Insurance claims adjusters have become the most AI-averse job group in the U.S., according to a new Glassdoor study. In reviews that mention AI, adjusters posted a 98% negative rate, the highest across industries. For the workforce as a whole, the average negative rate for AI mentions was 53%.
The report says the anger is not simply directed at AI itself. Workers are reacting to managers forcing error-prone systems into day-to-day claims operations, then leaving frontline staff to deal with the fallout when bad information reaches customers.
Workers say broken systems are being pushed into the claims process
Chris Martin, a senior economist at Glassdoor, told WIRED that he did not expect claims adjusters to stand out so sharply. After looking deeper, he found that many of the complaints centered on “AI-obsessed managers” pushing unreliable tools onto both employees and customers.
WIRED cited Ahmad Jackson, who said that about a year ago a large insurance company he worked for handed initial loss reports to AI. The idea was straightforward: simple cases would be routed automatically, while complex ones would go to human staff. In practice, he said, large numbers of claims were misclassified, forcing him and his co-workers to sort them again.
Jackson also said he repeatedly ran into AI hallucinations in claim summaries. If he passed along wrong information to a claimant or the claimant’s lawyer, he was the one who took the blame. He later left for another insurance company and told WIRED that AI “keeps making mistakes” while “creating more work” for adjusters.
Geoffrey Conrad, a claims supervisor in Alabama, described the mood in the industry as “AI fatigue.” He told WIRED, “We’re pretty exhausted by the amount of AI being shoved at us.”
Glassdoor links anti-AI sentiment to layoff fears and weak products
Glassdoor’s data showed another pattern as well. The more workers felt layoffs were coming, the more negative their reviews became toward AI. Reviews also turned more skeptical when employees felt a subpar product had been imposed on them or on customers.
Martin summed up that pressure bluntly: “No jobs, and no good career prospects.”
Job losses are moving faster than earlier projections
The labor picture cited in the article matches that anxiety. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics projected in 2024 that the number of claims adjusters would decline by 18,900 over the next decade, a 5% drop. But the article says the contraction is happening faster than expected: employment in the field fell 21% from May 2025 to May 2026.
Entry-level openings have fallen even harder. Glassdoor data cited in the piece shows they are down 50% since 2025. The BLS explicitly identified technology as one of the main drivers behind the decline.
Another comparison in the article makes the point more clearly. Claims adjuster job openings have dropped 55% from their post-pandemic peak, while job openings across the broader labor market are down 36% over the same period. The argument in the report is that this is not only a weaker market cycle. The role itself is shrinking.
Why claims work is an early target for automation
The article says claims operations are one of the biggest cost centers for insurers. Every minute cut from processing time shows up in loss ratios and operating costs. That helps explain why claims adjusters, rather than underwriters or marketing staff, have become an early automation target.
Funding is adding to that push. AI insurance startup Liberate has raised $50 million, while Pace has raised $46 million. Both are pitching versions of “reinventing insurance.”
In practice, that can mean a claimant first deals with a chatbot instead of a person, site inspections are replaced by AI analysis of photos for pricing, and hundreds of pages of medical records are summarized by software before a human reviews them.
Lemonade is one of the clearest examples cited. According to its shareholder letter, its chatbot AI Jim handled 96% of first notices of loss, and automation covered 55% of all claims.
Insurers defend automation, but trust remains low on the front line
Insurance companies offered a different case for the technology. Lemonade spokesperson Paul Staats told WIRED that AI will affect many established jobs, but automation can free employees to focus their empathy and expertise on the most complex cases. He also said the Glassdoor study is something the whole industry should take seriously.
State Farm said claims work still requires a mix of human expertise and digital tools.
People working closer to the process are less convinced. Insurance consultant Sandy Avina said a single stain on a document can trigger hallucinations and lead AI to calculate the wrong payout. A summary that misses one important medical detail can create the same kind of problem.
Customers usually do not know the mistake started with AI, she said. They simply conclude that the adjuster messed up the claim.
The system gets the authority, the worker gets the blame
That is the awkward position many adjusters now describe. Decision-making authority is being handed to systems, while accountability still sits with the human employee. When policyholders call, they do not separate bad information from AI and bad information from a person. They remember the adjuster who answered the phone and is expected to take responsibility.
The article does not present AI as useless across the board. Jackson said he still uses it for routine administrative tasks, such as extending a customer’s rental car reservation by a few days. Conrad also said AI can be useful as a tool, but drew a firm line: “AI is just a tool. You should never hand it the keys.”