By Emily Brill
On August 18, three hours after Tatiana Vivar and her husband, both New York City public school teachers, made an offer on their first home, Ms. Vivar opened a letter from Nationwide, her pet insurance provider.
Across the top, in capital letters, it read: “IMPORTANT CHANGE TO YOUR NATIONWIDE® PET INSURANCE POLICY OFFER OF COVERAGE.”
Then came a warmer line.
“Thank you for protecting your pet with Nationwide. It’s our privilege to serve as your pet insurance provider.”
The letter concerned Simba, one of the couple’s two 12-year-old Chihuahua littermates. For six years, Nationwide had reimbursed 90 percent of Simba’s eligible veterinary expenses under his “My Pet Protection with Wellness” policy.
Beginning Oct. 8, it would pay half. Nationwide explained the change this way: “These actions are necessary so we can continue to offer pet protection solutions to our members at a competitive price.”
After receiving what Nationwide called the “conditional renewal” notice, she called the company, recorded the conversation, and provided the recording to The Canine Review. A representative who identified herself as “Jessica” called the company’s initiative “Nationwide Pet Profitability Actions.” She told Ms. Vivar the factors behind the reductions included “vet inflation,” “delays with some state insurance departments” and “a spike in usage due to pets aging.”
“I wish there was a discussion about this with me as the policyholder,” Ms. Vivar told the representative. The change, she said, was “coming out of left field” about a month before renewal.
Could Nationwide send her its criteria? And, why Simba but not her other dog who is Simba’s littermate? After all, she had enrolled both dogs at the same time.
“That’s not something that we can send,” the representative said.
“The only thing we can send you, which you already have, is the renewal where it says the changes are going to be made from 90 to 50%.”
“When are Nala’s or Catsby’s benefits going to be dropped?” Ms. Vivar asked.
“That depends,” the representative said. “Again, if they fall within the criteria, then there’s a possibility at the next renewal that could change.”
“And the age is a big contributing factor?” Ms. Vivar asked.
“Yes, ma’am,” the representative said.
Ms. Vivar pressed again.
“Now, because they’re getting older, when I need it the most, when they need it the most, is when essentially I’m going to lose my benefits. That’s essentially what you’re telling me.”
“Yes, ma’am,” the representative said. “Sorry about that.”
Pet Insurance: An Industry Mature Enough To Be Regulated?
Back in June 2024, Nationwide said in an unnamed statement that its plan was to non-renew about 100,000 pet insurance policies around the country through the summer of 2025 – but NAIC consumer advocate Brendan Brigeland told TCR at the time the 100,000 figure omitted the company’s wave of conditional renewals – like this latest wave of New Yorkers. Conditional renewals require consumers to re-enroll at reduced co-pays with substantial limits on payouts along with staggering premium hikes which would effectively push consumers out by outpricing them.
Also, notably, was former Nationwide/VPI executive Kent Kruse, who told TCR at the time that he would have expected the non-renewal figure to be at least 300,000.
Back to the matter of the conditional renewals, which appear to be the loophole Nationwide is using now in New York: Mr. Brigeland told TCR Nationwide is exploiting a regulatory lapse. The NAIC consumer liaison implored state insurance regulators to regard the U.S. pet insurance industry as an industry now mature enough to necessitate a regulatory framework, namely that state regulators add the Pet Insurance Model Law recently adopted by the NAIC to their agendas.
It’s advice that New York Governor Kathy Hochul has not yet taken.
Albany Lawmakers Act; Governor Hochul Does Not (Yet)
A bill passed by the New York Legislature this year contains a sentence aimed squarely at that exchange.
The legislation now before Governor Hochul again would require a pet insurer to disclose “whether the insurer reduces coverage or increases premiums based on the insured’s claim history, the age of the covered pet or a change in the geographic location of the insured.”
The measure, Assembly Bill 11164, passed both houses without a dissenting vote. As of Sept. 7, the State Senate’s website still listed the measure as “Passed Senate & Assembly.”
But Ms. Hochul has vetoed two predecessor measures, and her office’s response to our detailed questions about the latest bill and Nationwide’s treatment of New York policyholders consisted of one sentence:
“The Governor will review the Legislation,” Kristin Devoe, a spokeswoman for Ms. Hochul, said.
Earlier Reporting From TCR
Nationwide axes popular plan following significant losses.
Nationwide Pet will no longer offer unlimited, all-you-can-eat coverage (November 2021)
Regulators adopt first significant legislation for fast-growing pet insurance industry. Now, states must decide. (August 2022)
Nationwide now axing pet insurance policyholders everywhere (April 2024)
New York State Regulators Respond
The Canine Review asked New York’s Department of Financial Services (DFS) in August to account for the two-year time lapse between Nationwide’s issuance of coverage cuts to New York policyholders and when the company began issuing cuts in more than two dozen other states as early as April 2024.
The department responded by email. Ciara Marangas, a spokeswoman for DFS, told TCR in an email that, “the insurer announced that it would no longer renew policies with Whole Pet with Wellness coverage, citing rising costs of veterinary care and inflation.” She added: “New York State insurance law allows companies to send out non-renewal or conditional renewal notices if certain criteria are met.”
Asked what those criteria were, DFS sent a link to Section 3425 of the state’s Insurance Law.
However, Ms. Marangas declined to identify which provisions of the statute were applicable to Nationwide’s pet insurance operations in New York.
Section 3425 says that, for a covered policy, an insurer generally must send a notice of non-renewal or conditional renewal at least 45 but no more than 60 days before the end of the policy period. It also says: “The specific reason or reasons for non-renewal or conditioned renewal shall be stated in or shall accompany the notice.”
More Letters Hit New Yorkers
In Chappaqua, an 80-year-old woman who had insured Lucy, her King Shepherd, since the dog was a puppy told TCR she cried when she received her notification from Nationwide.
Ms. Land, who asked to be identified only by her surname, said her Whole Pet policy cost about $370 a month. It reimbursed 90 percent of eligible expenses and had no annual payout limit.
Perhaps most strikingly, although Nationwide was lowering Lucy’s reimbursement rate to 50% from 90%, the insurer offered a $330 monthly premium rate, a mere $40 cost deduction from her current $370 monthly premium, despite the reimbursement cut.
Ms. Land says she canceled the policy and began searching for replacement coverage for a 10½-year-old dog with gastrointestinal problems already in her medical record. Several weeks after canceling the policy, Ms. Land told TCR she was still searching for coverage for Lucy.
“I started crying,” Ms. Land told TCR.
And, in Brooklyn, New York, Katharine Loemer received a notice dated July 27. Nationwide told her that reimbursement for her roughly 9½-year-old cat would fall to 50 percent when the policy renewed Sept. 24.
Ms. Loemer posted about her situation to the Facebook group “Dropped by Nationwide Pet Insurance Whole Wellness? Join Us!” The group now has more than 2,600 members. Her household’s two cats had “countless preexisting conditions,” she wrote, meaning they could stick with Nationwide at 50 percent or seek another insurer that would not cover the cats’ “countless” preexisting conditions.
“There’s not an alternative for us,” she said.
“This Program Will Be Discontinued”
Nationwide did not roll out its policy cuts in New York until August 2026, more than two years later than policyholders in other states began losing their coverage.
But TCR first reported Nationwide’s plan to discontinue its popular Whole Pet with Wellness plans in 2021.
In April 2024, the company began rolling out letters slashing coverage around the country, but it wasn’t until June that the company finally issued a statement.
Those Ordering Pet Insurance Cuts at Nationwide Were Reportedly Clueless About Pet Insurance
That delay between when the company began notifying pet owners and when a statement was finally issued, former executives who spoke with TCR on the condition of anonymity told TCR at the time, was largely because those who ordered the coverage cuts had precious little understanding of pet insurance. The former Nationwide executives told TCR that the policy cuts came as a surprise even to many of the people working at Nationwide, including even the customer contact division, who found themselves suddenly deluged by distraught, irate pet owners. They were caught flat-footed by the response, unaware of the outcry the action would trigger.
Even the customer contact division was unprepared and report finding themselves suddenly deluged by distraught owners.
The former Nationwide executives told TCR that the actions were ordered by COO Joel Carnes, whom the executives described as desperately inexperienced and lacking in even basic knowledge or understanding of pet insurance. For example, the executives told TCR Mr. Carnes was apparently unaware that pet insurance policies did not cover pre-existing conditions, thereby creating uniquely challenging circumstances for geriatric pets who were suddenly without insurance, but, in many cases, loaded with pre-existing conditions.
A Loser Since Launch
What the filings say
In regulatory filings from Nationwide obtained by TCR, Nationwide indicated that the program had been unprofitable for years. On Jan. 3, 2025, DFS asked National Casualty Company, the Nationwide subsidiary underwriting the plan, for an exhibit describing the insurer and the program. Nationwide supplied Exhibit RT-4 six days later.
In its first answer, Nationwide explained why the requested rate filing mattered to the company.
“NY is one of the most important states and this filing would help to lower the high loss ratio and strengthen the company’s financial stability.”
Then came three short answers.
“This program will be discontinued and is only marketed and offered in NY and WA.”
“Whole Pet has been unprofitable since 2016, the year it was launched.”
And under a heading asking for the company’s prospective outlook:
“Whole Pet is expected to be discontinued countrywide as our Modular Pet Insurance product is expected to write all new direct to consumer business.”
The actuarial filing put numbers around the problem. Nationwide said its New York rates were deficient by 38.7 percent and projected a 94.3 percent loss ratio—more than 94 cents in claims for each premium dollar, before other expenses—compared with its permissible loss ratio of 68 percent.
Nationwide selected a uniform 25 percent increase rather than the full indicated increase. The public filing does not explain why it chose 25 percent.
DFS questioned loss-development factors, premium trends, policy counts, assumptions and the distribution of increases.
DFS assigned the revised rates the filing status “acknowledged” on Aug. 5, 2025.
Those approved rate increases applied to 6,965 New York policies representing about $13.86 million in annual premiums. The projected average annual premium rose by $497.42 to $2,487.08.
To put this in more concrete terms: Nearly 47 percent of the affected policies Nationwide had increases of at least $501; about 10.5 percent had increases of more than $1,000; and the largest listed increase was a whopping $2,107 for a 14-year-old golden retriever.
The questions in the public filing covered actuarial methods, premium trends, policy counts and rate-impact exhibits. The Canine Review found no question in that file asking how many Whole Pet policies would later be non-renewed or conditionally renewed with sharply reduced benefits, or what replacement coverage would be available to an older animal with conditions already in its medical record.
The absence of such a question does not establish that no discussion occurred. Regulators and insurers can communicate outside the public SERFF record.
The Canine Review has requested additional communications in a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request, which is pending.
Insurance companies are regulated by states and must obtain approvals from regulators before making any substantive change to insurance products. The filings are public documents. One such filing TCR obtained concerned Whole Pet, Nationwide’s comprehensive and most popular plan. It indicated that the program had been unprofitable for years.
On Jan. 3, 2025, DFS asked National Casualty Company, the Nationwide subsidiary underwriting the plan, for an exhibit describing the insurer and the program. Nationwide supplied Exhibit RT-4 six days later.
In its first answer, Nationwide explained why the requested rate filing mattered to the company.
“NY is one of the most important states and this filing would help to lower the high loss ratio and strengthen the company’s financial stability.”
Then came three short answers.
“This program will be discontinued and is only marketed and offered in NY and WA.”
“Whole Pet has been unprofitable since 2016, the year it was launched.”
And under a heading asking for the company’s prospective outlook:
“Whole Pet is expected to be discontinued countrywide as our Modular Pet Insurance product is expected to write all new direct to consumer business.”
The Canine Review has requested additional communications in a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request, which is pending.
What the Albany Bill Would Require
Assemblywoman Pamela Hunter, the Democrat sponsoring the latest version of New York’s pet insurance bill, called this year’s passage “the second time I have passed this bill in both houses.” She said the new bill “addressed the concerns raised in her veto”—a reference to Ms. Hochul’s 2025 veto—and “clarified that pet insurance requires a different regulatory framework from animal insurance, which generally covers livestock.”
“Pet owners need to know that the insurance coverage they purchase will be governed by clear rules and that they will receive meaningful, clear information about coverage, exclusions, premiums and claims practices,” Ms. Hunter said in an Aug. 19 statement to The Canine Review.
Referring to The Canine Review’s earlier reporting on Nationwide, she wrote: “The issue raised in your report underscores why this bill is necessary. The legislation is intended to bring greater transparency and consistency.”
Ms. Hunter added:
“I would not want to speculate about an individual insurer’s underwriting decisions without reviewing the notices and the relevant policy language,” she wrote. “However, I agree that developments involving older pets raise important questions about the adequacy and consistency of consumer protections in this market.”
The bill itself would have required exactly the disclosure Ms. Vivar sought on her phone call with Nationwide: whether age, claims history or a change in location can lead to reduced coverage or higher premiums. And what was the reason for already reduced coverage of one dog?
It would standardize terms including “preexisting condition,” “chronic condition” and “waiting period.” It says: “A condition for which coverage is afforded on a policy shall not be considered a preexisting condition on any renewal of the policy.”
It also defines a renewal as a replacement policy from the same insurer or an affiliate that provides “types and limits of coverage substantially similar to those contained in the policy being superseded.”
Nationwide’s executives, including CEO Kirt Walker and “chief pet officer” Joel Carnes, along with press officers have declined dozens of phone and email requests seeking detailed requests for comment over a period of more than two years since the company first began non-renewing pet insurance policy holders. CEO Kirt Walker, did not respond to repeated phone and email requests from The Canine Review about the New York notices, the criteria used to select policies for reductions, the number of affected New York customers or the company’s plans for its remaining legacy policyholders.
Ms. Vivar still has three aging pets.
Nala remains at 90 percent reimbursement and Catsby at 70 percent—for now, she said. Simba will remain insured if she accepts the renewal, but at 50 percent.
During her call with Nationwide, the representative emphasized that Simba was not being dropped: He still had coverage, only at a lower reimbursement rate.
Ms. Vivar answered with the number on the letter in front of her.
“From 90% to 50%, that’s a very big loss in benefits.”
