Klaimee, an insurtech building insurance-backed performance warranties for autonomous AI agents, has raised $5.5 mn in seed funding.
The company targets a liability problem moving fast through enterprise AI: who pays when an autonomous agent makes the wrong decision, mishandles a workflow, gives bad advice or exposes sensitive information?
Traditional technology E&O and cyber policies were built for deterministic software, data breaches and human-delivered services. They often don’t address autonomous AI systems taking independent actions inside enterprise operations.
FundersClub’s Alexander Mittal led the seed round. Ex/ante, Pioneer Fund, Multimodal Ventures, Kima Ventures, Rebel Fund, Robinhood Ventures, Y Combinator and angel investors also joined the financing.
Klaimee plans to use the capital to scale operations and build out its certification and insurance platform. The product focuses on failure modes specific to autonomous AI agents, rather than treating agent risk as another software defect or cyber incident.
The company certifies and insures autonomous AI agents. It audits agent performance, assesses operational risk and backs approved systems with AI-specific liability coverage. For enterprises, the offer links risk assessment, mitigation and insurance in one procurement-ready structure.
The problem: AI agents are taking actions autonomously buying, emailing, modifying sensitive data. AB 316 already holds deployers liable. EU AI Act enforces in August. Cyber and E&O insurance are excluding AI claims. Companies shipping agents have zero coverage and no third-party proof their agent is safe. Enterprise legal asks “who pays if your agent breaks something?” and there’s no good answer.
We built the answer. Critical-category risk evaluation, certification, financial guarantee, liability insurance and the documentation enterprise procurement needs to sign off.
Ines Boutemadja, Co-Founder & CEO
Klaimee argues that AI agents have moved beyond copilot-style tools. They now advise customers, manage sensitive data, make decisions and operate within business workflows.
This creates financial accountability gaps. An agent error no longer looks like a conventional software bug, and it doesn’t always fit standard cyber loss triggers.
Team
- Ines Boutemadja, Co-Founder & CEO (ex-General Manager at SafetyWing, grew insurance product from $5 mn to $60 mn revenue, 5 years launching insurance products from scratch and structuring a TokioMarine MGA into its own carrier)
- Julien Catonnet, Co-founder & CTO (AI software engineer + corporate strategy, enterprise compliance)
Enterprise procurement teams have started asking AI vendors for evidence of AI liability coverage.
The request often appears late in sales cycles, after technical review, security due diligence and legal review have already moved forward. One line in a procurement email then slows the deal: send proof of AI liability coverage, often with a stated per-occurrence limit.
Klaimee says one of its customers faced this issue during a six-figure enterprise deal. The buyer asked for a certificate of insurance showing at least $5 mn per occurrence in AI liability coverage. The vendor’s technical and security reviews had already cleared. Procurement still needed proof of financial backing for AI-agent failures.
AI agents can now execute financial transactions, access sensitive data, and take real-world actions, but there is no insurance, no certification, and no clear liability framework for when they fail.
This is the same gap that existed with cyber risk in the early 2000s, before a $15 bn+ insurance market emerged. We’re at that same inflection point with AI.
The signals are already there: AI-related incidents are being carved out of traditional liability coverage, lawsuits are growing rapidly, and enterprises are still under pressure to deploy AI. The result is a fast-growing, unaddressed risk layer.
A buyer asking for evidence of AI liability coverage might mean a certificate of insurance naming AI agent failures as a covered cause of loss. In other cases, procurement wants a contractual indemnity from the vendor, with a defined dollar cap tied to claims arising from the agent’s actions.
Regulated sectors such as finance, healthcare and insurance distribution often require vendors to maintain coverage at a stated limit and provide indemnity through the contract.
Other procurement teams have added an AI liability checkbox to vendor risk forms without defining what evidence they expect.
Silent AI coverage inside a generic technology E&O policy doesn’t give sophisticated buyers enough comfort. Buyers want affirmative wording, a reliable certificate and a risk framework tied to autonomous behavior. Vendors need a response before procurement uncertainty damages the deal.
The company’s platform gives AI vendors a way to show buyers that an agent has been reviewed and backed by coverage designed for autonomous systems. For enterprise clients, it gives procurement, legal and risk teams a clearer answer to vendor risk questions.
According to Beinsure analysts, this segment sits at the point where AI adoption meets insurance wording discipline. Enterprises want productivity from autonomous agents, but procurement teams still need accountability, claim pathways and financial limits. Klaimee’s model packages those elements for a market where agent failures no longer feel hypothetical.
