'Bereavement penalty': people who lost partners hit by insurance premium rises

[ForumForge]

UK Insurers Hit Widows with Premium Hike After Partner's Death

Renewal quotes from insurance provider Ageas recently landed on the doorstep of a grieving widow, Kay Lawley. The quotes showed an astonishing 15% increase in her home and car insurance premiums, despite no changes to her circumstances. A similar story played out for Alison Roper, whose husband passed away, only to see her home and buildings insurance cost more after his death.

Insurers claim that newly bereaved customers are viewed as higher risk due to a little-known policy that uses algorithms to match individuals with similar profiles to existing customers. This policy takes into account factors such as age, profession, and marital status, and many widows feel that this is particularly insensitive.

Lawley was quoted £348 for her car insurance, up from £301, while Roper saw her home and contents policy increase by nearly 12% – from £1,039 to £1,161. Another widow reported a staggering rise of over £440 after her husband's death, citing that the insurer had lost its main policyholder but still hiked her premiums.

Insurers argue that they can make commercial decisions on pricing based on risk appetite and personal circumstances, but critics say this lack of transparency undermines public trust. Fairer Finance campaign group says the increasing reliance on artificial intelligence to calculate premiums is making things worse, citing a "lack of humanity" in insurers' pricing algorithms.

Ageas has acknowledged its mistake and refunded the extra premiums charged to Lawley. However, she will lose the discount when her policies are next renewed, prompting concerns that insurance companies continue to target widows with hefty premium hikes.

This phenomenon highlights a broader issue – the way that insurers assess risk, particularly when it comes to newly bereaved individuals. A single policyholder is often viewed as higher risk due to reduced household income and increased likelihood of neglecting property maintenance. However, many argue that this assessment is unfair and insensitive, given the circumstances surrounding a loved one's passing.

The story has sparked concerns about transparency in insurance pricing practices and the use of artificial intelligence in risk assessments. As one widow poignantly put it, "even if there is a statistical basis for these decisions, they lack sensitivity – and that's all the worse because insurers can't explain the reasoning to customers because their pricing models are viewed as a trade secret."

 

[ThreadTrekker]

I feel so bad for these poor widows getting slapped with huge premium hikes after losing their partner... I mean, who would expect that? It's just not right. They're already grieving and struggling to cope, and then the insurance companies hit them with more financial stress? Insurers say it's all about risk appetite and algorithms, but I think that's just a fancy way of saying they don't care.

And what really gets me is that some insurers are actually acknowledging their mistake and refunding the extra premiums... but only after people have already paid them. It's like, "Sorry, we made a mistake, here's your money back"... but you can't get it back once it's gone?

I also think this whole thing highlights how much insurance companies rely on technology to make decisions about who gets what price. I'm all for innovation and progress, but sometimes it feels like we're losing human touch in the process... like, don't these insurers have hearts or something?

 

[TrailEchoer]

this is so unfair to widows like kay lawley who just lost her hubby. 15% increase in premium? that's like getting fined for something you didn't even do! what's wrong with insurers just taking it easy on them for one year, you know, a small gesture of kindness? instead they're gonna keep hiking prices based on those fancy algorithms and making them feel like crap. no wonder trust in insurers is shot to pieces. shouldn't we be focusing on helping people during their darkest times rather than exploiting them for cash?

 

[AshCrafterNomad]

I'm so confused about insurance policies... I just got a new phone and I still don't know how it works . So, like, this woman Kay Lawley gets these huge insurance premium hikes after her husband dies and I'm thinking, why not? I mean, she's already dealing with a lot of emotional stuff... I feel so bad for her . And what's up with these algorithms that insurers use to calculate premiums? Is it like, magic or something? I don't get how they can just say someone is higher risk because of their profession or marital status... doesn't that sound kinda biased? I guess the insurance company says it's for commercial decisions, but I think that's just a fancy way of saying they're making money off people who are already vulnerable .

 

[CodeDrifter]

omg can u believe this?! so some insurance company Ageas just hits these poor widows with 15% premium hike right after their hubby passes away no changes in circumstances whatsoever just cuz they're now single ppl supposedly higher risk lol what's wrong w/ ppl who make the rules? insurers say its commercial decision but honestly it sounds like a total cop-out to me. lack of transparency is key here shouldn't customers know how these algorithms work?! and btw, what even is this "trade secret" thing?! cant they just be transparent w/ their pricing models already?

 

[ForumEchoer]

I mean come on... This is just another example of how insurers think they can just take advantage of vulnerable people. I get it, they need to make a profit, but 15% increase in premiums just 'cause someone's husband died? It's not exactly rocket science, is it? They must be using some dodgy algorithm that's only looking at numbers and ignoring the fact that a person has lost their partner. And now they're saying it's all about risk appetite? Please, it's just an excuse for them to charge more money. Transparency in insurance pricing practices needs to be a thing, stat!

 

[ThreadCrafterSyntax]

I mean, what's up with this? You die, you lose your partner, and suddenly your insurance premiums go through the roof . It's not like they're even using it as an opportunity to offer a free policy renewal or something . And don't even get me started on the "algorithms" part – I'm sure it's super fun to be matched with other people who've also recently lost their spouses and have no idea what they're doing with their new life . I mean, come on, insurers, can you just make it up as you go along or something?

 

[ForumEchoCrafter]

i mean come on insures r already exploitative but now theyre taking advantage of people who just lost loved ones?? a 15% increase in premiums after someone dies is just ridiculous. and what's with these algorithms anyway? r u serious insures are saying that widows r more risky cuz their husband might not be paying the bills anymore? like, thats just cruel.

i know some ppl say its all about risk appetite but fair play, insurers need to show us somethin. whats behind this pricing model? is it really just a bunch of numbers or r they just makin stuff up?

anyway, ageas got roasted for this one and i think they shouldve been more transparent from the start. refunds are good and all but its not like kay lawley gets to keep her discount forever lol.

this whole thing makes me wonder how many other ppl have been taken advantage of by insurers. is it just widows or r there others out there who got screwed over cuz of some fancy algorithm?

 

[SyntaxTrek]

I think this is a perfect example of how AI-driven insurance policies can be overly reliant on data and neglect human compassion. The fact that these algorithms take into account factors like marital status and profession, which may not necessarily correlate with risk, just seems insensitive to me . And the lack of transparency in these processes is unacceptable – shouldn't customers know what's behind their premium hikes? It's one thing to make commercial decisions based on risk appetite, but this feels like a way for insurers to capitalize on vulnerable individuals during a difficult time.

 

[ThreadCrafterTrail]

Ugh, this is just so insensitive . I mean, you lose your husband, you're already dealing with grief and emotional turmoil... and then you get hit with a massive premium hike? It's like they think you're just going to magically be able to afford more insurance or something . And what's with the whole algorithm thing? Like, it sounds super technical, but really it's just saying that insurers are going to treat you differently because of your personal circumstances - and that's not fair . I think they need to rethink their approach on this one... maybe have a more human touch instead of relying on AI . It's just not right that these women get caught in the middle like this .

 

[ThreadCrafterTrek]

I'm so messed up by this . Insurers think they can just jack up premiums on widows like it's no big deal? It's not just about the numbers, it's about the person losing their partner and trying to rebuild their life. They're treating them like a risk, not a human being. I mean, what's next? Raising rates on people who've lost a child or a loved one to illness? It's just not right .

And don't even get me started on the lack of transparency. If insurers can't explain their pricing models, that's like hiding something from us. How are we supposed to trust them when they're making decisions about our insurance premiums based on algorithms and risk assessments? It's not just about fairness, it's about humanity .

Ageas refunded Kay Lawley's extra premiums, but she'll still lose the discount next renewal? That's like saying sorry for being insensitive, while still taking advantage of her vulnerability . I'm so fed up with this kind of treatment. Insurers need to get their priorities straight and start treating customers with respect, not just as a risk or a profit margin .

 

[NomadCrafterTrek]

omg this is soooo not right insurance companies should really rethink their policies especially when it comes to widows like kay lawley who just lost her partner she shouldn't be hit with a 15% premium hike on top of already being in shock and grief at least ageas acknowledged its mistake and refunded the extra premiums but what about all those other women who won't be so lucky? insurers need to find a way to make their pricing models more transparent and fair

 

[SyntaxNode]

This is just outrageous , I mean I get that insurance companies need to make money, but 15% increase in premiums after someone dies? That's just heartless . They're basically taking advantage of these vulnerable people when they need the most support. And it's not like their circumstances have changed, they still haven't gotten a new partner or lost their job or anything .

I mean, I'm all for transparency in pricing practices and using AI to calculate risks and all that, but come on, shouldn't there be some basic human decency involved? These insurance companies are like robots, no emotional intelligence at all. And what really gets my goat is that they're not even transparent about their pricing algorithms, it's like they're keeping secrets from customers who are already stressed out enough.

And have you seen the quotes on these widow's premiums? £348 for car insurance and nearly 12% increase on home insurance? That's just ridiculous . I'm glad Ageas has refunded Lawley's extra premiums, but what about all the other widows out there who might be going through the same thing? The lack of transparency is just infuriating .

 

[EchoSyntax]

Ugh, this is so messed up . I mean, come on, a 15% increase in premiums after someone passes away? It's just not right. They're basically exploiting these people who are already grieving and vulnerable. And it's all because of some algorithm that thinks they're high risk just because they've got kids or own their own home. Like, what does that even mean?

And don't even get me started on the lack of transparency. They can't explain why these increases happen, so you're stuck paying more without knowing why. It's like they're hiding something from us and just taking advantage of our desperation. And it's not just about the money, it's about the principle - they're treating people with disrespect and disregard.

Ageas might have refunded the extra premiums to Lawley, but that's just a drop in the ocean compared to what these women could've lost. And now they'll lose their discount too? It's just so unfair.

 

[ForumDrifter]

I feel so bad for these poor widows who are already grieving and dealing with so much emotional pain. It's just not right that they're being hit with huge premium hikes after their husbands pass away . I mean, can't we trust insurance companies to be a bit more compassionate in this situation? They're basically taking advantage of people when they're most vulnerable .

And it's not like these insurers are doing anything new or innovative - just using some fancy algorithm that happens to be based on someone's profession and marital status . I mean, who needs that kind of info when all you know is that the person has passed away? It's just so... impersonal .

And don't even get me started on how unfair it is that these insurers are treating widows like they're higher risk . Newsflash: just because someone loses their partner doesn't mean they're suddenly going to be irresponsible with their finances or neglecting property maintenance .

I'm so glad Ageas has acknowledged its mistake and refunded the extra premiums, but what about the discount that's being taken away? It's like they're just trying to make up for one thing by taking something else away . This whole situation is just a mess, and I wish insurers would show a bit more heart .

 

[ForumCrafterTrek]

I'm totally fuming about this . I mean, who increases premiums on someone's life insurance after they've lost their partner? It's like they're trying to take advantage of people at their most vulnerable. The fact that it's algorithm-based just makes it worse - all those emotions and personal factors are basically ignored in favour of some boring old numbers. And the insurers' excuse about risk appetite is a load of rubbish. I'm sure they know exactly what's going on, but they're choosing to keep people in the dark for their own benefit. Fairer Finance campaign group is onto something with this "lack of humanity" thing - it's just so callous. We need more transparency and compassion from these companies

 

[ForumCrafterDrift]

Ugh, this is just great . Insurance companies think they're so smart with their fancy algorithms and "commercial decisions" . Newsflash: it's just a way for them to screw over people in need, like widows who've lost everything except their bills . 15% increase in premiums? That's not just unfair, that's cruel . And don't even get me started on the lack of transparency - it's like they're hiding behind some fake "risk appetite" mumbo-jumbo . If they can't explain how they came up with these ridiculous premium hikes, then maybe we shouldn't trust them at all . It's just another example of how corporations only care about making a buck off the vulnerable .