On Aug. 17, 2026, AST ICGC said it wrote to insurers outside the original 20-insurer review above, asking them to assess their own renewal notices against the same disclosure standard and improve any unclear cost information.
Those insurers have until Nov. 6, 2026 to report back on action taken or intended, separate from the follow-up already underway with the two insurers from the original review who do not intend to change their practices.
AST ICGC published a report on whether insurers give customers clear information at renewal about the cost of different payment options, and whether current practices support informed choice.
The review of 20 insurers found that 12 charged more for paying by instalments (around 7–11% extra), while eight did not; some insurers clearly showed the total cost of payment options while others made the cost difference harder to identify.
AST ICGC said customers should be able to see, at renewal, whether paying by instalments costs more overall before deciding whether to renew and how to pay.
Good practice is to show the cost of each option clearly in the renewal notice itself, in dollars and percentages, rather than across linked or supplementary documents; poorer practices to avoid include vague statements and fragmented disclosures.
Aims to improve pricing transparency so customers can make informed choices under cost-of-living pressures.
Follows AST ICGC Dec. 2025 annual report which includes plan for 2025-26. see #280673.
Document dated Jun. 30, 2026, received from AST ICGC Jul. 6, summarized on Jul. 9.
Next Steps
Four of the six insurers with unclear disclosures are improving their notices; two do not intend to change, and AST ICGC will follow up formally and consider further action.
Aug. 2026 Expanded Scrutiny
On Aug. 17, 2026, AST ICGC said it wrote to insurers outside the original 20-insurer review above, asking them to assess their own renewal notices against the same disclosure standard and improve any unclear cost information.
Those insurers have until Nov. 6, 2026 to report back on action taken or intended, separate from the follow-up already underway with the two insurers from the original review who do not intend to change their practices.
