Insurance claims adjusters lead the American workforce in criticizing artificial intelligence, according to new research from Glassdoor. Among adjusters who reference AI in their workplace reviews, a striking 98 percent express negative views — enough to crown them the profession most opposed to AI. The complaints center on what workers describe as leaders forcing flawed AI systems onto employees and clients, leaving human adjusters to fix the resulting mistakes.
The hostility reflects a profession under pressure. Between May 2025 and May 2026, employment among claims adjusters plummeted 21 percent, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data cited in the report. Entry-level job postings have collapsed by 50 percent since 2025, per Glassdoor's findings. Over the next decade, the BLS projects the adjuster workforce will shrink by 18,900 positions, representing a 5 percent decline, with technology identified as a primary driver. Meanwhile, insurance startups such as Liberate and Pace have secured millions in funding with pledges to transform the industry through automation, while established carriers have expanded their use of AI to process increasing volumes of claims.
The report highlights specific friction points where AI tools fall short in practice. Adjusters describe AI-driven hallucinations in claims summaries that lead to incorrect information being relayed to policyholders or attorneys, with workers bearing the blame for errors they didn't create. Misclassified claims flood departments, requiring manual rerouting and creating additional work rather than reducing it. At Lemonade, a company founded on the promise of replacing bureaucracy with algorithms, the proprietary chatbot AI Jim handled initial reports 96 percent of the time by the end of last year, with automation processing roughly 55 percent of all claims. According to Glassdoor senior economist Chris Martin, who conducted the analysis, reviewers express skepticism when they perceive a subpar product being imposed on them or their clients, and anti-AI sentiment intensifies when workers sense impending layoffs.
The root of the dissatisfaction lies in what the report characterizes as a mismatch between AI's capabilities and the emotional complexity of insurance work. A smudge on a document can trigger a hallucination leading to an incorrect payout; an omitted detail in an AI-generated medical summary can do the same. Customers typically don't recognize when AI causes confusion or misinformation, instead assuming the adjuster made the error. Claims executive Geoffrey Conrad, quoted in the report, notes that a competent adjuster combines empathy with determination to maximize a policyholder's payout — qualities he argues AI cannot replicate. When his own house burned down 25 years ago, he needed someone to ensure his family's safety and well-being, not just photograph damage for an automated estimate. The report suggests this human dimension is what's at risk as insurers prioritize efficiency over personal connection.
The research underscores broader tensions about AI's role in knowledge work, particularly when automation threatens both job security and service quality. While some adjusters acknowledge AI's usefulness for administrative tasks like extending rental car bookings, the profession as a whole lacks confidence in the technology's output for complex claims. A Lemonade spokesperson acknowledged that the Glassdoor findings "should be taken seriously across the industry," while noting that automation allows employees to focus empathy and expertise on the most complicated cases. Yet the report documents what it calls "AI fatigue" — workers exhausted by the volume of AI being imposed on them. For a profession already facing steep employment declines, the message is clear: automation may streamline processes, but it can't yet replace the judgment and care that adjusters believe defines their work. The insurance industry now faces a choice between efficiency gains and the risk of alienating both its workforce and the policyholders who expect human support in moments of crisis. That tension will likely shape hiring, training, and technology adoption decisions across the sector for years to come.