Freight Claims Software in Europe: What to Check

The best freight claims software for a manufacturer shipping in Europe is the one that follows the CMR clocks, captures the documents a claim needs, keeps your people in control of high-value decisions and stores data where your policies require. The search results for this topic mix tools built for US carrier claims, generic cargo claims software and larger transport suites. This guide gives you the criteria to sort them, shows what three vendors publish, and says plainly where CorePiper fits and what it does not list.

What European road freight claims demand from software

A manufacturer sending pallets across borders is working under the CMR Convention, not under a US carrier tariff. That changes what the software has to do. The rules fix a short window for concealed damage, a one-year limitation period and a cap on compensation per kilogram. A tool that treats a claim as a generic ticket with a due date will not know any of that unless someone configures it.

The results for "freight claims software Europe" show how mixed the market is. One result is a forum post from a builder describing a tool for EU cross-border claims under CMR, while others describe general claims management for shippers and cargo companies. Titles alone do not tell you which one understands road freight law, so the buying work is yours to do. The next three sections turn that work into criteria. If you need the legal basics first, read our CMR freight claims guide, which covers who claims, what to write on the consignment note and how the cap is calculated.

Criterion one: deadlines and liability limits built in

Start with time, because missed clocks end claims. Visible damage has to be recorded at the moment of delivery. Damage you only find after unpacking has to be reported in writing within seven days of receipt, with Sundays and public holidays left out of the count. Legal action is then time-barred after one year from delivery, extended to three years when the carrier's conduct was intentional or an equivalent default.

Compensation is capped at 8.33 SDR per kilogram of gross weight short, unless a value was declared or the carrier acted with wilful misconduct. The software should show the expected recovery against the cap before anyone files.

Put these questions to every vendor:

• Does the tool track the seven-day concealed damage notice and the one-year limitation period, and who sets the dates?
• Does it tell a claims handler that a claim is near the cap?
• Can you change the rules when a carrier's own terms ask for notice sooner than the Convention does?

That last point matters. Our DHL claims guide notes that deadlines on CMR shipments run on CMR's own clock, not DHL Express's 8-day window, and a tool that hard-codes one number will miss the difference. A vendor that cannot answer these questions in a demo is selling general claims tracking, which may still be fine, but it is not CMR-aware.

Criterion two: document capture and carrier coverage

A road freight claim stands on paper. Plan to capture the consignment note with any reservations written on it, the proof of delivery, photographs of the damage and the written claim you send to the carrier. These tend to sit in different places, so capture matters more than the claim form.

Test document handling with your own files. Send a scanned CMR note, a photographed delivery receipt and an email thread to the vendor and see what the tool reads. FreightClaims.com, for example, describes OCR technology that extracts data from documents and AI that categorizes claim information from emails. That is a published claim about a tool, not a result you can assume for your paperwork. For ideas on gathering delivery evidence, see our guide to proof-of-delivery evidence for claims.

Carrier coverage is the second half of this criterion, and the pages we read do not answer it for European road carriers. Write down the five carriers that handle most of your volume. Ask each vendor, in writing, how a claim reaches each one: a portal, a mailbox or an API. Then run two real past claims through a trial before you sign. A tool that handles one carrier well and another poorly will leave your team doing the second by hand.

Criterion three: approval controls, integrations and data location

Claims move money, so decide in advance who approves what. A sensible rule is that routine, low-value cases run on their own while a person signs off on exceptions and anything large. CorePiper works this way: routine cases run on their own, and people approve exceptions and high-impact actions. Not every action needs approval, so check any vendor's claim of "human in the loop" for what it actually gates. Our primer on human-in-the-loop AI covers when it applies.

Integrations come next. List the systems your claims touch: the ticketing or helpdesk tool, your warehouse system, your ERP and your transport management system. Claimable, for instance, says its API and Zapier support let you integrate with TMS, cargo tracking and WMS tools. Check whether the specific systems you run are on the list, not whether the category is.

Data location is the last item. Many European manufacturers need claim documents and customer data to stay in the EU. Ask where data is stored by default, whether an EU option exists, and what the vendor means by "on request". CorePiper lists EU data residency on request, with the US as the default. Also ask about audit logs, single sign-on and role-based access, which CorePiper lists among its security features.

What vendors publish about their tools

We read three vendor pages on 2 October 2026 and report only what they state. None of the three mentions CMR.

Claimable says shipping and freight companies use it to manage lost, damaged or delayed cargo claims, and lists claim types including cargo damage and loss, marine cargo, incoterm disputes and carrier negligence. The page does not mention CMR.

Infios describes freight claims technology designed to help shippers, carriers and third-party logistics providers record, report and resolve freight claims. The page does not mention Europe or CMR.

FreightClaims.com describes software that manages freight claims from start to finish, with OCR data capture and an end-to-end managed service. The page does not mention Europe or CMR and speaks of shippers and brokers nationwide.

Silence on a page is not proof that a tool lacks a feature. It means the demo has to cover CMR deadlines, the liability cap and European carriers before you rely on any of them. We have not described other tools that appear in these results, because we did not read their pages.

Where CorePiper fits, and what it does not list

CorePiper builds AI agents that resolve customer issues end to end, with damage claims among the cases it handles. You give it your SOPs, policies and runbooks, it reads them and builds the agents, and companies can onboard in about a day. The agents follow the SOPs you give them, so a written CMR procedure is the input.

What CorePiper lists: integrations with Shopify, Zendesk, Freshdesk, Salesforce, Jira, FedEx, UPS and your own WMS. Shopify comes with the Starter plan, and the Freshdesk, Zendesk, Salesforce and Jira integrations are part of Enterprise. Human approval covers exceptions and high-impact actions, and EU data residency is available on request.

What it does not list: a European carrier integration, a CMR-specific workflow, or an ERP or TMS integration. We make no claim about them here. Ask CorePiper directly, and hold it to the same questions as any vendor above. If your volume is mainly US carriers, our comparison with FreightClaims and the carrier dispute automation guide fit that case better.

Running a trial with your own claims

A demo with the vendor's sample data tells you little. Pull three closed claims from your own records: one that was paid in full, one that was cut by the cap or a dispute, and one that was filed late. Give each vendor the same raw material, which is the paperwork and email exactly as your team had it, and ask them to walk the claim from first notice to carrier submission.

Watch for four things. First, whether the tool flags the deadlines without a person entering them. Second, how much of the claim packet it assembles from the documents you supplied and how much your handler retypes. Third, what it does when a document is missing or unreadable: asks for it, guesses or stalls. Fourth, who on your side can see and change each decision, and whether the log shows who approved what.

Score each vendor on the same sheet, with one line per criterion above and a note on what you saw, not what you were told. Share the sheet with finance and legal, because they sit on the receiving end of every claim that goes wrong. If a vendor will not run your sample claims, record that too.

Choosing with the criteria

Shortlist two or three tools, run two real past claims through each, and score them on CMR deadlines, document capture, carrier coverage, approval controls, integrations and data location. A tool that cannot show you the seven-day notice and the one-year limitation on a live claim is not built for your freight, whatever its category label says.