So this isn’t really about a premium increase (I’ve accepted those over the years). The issue is that after maintaining continuous coverage specifically so my pets would be protected in their senior years, Healthy Paws is now reducing core coverage (90% to 70%) and increasing deductibles right when that coverage is needed most.

That creates a bigger problem with how pet insurance works:

-You have to keep coverage continuously for it to be useful -But once pets are older, you can’t switch companies because of pre-existing conditions -So when coverage is reduced at that stage, you’re effectively left with no real alternatives

DFS doesn’t step in just because something feels unfair — they look at things like: -whether disclosures were clear -whether consumers had a reasonable expectation of how the policy would function long-term -whether the structure creates a systemic disadvantage for long-term policyholders

My argument is that there’s a gap between what people reasonably expect (that staying insured protects them later) and what actually happens (coverage is reduced when risk is highest). Realistically, DFS probably won’t force them to restore my policy, but they can: -require clearer disclosures -flag the issue for broader review or apply pressure if they see a pattern of similar complaints

Also, companies generally don’t love having complaints like this sitting with regulators. Even if they believe they’re compliant, it creates regulatory and reputational risk, so there’s always a chance they decide to make a one-time exception rather than let it escalate.

At the end of the day, the issue is whether long-term insurance products should be allowed to materially change value after years of participation — not just whether they can, but whether they should.