Not upheld: unfair pricing and premium increases complaint against Pinnacle Insurance Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mx M complained about a nearly 25% premium increase when Pinnacle Insurance Limited became the underwriter of their pet insurance policies at the 2025 renewal. The combined premium exceeded £1,500, representing a significant cumulative increase from when the policies were originally taken out in 2016 and 2018. The ombudsman found that Pinnacle's premium was fairly calculated based on legitimate risk factors including Mx M's claims history of over £5,000, and that Pinnacle applied its standard methodology consistently to all policyholders. The ombudsman noted that while the cumulative impact was particularly difficult for Mx M due to the lifetime nature of the policy and existing claims, Pinnacle was only responsible for the 2025 premium and was entitled to set it according to its own risk assessment without accounting for previous insurers' premiums.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

Each insurer is entitled to take its own view of risk and set prices accordingly. When Pinnacle became the underwriter at the 2025 renewal, it was entitled to set the premium according to its general view of risk at that time. The ombudsman found that Pinnacle's premium was set fairly because: (1) there were no calculation errors; (2) the calculation was consistent with how Pinnacle treats all policyholders; (3) the premium reflected legitimate risk factors including the claims history; and (4) Pinnacle took steps to cap the increase. Pinnacle was not responsible for previous premiums set by other insurers and was not required to take them into account.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website