Insurance Claims Adjusters Emerge as America’s Foremost AI Skeptics Amidst Job Market Turmoil

On the prominent job review platform Glassdoor, a distinct and vocal faction has emerged, expressing profound disdain for artificial intelligence: insurance claims adjusters. Their reviews paint a stark picture, with sentiments like, “Pushing AI to the point that you are asking humans not to use their thoughts and brains is such a turn off,” and pointed criticisms such as, “Stop forcing AI onto everyone,” and “The AI apps this company uses are all trash.” This overwhelming negativity isn’t anecdotal; recent research from Glassdoor unequivocally identifies claims adjusters as the most critical demographic regarding AI in the American workforce, with a staggering 98 percent of their AI-related posts expressing disapproval.

This isn’t merely a technological preference; it’s a deep-seated professional grievance. Adjusters commonly lament "AI-obsessed leaders forcing error-prone AI on them and their clients." They argue that when AI inevitably falters in the complex and often sensitive realm of insurance claims, it’s the human adjusters who are left to meticulously "clean up a very human mess." The core of their frustration lies in the perceived inadequacy and unreliability of these automated systems, which, rather than streamlining work, often complicate it further.

Ahmad Jackson, a former claims adjuster for a major insurance company, offers a compelling firsthand account of this phenomenon. Approximately a year ago, his employer implemented AI for initial loss reporting – the critical first step involving setting up claims and gathering preliminary information after an incident occurs. The promise was clear: greater efficiency, faster processing of simple claims, and the intelligent routing of complex situations to human experts. However, the reality, according to Jackson, was a deluge of misclassified claims that demanded laborious rerouting to the correct departments. He frequently encountered AI-driven "hallucinations" – instances where the AI generated plausible but factually incorrect information within claim summaries. The repercussions were significant: when Jackson inadvertently relayed these errors to claimants or their attorneys, he often bore the full brunt of their frustration and anger, leading to a breakdown of trust and an increase in his workload.

The experience ultimately led Jackson to leave the company and join a different insurance carrier. He succinctly articulates the problem: AI is "getting things wrong," and consequently, "it’s implementing more work onto the adjusters." This sentiment resonates widely within the profession, culminating in what Geoffrey Conrad, a claims executive based in Mobile, Alabama, describes as "AI fatigue." He states, "We’re pretty much exhausted as far as the amount of AI being shoved down our throats." This exhaustion stems from not only the increased workload but also the constant need to compensate for AI’s deficiencies, all while grappling with the existential threat the technology poses to their livelihoods.

Chris Martin, a senior economist at Glassdoor, initially expressed surprise at the extreme level of AI aversion among claims adjusters. Upon reviewing the data, he performed a "double take" before delving deeper into the underlying causes. His conclusion points to a profession in the midst of a profound "reckoning," driven by a confluence of technological disruption and job market instability.

The statistics underscore the severity of this reckoning. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) projects a significant decline in the number of claims adjusters in the United States, forecasting a reduction of 18,900 positions, or 5 percent, over the next decade. More immediately alarming, BLS data indicates that employment in the sector plummeted by a staggering 21 percent between May 2025 and May 2026. For those aspiring to enter the field, the outlook is even bleaker: entry-level job postings have fallen by 50 percent since 2025, according to Glassdoor’s own research. The BLS explicitly identifies technology as a primary driver behind this downturn, signaling a fundamental shift in the industry’s operational landscape.

This shift is fueled by a wave of innovation and investment in AI. In recent years, AI startups such as Liberate and Pace have successfully raised millions of dollars, all predicated on ambitious promises to "reinvent" the insurance industry. Simultaneously, established insurers have aggressively scaled up their adoption of AI, entrusting it with an increasing volume and complexity of claims.

In practice, this transformation manifests in several ways. Policyholders might find themselves interacting with an AI-powered chatbot instead of a human representative to initiate a claim. For property damage assessments, AI tools are now deployed to analyze photographs or videos, generating estimates for payouts, thereby circumventing the need for human inspectors. Lengthy medical records, once requiring painstaking human review, can now be summarized by AI to extract crucial details. The ultimate vision for some insurers involves an AI tool processing a policyholder’s uploaded information—including photos, videos, documentation, and receipts—and then issuing a payout, all within a matter of seconds.

This ambitious goal is epitomized by Lemonade, an insurance company founded in 2015 with a core promise to replace traditional bureaucracy with "bots and machine learning." By the end of last year, its proprietary chatbot, "AI Jim," was handling an impressive 96 percent of initial claim reports, with automation managing approximately 55 percent of all claims end-to-end. While more traditional insurance giants like State Farm advocate for a balanced "mix of human and digital expertise," a pervasive concern among claims adjusters is that they are inadvertently training the very AI systems designed to replace them.

Paul Staats, a spokesperson for Lemonade, acknowledges the disruptive potential, stating, "AI is going to impact many jobs and threaten many incumbents in insurance and the economy." He argues that automating routine tasks allows human employees to direct their "empathy, care, and expertise on the most complex claims," thereby optimizing human talent. Staats also emphasizes that Glassdoor’s report "should be taken seriously across the industry," suggesting a recognition of the significant concerns voiced by adjusters.

However, for many adjusters, the prospect of job displacement is a tangible fear. Chris Martin of Glassdoor notes that when workers sense impending layoffs, their reviews on the platform tend to become increasingly critical of AI. Furthermore, adjusters express deep skepticism when they perceive a "subpar product" being foisted upon them or, more critically, upon their clients. This leads to a pervasive lack of trust in the AI’s output and its ultimate impact on customer satisfaction.

Conrad, the Alabama claims adjuster, articulates this sense of being replaced by AI models. While acknowledging AI as a tool, he firmly believes, "It should never be given the keys." This perspective highlights the fundamental disagreement over AI’s appropriate role: a supportive assistant versus an autonomous decision-maker.

There are, admittedly, specific instances where AI can genuinely ease the burden on claims adjusters. Ahmad Jackson, despite his overall negative experience, concedes that AI can be helpful for purely administrative tasks. He uses it for what he terms "nuisance calls," such as extending a policyholder’s rental car booking by a few days. Justin Tomczak, a representative for State Farm, echoes this sentiment, stating that the company aims to "give State Farm agents and employees better tools so they can spend more time doing what matters most: helping customers." The ideal, therefore, is for AI to augment, not replace, human capabilities, allowing for greater focus on complex and empathy-driven interactions.

Yet, this ideal often clashes with reality. Sandy Avina, a former claims adjuster who now works as an insurance industry consultant, observes that adjusters lack "a lot of faith in the output" of AI systems. She points to seemingly minor discrepancies, such as a smudge in a document from an attorney, which can trigger an AI "hallucination" leading to an incorrect payout. Similarly, a missing detail in an AI-generated summary of a medical report can have significant financial implications. A crucial and frustrating aspect of this challenge is that customers frequently remain unaware that AI is the root cause of confusion or misinformation, invariably assuming that the human adjuster is responsible for the error. This erodes trust and places an unfair burden on the adjusters.

Conrad acknowledges the public perception of claims adjusters, often unfairly characterized as dispassionate or even predatory figures in times of crisis. However, he passionately argues that a truly effective claims adjuster embodies both empathy and a steadfast determination to secure the maximum possible compensation for the policyholder. His conviction stems from personal experience: twenty-five years ago, before he entered the insurance industry, his own house was completely destroyed by fire. It was a total loss, a profoundly traumatic event. Reflecting on that time, Conrad states, "If you would have told me that someone was just gonna come take photographs, and an estimate would be generated [by AI] off of photographs, I probably would have lost my mind."

In his moment of profound need, Conrad emphasized, "I needed somebody to make sure that I’m OK, my family’s OK, that we’re safe." He firmly believes that while AI can offer certain efficiencies, it cannot, and should not, be a substitute for human compassion and critical judgment, especially when individuals are at their most vulnerable. "I think that’s a dangerous strategy," he concludes, highlighting the profound ethical and practical concerns surrounding the unchecked integration of AI into a profession that demands not only technical expertise but also an irreplaceable human touch. The adjusters’ unified message is clear: the human element in insurance claims is not a luxury, but a necessity, and its erosion carries significant risks for both the industry and its customers.