Insurance Industry Highlights Inconsistent Reliance on AI
Time 4 Minute Read
Categories: Cyber, D&O, Industry News

Artificial intelligence technology (“AI”) is poised to radically improve human functionality, although some say the technology is quietly learning how to overtake it. In the meantime, the insurance industry has been using AI to save time, attain consistency and improve risk mitigation. However, while the industry looks forward to cost savings and better business utilizing generative AI, some insurers have simultaneously cautioned policyholders about the potential risks that reliance on AI may pose. Insurer’s cautionary statements cast doubt on the integrity of their own reliance on the technology.

For example, Attorneys’ Liability Assurance Society Ltd. (“ALAS”) notified its law firm policyholders that ChatGPT—perhaps the leading publicly available AI platform—is “Not Ready for Prime Time.” In a bulletin issued to its policyholders, ALAS warns that the use of the technology by law firm policyholders could result in legal malpractice for which there may not be coverage under professional liability insurance policies. While cautionary in nature, this type of warning from insurers forecasts coverage denials for claims resulting from its use. It also demonstrates the differing perceptions of AI, even among members of the same industry.

According to insurance industry executives, AI is already being deployed for use in claims automation, product development, fraud detection and employee and customer-facing chatbots. AI technology can process large amounts of claims information in a fraction of the time it currently takes humans and can eliminate human bias in the underwriting process. But the insurance industry’s anticipated reliance on AI is undermined by that same industry’s warnings about the inherent flaws in AI and its lack of reliability, especially when it comes to current and updated information. For example, ChatGPT readily admits that its information database is only current through early 2021. Other AI databases may contain more up-to-date information, but even those are only as current as the last information upload. Compare that to the presumptive knowledge and information available to a qualified claims adjuster, who are required to keep abreast of current events and changes in the law and applicable regulations that affect the handling of a claim.

Lawyers and law firms are similarly required to stay abreast of relevant information. Yet, unlike insurers, lawyers who also are looking to generative AI for innovation must do so while navigating the ethical rules that govern their profession. The American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct state that lawyers must provide competent and transparent representation while protecting client information. There’s a growing awareness of the risks associated with using generative AI for legal work—most specifically about how a law firms’ privacy and client confidentiality will be protected and the technology’s accuracy. Problems with the current generations of the technology have proven a tendency to “hallucinate” or generate text that appears plausible, yet is not factual, given its ability to leverage billions of data points to predict the next word in a string of text. Still, the legal industry—like the insurance industry—is very much aware of the benefits that will result from the technology’s utilization.  

Whatever the level of use of ChatGPT and generative AI by law firms and the legal industry, policyholders should be wary of the potential risks as well as the insurance coverage consequences that will inevitably follow. In the case of a claim denial, policyholders should also inquire as to the level of AI used by the insurer and, where warranted, insist on human review and analysis of the claim decision. Experienced coverage counsel can help to identify anomalies in insurer claim denials as well as help to determine potential pitfalls that might be avoided as insurers similarly adopt to the technology’s use.

  • Associate

    Olivia’s practice focuses on complex insurance litigation and advising policyholders in insurance coverage matters. Olivia represents clients in all stages of complex insurance coverage actions, with matters involving ...

  • Partner

    Mike is a Legal 500 and Chambers USA-ranked lawyer with more than 25 years of experience litigating insurance disputes and advising clients on insurance coverage matters.

    Mike Levine is a partner in the firm’s Washington, DC ...

  • Partner

    Kevin is a commercial litigator focusing on insurance coverage disputes and counseling on behalf of policyholders. His educational background and prior experience as an insurance broker and advisor provide him with a deep ...

You May Also Be Interested In

Time 3 Minute Read

SB 574 is a California bill that would set specific duties for attorneys who use generative artificial intelligence and would restrict how arbitrators may use such tools in decision-making. It would amend provisions in the Business and Professions Code and the Code of Civil Procedure to address confidentiality, accuracy, bias, and citation verification for attorneys, and to prohibit delegation of arbitral decision-making to AI while adding disclosure and responsibility requirements for arbitrators.

Time 4 Minute Read

Colleges and universities have long sat at the crossroads of freedom of expression and societal change. As campus activism surges, they face growing pressure to protect their institutional missions while upholding students’ individual rights in an era of heightened scrutiny.

Time 1 Minute Read

If recent years have taught insurance practitioners anything, it is that the most consequential coverage disputes rarely turn on novelty alone. In 2025, courts continued to resolve high‑stakes insurance disputes by returning to first principles—examining when claims are related, how losses and occurrences are defined and aggregated, and how policy language allocates risk across time and conduct. D&O coverage and other core insurance law issues again occupied center stage, while decisions in property, cyber, and liability disputes reinforced a familiar theme: policy interpretation remains the decisive factor in determining whether coverage is available in an increasingly complex claims environment. As the decisions discussed below demonstrate, 2025 confirmed that even as risks evolve, coverage disputes remain grounded in careful, policy‑specific analysis.

Time 5 Minute Read

Directors and officers liability insurance is first and foremost protection against personal exposure of boards and management who are targeted in claims challenging their decisions in running the company. That’s why it is surprising how often dedicated “Side A” coverage—insurance coverage, subject to no self-insured retention, available exclusively for the benefit of directors and officers who are not indemnified by the company—is overlooked in placing and renewing D&O insurance programs. One recent Texas bankruptcy ruling, In re First Brands Group, LLC, No. 25-90399 (CML) (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Jan. 7, 2026), demonstrates just how powerful Side A protection can be. There, against strong objections from the creditors’ committee, the bankruptcy court granted motions by numerous former executives seeking relief from the automatic stay to recover D&O insurance proceeds, unlocking millions in Side A coverage to defend against private and governmental claims asserted in connection with the bankruptcy.

Search

Subscribe Arrow

Recent Posts

Categories

Tags

Authors

Archives

Jump to Page