What this is
What is a warranty claim record?
What is a warranty claim record?
It is the record that captures a failure on an asset or component still within its supplier warranty, the evidence supporting the claim, and the outcome of the submission to the supplier. It exists so the claim can be defended if the supplier pushes back, and so the amount recovered (or lost) is visible rather than absorbed silently into maintenance spend.
What does 'within warranty' actually mean here?
It means the failure date falls before the warranty expiry date recorded against the asset, and that the terms of the warranty were not breached in the meantime. A component failing on day 400 of a two-year warranty is meaningless if maintenance was not carried out as specified, unapproved parts were fitted, or the asset was run outside its design limits — any of those can void the claim regardless of the date.
What voids a warranty claim before the supplier even looks at it?
The three most common are missed preventive maintenance with no records to prove otherwise, use of non-approved parts or lubricants, and an unauthorised modification to the asset. Suppliers check maintenance history first, because it is the cheapest way to reject a claim, so gaps in the PM record cost more than they look like they do.
Scope
When is a warranty claim record required?
This record is for a specific failure on a specific asset, submitted against a specific supplier warranty. It is not a general defect log, a work order, or a running tally of supplier performance.
Use this template when
- A component or asset has failed and its warranty expiry date has not yet passed
- You need to submit a claim to the supplier and want the maintenance history and evidence held in one place before you send it
- The supplier has responded (accepted, rejected, partial, or no response) and the outcome needs to be recorded against the original claim
- A rejected or partially-accepted claim needs to be escalated and the reason for rejection kept on file
- A repeat failure pattern needs feeding into a supplier scorecard rather than being lost in individual work order notes
Do not use it for
- Corrective Work Order, which is where the actual repair work, parts and labour against the failure are logged — the claim record sits alongside it, not instead of it.
- Asset Commissioning Record, which establishes the in-service date the warranty clock runs from; do not use this record to fix a wrong start date.
- Asset Modification Record, which covers a deliberate, authorised change to an asset — a modification made without going through that record is exactly what voids a warranty claim.
- Parts Request, which covers ordering a replacement part; use it for the physical part, not for the money-back claim against the supplier.
- Any failure outside its warranty window, which is simply a normal corrective work order with no claim attached
Compliance mapping
Which ISO 55001 cl.8.3 requirements does this satisfy?
ISO 55001 cl.8.3 addresses non-conformity and corrective action across the asset lifecycle; a failed asset inside warranty is a cost-recovery opportunity the standard expects to be captured rather than absorbed. The sections below map that expectation onto the fields actually on this form.
| Clause | Requirement | Where it lands |
|---|---|---|
| 8.3(a) | React to the failure and evaluate the need for corrective action | The failure |
| 8.3(b) | Review and analyse the failure, including cause | The failure |
| 8.3(c) | Determine whether similar non-conformities exist or could occur | Claim validity |
| 8.3(d) | Implement any action needed, including recovery of cost where a third party is responsible | Claim |
| 8.3(e) | Evaluate the effectiveness of the corrective action taken | Claim |
| 8.1 | Maintain records showing planned maintenance was carried out as specified | Claim validity |
| 9.1 | Monitor and evaluate asset and supplier performance | Claim |
What it does not cover
- Maintenance Carried Out As Specified, which most suppliers check before anything else — answer it honestly, because a supplier's own service records will contradict a false Yes.
- Evidence Retained and Photographs Taken, both of which need to be Yes before submission, not filled in retrospectively from memory once the part is already scrapped.
- Within Warranty Period, which is a date comparison, not a judgement call — if the expiry date has passed, this is a corrective work order, not a claim.
- Failed Part Retained, which some suppliers require physically returned before they will process a claim at all.
- Unauthorised Modification Made, where a Yes here generally ends the claim regardless of how everything else is answered.
Global
Warranty Claim Record requirements by country
Warranty claims on industrial equipment sit under commercial sale-of-goods law rather than consumer protection law, and the applicable framing depends on where the equipment was bought and where the buyer is based.
Sale of Goods Act 1979, s.14
Implies terms that goods supplied under a commercial contract are of satisfactory quality and fit for purpose
These implied terms sit alongside, not instead of, the supplier's own written warranty — a claim can sometimes be argued on both fronts if the written warranty response is unhelpful.
Uniform Commercial Code, Article 2 (§2-314, §2-315)
Implied warranty of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose on goods sold by a merchant
A supplier can disclaim these implied warranties in the sale contract, so the written warranty terms on file matter more here than the statutory backstop.
CISG (UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods), Article 35
Goods must conform to the contract in quantity, quality and description
Where equipment is imported and both parties' countries have adopted CISG, it can apply by default unless the sale contract expressly excludes it — worth checking before assuming only the supplier's stated warranty terms govern.
How to complete it
How to complete a warranty claim record, step by step
Filling in the fields is mechanical. The four calls below are the ones that decide whether the claim gets paid.
Warranty Expiry is usually set from purchase or delivery date on the supplier's paperwork, not the asset's in-service date on the commissioning record — the two can be months apart, and using the wrong one either understates or overstates the window.
PM Records Available has a Partial option for a reason: a single missed lubrication check rarely kills a claim, but a pattern of skipped PM on the failed component usually does. The judgement is whether the gap is plausibly connected to the failure mode, not whether the record is perfect.
Photographs and a retained failed part cost nothing to collect on the day and are nearly impossible to reconstruct afterwards. Submitting without them is a bet that the supplier will take the claim on trust, which is not the way to bet.
Escalated should track claim value against the cost of pursuing it — chasing a low-value rejection through a second round with the supplier can cost more in time than it recovers, but letting every rejection stand unchallenged trains the supplier to reject on reflex.
What auditors find
Most common warranty claim record findings
Patterns that show up repeatedly once a site starts actually tracking warranty claims instead of quietly repairing and moving on.
| Finding | Clause | What fixes it |
|---|---|---|
| Failure repaired and the part scrapped before warranty status was checked | 8.3(a) | Add a warranty check step to the corrective work order process itself, gated on asset age, before parts are released from stores. |
| Evidence Retained and Photographs Taken both marked No but Claim Submitted anyway | 8.3(b) | Block submission workflow when either evidence field is No; require a documented reason if the supplier will accept a claim without them. |
| PM Records Available marked Partial with no note on which specific PM was missed | 8.1 | Require the missed PM reference (or a statement that none applies) whenever this field is anything other than Yes. |
| Supplier Response left blank for months after Submission Date | 9.1 | Set a review reminder off Submission Date and route it to procurement, not maintenance, since the supplier relationship sits with them. |
| Rejected claims not linked through to the supplier scorecard | 9.1 | Make Feeds Supplier Scorecard mandatory on every Rejected or No response outcome, not just the ones someone remembers to flag. |
| Component Failed and Failure Description tell two different stories | 8.3(b) | Treat the free-text description as the primary record during review; the picklist is for aggregation, not for capturing what actually happened. |
Case in point
Case in point: the gearbox that should have been free
A gearbox failed nine months into a two-year warranty on a packing line asset. The crew swapped it same-shift to keep the line running, which is the right call operationally — but the failed unit went straight to scrap metal collection, and nobody photographed it or pulled the PM history before it left site.
By the time procurement raised the claim three weeks later, the supplier asked for photographs and the failed part as standard practice. Neither existed. The claim was rejected outright, not because the failure wasn't covered, but because there was nothing left to prove it. The gearbox itself would very likely have been a covered claim; the missing five minutes of evidence-gathering was what actually cost the money.
The template
The template, field by field
The form exactly as it installs. Every field, option, score and conditional rule is editable, and the links to other templates come with it.
4 sections
- Reference
- MNT-046
- Archetype
- Record
- Record ID
- WAR-2026-000
- Scoring
- Not scored
- Direction
- n/a
- Singleton
- No
- Basis
- ISO 55001 cl.8.3
- Links
- Links Asset, Vendor
- Tags
- Maintenance, Cost
- Sections
- 4
- Fields
- 44
- Follow up fields
- 1
- Repeating sections
- 0
- Links out
- 5
Header
14 fieldsClaim ID*
Auto sequence. Format WAR-2026-000.
The record's own ID. Other templates point at this value.
Status*
Drives who this goes to next.
- Planned2 pts
- In progress2 pts
- Complete3 pts
- Deferred0 pts
- Open0 pts
- Closed3 pts
- Overdue0 pts
Date and Time*
Raised By*
Site*
Site ID*
Format SITE-000.
Links to FDN-001 Site ID
Area
The area within the site.
Exact Location
Drop a pin for anything hard to find.
Asset*
Asset ID*
Format AST-0000.
Links to FDN-002 Asset ID
Money Left On The Table
Warranty claims that nobody tracks are money simply not collected. Check the warranty status before every repair on equipment under five years old.
Supplier*
Vendor ID*
Links to FDN-005 Vendor ID
Warranty Expiry*
The failure
10 fieldsFailure Date*
Within Warranty Period*
- Yes3 pts
- Expired0 pts
Work Order ID
Links to MNT-002 Work Order ID
Failure Description*
Component Failed*
Age At Failure
Expected Life
Evidence Retained*
- Yes3 pts
- No0 pts
Photographs Taken*
- Yes3 pts
- No0 pts
Failed Part Retained*
- Yes3 pts
- No0 pts
Claim validity
6 fieldsMaintenance Carried Out As Specified*
The first thing a supplier checks. Missed PM voids most warranties.
- Yes, records available3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
PM Records Available*
- Yes3 pts
- Partial1 pt
- No0 pts
Operated Within Design Limits*
- Yes3 pts
- Occasionally exceeded1 pt
- Routinely exceeded0 pts
Approved Parts Used*
- Yes3 pts
- Some substitutes1 pt
- No0 pts
Approved Lubricants Used*
- Yes3 pts
- No0 pts
Unauthorised Modification Made*
- No3 pts
- Yes0 pts
Claim
14 fieldsClaim Submitted*
- Yes3 pts
- Not eligible2 pts
- No0 pts
Submission Date
Claim Value
Supplier Response
- Accepted in full3 pts
- Accepted in part2 pts
- Rejected0 pts
- No response0 pts
Response Date
Amount Recovered
Reason If Rejected
Escalated
Feeds Supplier Scorecard*
Scorecard ID
Links to QUA-041 Scorecard ID
Maintenance Manager*
Signature*
Procurement*
Second Signature*
MNT-046 · record IDs look like WAR-2026-000 · Links Asset, Vendor
Open in KnowellaRun it with agents
From a document you fill in to a programme that runs itself
The record itself is simple to fill in. Chasing warranty status before repairs happen, keeping the supplier honest on response times, and rolling claim outcomes into supplier decisions is the part that needs a system rather than good intentions.
Flags warranty status against the asset register before a corrective work order closes out, so the evidence gets collected while the failed part is still on site rather than after it's gone.
Rolls claim outcomes and rejection reasons into the supplier scorecard automatically, instead of relying on someone remembering to flag a rejected claim months later.
Tracks warranty expiry dates against the vendor register and purchase records, so the window a claim has to be raised in doesn't quietly close unnoticed.
Watches for claims sitting unanswered past a reasonable response window and prompts procurement to chase, holding every write for your approval before it touches a record.
This template lives in KnowMaintain — asset maintenance. Work orders, planned maintenance, calibration, reliability and shutdowns.
Meet KnowMaintain→Glossary
Warranty Claim Record definitions and key terms
- Warranty period
- The window, set by the supplier's contract terms, during which a failure is covered for repair or replacement at no cost, subject to the maintenance and use conditions being met.
- Implied warranty
- A statutory guarantee of quality or fitness that applies to a commercial sale even without being written into the contract, unless validly disclaimed.
- Root cause
- The underlying reason a component failed, as distinct from the symptom — needed to argue a claim credibly and to judge whether the failure is a design defect or a maintenance or operating issue.
- Supplier scorecard
- A running record of a supplier's performance, including failure rates and claim response behaviour, used to inform future purchasing decisions.
- Escalation
- Raising a rejected or unresolved claim to a more senior contact at the supplier, or through a formal dispute process, when the standard submission route has stalled.
FAQ
Frequently asked questions about warranty claim record
Does a missed PM automatically void the claim?+
Not automatically, but it is the first thing a supplier checks, and a gap connected to the failed component is far harder to argue past than an unrelated one. A single missed check rarely kills a claim; a pattern usually does.
What if the failed part has already been scrapped?+
Submit anyway with whatever evidence exists, but expect a harder negotiation — some suppliers will accept photographs alone, others require the physical part and will reject without it.
Who owns getting the claim submitted, maintenance or procurement?+
Maintenance builds the evidence because they are on site at the point of failure; procurement owns the supplier relationship and the actual submission. Both signatures on the record reflect that split.
Should every warranty failure be logged even if it's obviously going to be rejected?+
Yes — a rejected claim still feeds the supplier scorecard and the failure-mode history on the asset, both of which matter more over time than any single claim's outcome.
How is Amount Recovered different from Claim Value?+
Claim Value is what was asked for; Amount Recovered is what the supplier actually paid or credited. The gap between the two is worth watching per supplier, not just per claim.
Does this replace the corrective work order for the same failure?+
No. The work order covers the repair itself — parts, labour, downtime. This record sits alongside it and exists purely to recover cost from the supplier.
Keep going
Related templates and programmes
Industries this is written for
Programmes this belongs to
Used together in Planned Maintenance
Asset Register
Holds every piece of equipment, machine, vehicle and tool you track
Tool and Equipment Register
Holds portable tools, gauges, lifting accessories and small equipment that sit below asset level but still need control
Maintenance Request
Asks maintenance to look at a problem or carry out a job
Work Order
The main record for a planned maintenance job, covering what, where, who and when
Corrective Work Order
Covers a repair to fix something that has already failed or degraded
Emergency Work Order
Covers urgent work where equipment has stopped or become unsafe
More in Asset Records
Asset Commissioning Record
Records that a new asset was installed, tested and handed over correctly
Asset Criticality Assessment
Rates how important an asset is, based on safety, production, quality and cost consequences of failure
Asset Transfer Record
Records an asset moving between locations, departments or sites
Asset Disposal Record
Records an asset being taken out of service and disposed of
Equipment Manual Record
Holds manuals, drawings and technical documents for each asset
Asset Modification Record
Records a permanent change to an asset, including what changed and why
Written and reviewed by
Siddarth Singh
Founder & Chief Executive Officer, Knowella
Certified Safety Professional and industrial and systems engineer with more than a decade inside food supply chain, freight and manufacturing operations. This page was written against the current text of the standards it cites, not against secondary summaries of them.
- Certified Safety Professional (CSP), Board of Certified Safety Professionals
- MBA, University of Chicago Booth School of Business
- MS and BS, The Ohio State University, Industrial and Systems Engineering
- Six Sigma Black Belt
Sources and last review. Reviewed 16 August 2026 against:
- ISO 55001:2014, cl.8.3 — Non-conformity and corrective action
- ISO 55001:2014, cl.8.1 — Operational planning and control
- UK Sale of Goods Act 1979, s.14 — Implied terms about quality or fitness
- Uniform Commercial Code, Article 2, §2-314 / §2-315 — Implied warranties
- CISG, Article 35 — Conformity of the goods
This page is general guidance, not legal advice. Confirm requirements with your jurisdiction’s regulator.