send unreadable sections to a recruiter for review.
The summary says an applicant "lacks commitment" because of a gap between jobs. The application gives no reason for that gap.
A hiring manager rejects the applicant based on an assumption about their character.
Restrict summaries to job-related evidence. Flag missing information and require a source for every negative assessment.
Two applications describe the same qualifications and experience. The agent ranks one lower because it associates the applicant's name with a particular gender, leaving that candidate off the shortlist.
A qualified applicant loses an opportunity for a reason unrelated to the job. The employer may face a discrimination complaint and need to review affected hiring decisions.
Compare matched synthetic applications across repeated runs, changing only names or other identity cues. Require job-related reasons for rankings and refer unexplained differences for specialist fairness review. One comparison alone does not establish discrimination.
An applicant cannot complete the voice interview and asks for another format. The workflow marks the assessment incomplete and rejects them.
The applicant loses access to the process and may raise a discrimination complaint.
Test the accommodation route with HR and accessibility specialists. Pause rejection triggers while a request is being reviewed.
A recruiter switches vacancies. The agent attaches notes from a candidate in another client's pipeline.
Personal information and confidential hiring discussions are disclosed to an unauthorized recipient.
Scope retrieval to the employer, vacancy and candidate. Validate all three before sending or exporting.
An uploaded CV tells the assistant to ignore the job requirements. The agent follows the instruction and marks the applicant as approved.
An unsuitable candidate advances because the application changed how it was assessed.
Treat CVs as evidence, not instructions. Test whether hidden commands can change rankings or candidate status.
The agent prepares a salary proposal, then emails it before the hiring manager approves the amount and start date.
The candidate receives terms the employer did not intend to offer and may act on them.
Separate draft creation from sending. Require approval tied to the offer version and recipient.
The employer and the AI vendor face different claims.
An applicant's discrimination complaint and a customer's claim against its software provider require separate review. Identify the parties and the alleged act.
Review discrimination allegations and employment-related exclusions explicitly. Operational testing does not establish that a hiring system is lawful or unbiased.
| Policy or exposure | What to review | The question to ask |
|---|---|---|
| Technology E&OThe software provider | Whether the declared service includes recruitment recommendations and consequential workflow actions.Travelers: Tech E&O | How would a claim against the vendor for an incorrect candidate assessment be treated? |
| Employment practices liabilityEmployment-related claims | Which entities and allegations are insured, including treatment of applicant discrimination claims.Travelers: employment practices liability | Is the employer covered for this allegation, and is the outside AI vendor insured at all? |
| Cyber & privacyApplicant records | Disclosure, access and retention of CVs, interview recordings and private recruiter notes.Travelers: cyber and technology coverage | What responds if applicant information is sent to the wrong employer? |
General information, not a coverage determination or legal advice. Availability and terms depend on the actual deployment, policy and jurisdiction. Testing does not confirm coverage eligibility.
Coverage for claims caused by hiring-agent mistakes.
Klaimee's AI agent coverage is designed for claims involving agent errors. For hiring technology, we distinguish mistakes in the vendor's service from the employer's responsibilities, and review discrimination allegations explicitly.
These examples show what to address in your Klaimee quote. Only the agreed contract determines what is covered.
The agent overlooks a qualification or invents a negative assessment.
Candidates with equivalent qualifications are ranked differently because of an identity cue.
Interview notes are attached to another client's vacancy.
Your coverage proposal
Tell us whether the agent schedules, ranks, rejects or sends offers. Your quote should reflect those permissions and distinguish the vendor's protection from the employer's policy.
Get a quote for my recruitment agentThe assessment supports that proposal: we document permissions, review controls and use agreed tests to identify failures to fix. A test result alone does not activate coverage.
Coverage is subject to availability, agreed terms, limits and exclusions. A warranty attached to Klaimee's testing service backs the commitments in that service agreement; it is not blanket insurance for every loss caused by an agent.
US Department of Justice guidance warns that hiring technology can screen out qualified applicants with disabilities. Review alternative formats and accommodation requests with employment counsel.
DOJ: algorithms and disability discrimination in hiringBefore a recommendation affects a candidate.
Review technology errors and omissions (E&O) for mistakes in the vendor's service and cyber coverage for applicant data. Discuss discrimination and other hiring claims explicitly. The employer's employment practices policy does not automatically insure its software supplier.
No. A recruiter can rely on an incomplete or unsupported summary. Make the source material visible, record the review and preserve a correction path. The reviewer needs enough information and time to challenge the recommendation.
Yes. A ranking may use identity cues instead of qualifications, or an interview tool may exclude someone who needs an accessible format. Whether a particular process breaks the law needs a separate legal review. Technical testing does not establish that the hiring process is fair or lawful.
No. Adversarial tests can reveal specific failures in evidence handling, permissions or workflow behavior. A fairness assessment needs a separate methodology, appropriate data and specialist interpretation. Neither exercise guarantees the absence of discrimination.
Yes. Fictional applications can test CV reading, invented assessments, privacy boundaries and approvals. Evaluating performance across real applicant groups may need a separate study with appropriately protected data. Do not put private CVs in the public intake form.
The scope is narrower, but errors can still matter. Test time zones, recipient identity, cancellation permissions and whether an inaccessible scheduling step causes the application to be closed. Do not assess a scheduling tool as if it makes hiring decisions.
Start with the product website and contact details. Then provide its allowed actions, the role of human reviewers, data access boundaries and a synthetic workflow. Record separately whether the product ranks, rejects, recommends or merely organizes applications.
Your recruitment AI agent
Start with your website and contact details. Tell us which decisions the agent can make and which require a recruiter.
