Insurance pricing is often a delicate balancing act. If premiums are too high, insurers risk losing business to competitors. If they are set them too low, then they may struggle to cover the cost of claims – leading to financial instability.

The challenge lies in developing pricing models that are accurate, sustainable and reflective of true risk exposure – a task that is often more complex than it seems.

Common insurance pricing pitfalls can lead to severe consequences, from misclassified risks and underpriced policies to regulatory non-compliance and unexpected claims volatility. Poor data quality, flawed risk classification and reliance on outdated methods can all distort pricing decisions, impacting profitability and financial stability.

For insurers to remain competitive while ensuring long-term solvency, avoiding these pitfalls is crucial. Below we explore some of the most common insurance pricing mistakes and, more importantly, provide practical solutions to help insurers refine their pricing strategies and maintain a fair, data-driven and financially sound approach to underwriting.

If you want to learn more about insurance pricing, take our flagship Fundamentals of Insurance Pricing training course:

Common insurance pricing pitfalls

1. Poor Data Quality
2. Misapplying Loss Trend Factors
3. Errors in Adjusting Premium for Rate Changes
4. Inadequate Risk Classification
5. Flawed XOL (Excess of Loss) Experience Rating
6. Over-Reliance on Historical Data
7. Lack of a Robust Technical Pricing Framework
8. Overlooking the Impact of Currency in Rating Plans
9. Poor Communication Between Pricing and Underwriting Teams
10. Ineffective Rate Monitoring and Adjustment
11. Misuse of Premium Size Discounts
12. Ignoring the Cost of Capital in Pricing Models

1. Poor Data Quality

Data is the foundation of insurance pricing, but many insurers struggle with incomplete, inconsistent or outdated data.

Pricing models often fail to account for the basis of the data provided – whether it’s Accident Year, Underwriting Year or Policy Year – which can lead to incorrect assumptions. Errors in data collection and input can also distort risk assessments, resulting in premiums that are either too high or too low.

Without a structured approach to data validation and cleansing, insurers risk making pricing decisions based on flawed information.

Solution:

• Use data validation tools to check for missing, inconsistent or incorrect data before pricing decisions are made.
• Ensure pricing models account for the correct data basis (Accident Year, Underwriting Year or Policy Year).
• Implement automated data cleansing processes to eliminate errors and standardise data formats across all sources.

2. Misapplying Loss Trend Factors

Loss trend factors are essential for projecting future claims costs, but they must be applied correctly.

A common mistake is failing to align loss trends with the start of the exposure period, leading to inaccurate cost estimates. Another issue is using the same trend factor for both aggregate losses and individual losses, without considering the impact of deductibles, policy limits or excess layers. This can create misleading expectations of future claims severity and frequency, ultimately distorting pricing decisions.

Solution:

• Ensure loss trend factors align with the correct exposure period.
• Use separate trend factors for aggregate and individual losses, considering deductible and policy limits.

Adjust severity trend factors for ground-up losses and frequency trend factors for aggregate losses to reflect real exposure changes.

3. Errors in Adjusting Premium for Rate Changes

Premiums must be adjusted for rate changes to ensure they accurately reflect market conditions.

However, many insurers incorrectly apply rate changes on a written premium basis instead of an earned premium basis, leading to inaccurate loss ratio forecasts.

Another common issue is failing to adjust premiums for all years a contract is exposed, which can result in incorrect pricing across multi-year policies. Insurers must also consider contract structures (RAD vs. LOD) and effective dates, or risk miscalculating the premium adjustment required.

Solution:

• Apply rate changes to earned premium, not just written premium, to accurately forecast loss ratios.
• Consider all years a contract is exposed to rate changes instead of just a single underwriting year.
• Ensure pricing tools adjust for contract structure differences (RAD vs. LOD) and effective dates.

4. Inadequate Risk Classification

Effective risk classification ensures that higher-risk policyholders pay higher premiums, while lower-risk ones benefit from more competitive pricing. However, many insurers group together policyholders with vastly different risk profiles, leading to adverse selection.

This occurs when low-risk customers subsidise high-risk ones, causing market distortions and profitability issues. A failure to adjust classification models for emerging risks, inflation and evolving market conditions further compounds the issue, making premiums less reflective of actual exposure.

Solution:

• Use granular rating categories to avoid blending low-risk and high-risk policyholders together.
• Continuously update risk models to reflect emerging risks, market changes and inflationary trends.
• Leverage predictive analytics and machine learning to enhance classification accuracy.

5. Flawed XOL (Excess of Loss) Experience Rating

Experience rating for Excess of Loss (XOL) policies can be flawed when insurers apply experience rating methods to individual claims without considering whether the losses stem from a single catastrophic event.

Ceding companies often record claims at the policy level, meaning that a single loss may be spread across multiple policies, leading to duplicate claim records in the pricing analysis. Without a clear understanding of how loss data is structured, insurers risk double-counting losses and producing inaccurate experience-based pricing.

Solution:

• Understand how ceding companies record claims – distinguish between policy-level and event-level losses.
• Ensure experience rating models account for loss events spanning multiple policies to prevent double counting.
• Validate pricing assumptions by cross-referencing policyholder data with historical claims records.

6. Over-Reliance on Historical Data

Historical claims data is a valuable resource, but relying on it too heavily can be a major pricing pitfall.

Many insurers assume that past claims trends will continue unchanged, without accounting for external shifts such as inflation, regulatory updates or new risk factors. This can result in underpricing or overpricing policies in ways that no longer reflect current realities.

Without a mechanism for incorporating real-time market intelligence and economic indicators, insurers risk making outdated pricing decisions that affect both profitability and competitiveness.

Solution:

• Supplement historical claims data with real-time market intelligence, economic indicators and external risk factors.
• Regularly recalibrate pricing models to account for emerging risks such as climate change, cyber threats and regulatory shifts.
• Introduce scenario testing and sensitivity analysis to prepare for unexpected changes in claims trends.

7. Lack of a Robust Technical Pricing Framework

A structured technical pricing framework is essential for consistency, yet many insurers lack standardised methodologies across their underwriting teams.

This can lead to pricing discrepancies, as different teams apply adjustments based on personal judgement rather than a unified strategy.

Another common issue is the misapplication of Increased Limits Factors (ILFs) and excess factors, which should be ground-up and consistent with loss distributions but are often applied inconsistently. Without a robust framework, pricing decisions can become fragmented and unreliable.

Solution:

• Establish a standardised, documented pricing framework that all underwriters follow.
• Implement consistency checks to prevent variations in pricing adjustments between underwriting teams.
• Use automated pricing models with built-in governance to ensure underwriters adhere to structured methodologies.

​

8. Overlooking the Impact of Currency in Rating Plans

Many insurers fail to account for currency effects in their pricing calculations, which can distort risk assessment when policies are issued in multiple currencies.

Some ignore how quoting currency impacts the ILF curve, leading to inconsistencies in pricing.

Multinational companies may buy insurance in a stronger currency than their home country currency, which can further complicate pricing calculations.

Without a mechanism to adjust for currency differences, insurers risk applying inconsistent premiums across different markets.

Solution:

• Standardise pricing calculations by converting all quoted premiums into a base currency before applying rating formulas.
• Ensure ILF (Increased Limits Factor) curves are consistent across currencies to avoid discrepancies in risk assessment.
• Implement multi-currency risk models that adjust for currency fluctuations to maintain pricing consistency.

9. Poor Communication Between Pricing and Underwriting Teams

Effective collaboration between actuaries and underwriters is crucial for accurate pricing, yet many organisations experience disconnects between these teams.

This often results in underwriters overriding pricing models based on subjective judgement, leading to inconsistencies.

Additionally, underwriters may struggle to interpret actuarial models correctly, applying manual adjustments that contradict technical pricing assumptions. Without clear communication channels and shared pricing tools, pricing decisions can become fragmented and misaligned with strategic objectives.

Solution:

• Hold regular training sessions to ensure underwriters fully understand actuarial pricing models.
• Implement clear documentation and workflows to guide how manual underwriting adjustments should be applied.
• Encourage collaboration by using shared digital pricing platforms where both underwriters and actuaries can track and justify pricing decisions.

10. Ineffective Rate Monitoring and Adjustment

Pricing is not a one-time activity, it requires continuous monitoring and refinement.

Many insurers fail to track how rate changes impact business performance, leading to missed opportunities for pricing optimisation. Some also allow claims experience to influence rate changes on individual risks, rather than assessing overall market conditions.

Without a structured feedback loop, insurers risk maintaining outdated pricing assumptions that no longer reflect portfolio performance or market realities.

Solution:

• Introduce automated rate monitoring tools to track pricing trends in real time.
• Establish a structured feedback loop where underwriting performance data informs pricing adjustments.
• Align rate changes with market conditions and portfolio performance rather than allowing individual claims experience to dictate pricing.

11. Misuse of Premium Size Discounts

Premium size discounts are a common tool in pricing, but misusing them can lead to unintended consequences.

Some insurers apply discrete size discounts, which can cause premium reversals if an account’s exposure changes slightly. Others fail to recognise that larger exposure bases do not always equate to proportionally higher loss costs, leading to excessive discounting that undermines profitability. A structured, data-driven approach is needed to ensure discounts remain reflective of actual risk.

Solution:

• Use data-driven discounting strategies that reflect the true loss-cost relationship of larger policies.
• Apply continuous sliding-scale discounts rather than discrete steps that could lead to premium reversals.
• Validate discount structures regularly to ensure they align with loss experience and profitability metrics.

12. Ignoring the Cost of Capital in Pricing Models

Pricing models should account for not just expected claims and expenses, but also the capital required to support the risk.

However, many insurers fail to integrate capital allocation models into their pricing strategies, leading to unsustainable underwriting. Underpricing policies without considering Solvency II capital requirements or broader capital efficiency needs, for example, can erode profitability.

Without factoring in the cost of capital, insurers risk taking on unprofitable business that weakens financial stability.

Solution:

• Integrate capital allocation models into pricing strategies to reflect the true cost of holding risk capital.
• Adjust premiums based on Solvency II capital requirements and other regulatory capital considerations.
• Use economic capital modelling to optimise pricing while maintaining financial resilience.