employer cover photo
employer logo
employer logo

Mercury Insurance Company

Engaged employer

Claims Examiner - Claims Examiner Mercury Insurance Company Employee Review

2.0
Nov 3, 2019
Recommend
CEO approval
Business outlook

Pros

They provide a yearly Christmas Bonus.

Cons

Heavy claims volume, understaffed, underpaid, and they are constantly adding job duties without offering additional pay for the increased workload. The company has not had an underwriting bonus in over three years, the average annual raise (2-3% for a meets employee) does not even cover the cost of living increases Californian’s see each year. Management, Divisional Management and Admin is so busy trying to cover their own tracks they don’t actually lead. Little to no consistency between branches and branches are constantly battling each other. There is poor communication between branches and some management is downright rude to employees. There are Manager’s at the company that send unprofessional e-mails and employee’s are told to ignore it. “That’s just the way this person is”, is unacceptable. The company needs to do a better job with identifying poor leaders and replace them with people who are focused on the employee experience. There are almost no work from home positions, very little flexibility for work days and hours. The company adheres to the “do more with less mantra”. Employees are seen as expendable. The company only focus’ on numbers there is no focus on the people.

Explore other reviews about Mercury Insurance Company

5.0
May 15, 2026
Recommend
CEO approval
Business outlook

Pros

Fast Process Remote Great team

Cons

I can not think of any

2.0
Jun 8, 2026
Anonymous employee
Recommend
CEO approval
Business outlook

Pros

I worked with several talented people and had positive interactions with multiple business stakeholders. The company has strong brand recognition, meaningful business lines, and some leaders who genuinely value recruiting partnership.

Cons

My experience in Talent Acquisition became increasingly difficult because the management style I experienced felt highly controlling, punitive, and focused more on scrutiny than coaching, workload calibration, or clear success metrics. In my opinion, the environment became one where a manager’s narrative could outweigh production, stakeholder feedback, and the actual complexity of the workload. I raised concerns through internal channels and later experienced increased scrutiny, formal performance action, and ultimately termination with what I viewed as a vague and incomplete explanation. From my perspective, the process lacked fairness, transparency, and meaningful opportunity to address concerns through objective measures. I would caution candidates and employees to pay close attention to the specific leadership chain they would report into, not just the broader company reputation. Advice to Management: Ensure performance concerns are handled with clear metrics, documented coaching, balanced stakeholder input, and genuine review of workload realities. A company’s employment brand is affected not only by candidate experience, but also by how internal employees are treated when they raise concerns.

See reviews by: Helpful|Rating|Date|All