December Members Forum

The Pet & Equine Insurance Association (PEIA) closed out its first year with a packed Members’ Forum hosted by Milliman in London. Bringing together insurers, MGAs, brokers, suppliers, veterinary professionals, technologists and policy experts, the session showcased exactly why PEIA was created: to be a collective, cross-sector voice for a fair, transparent and sustainable pet and equine insurance market.

From domestic abuse law and extreme conformation, to behavioural prevention and the CMA’s veterinary remedies, the agenda deliberately blended wider welfare and societal issues with core insurance themes, underlining how animal sentience, human vulnerability and data all intersect with risk, claims and long-term sustainability.

PEIA: One Year On

PEIA founder and CEO Sharon Brown opened the day by restating the Association’s mission and vision: to act as a collective voice for the pet and equine insurance sector, promoting responsible collaboration, affordability, ethical practice and consumer trust – with the industry taking the lead as a credible, responsible voice for positive change.

Her association update highlighted just how far things have moved since launch in January 2025:

• Growing community and governance – Membership has steadily expanded across insurers, MGAs, brokers and suppliers. A Membership Committee now oversees a structured due diligence process; honorary members such as the Insurance Fraud Investigators Group (IFIG) have joined, alongside emerging relationships with organisations including AMDO (microchip database operators), NAPHIA in North America, the Federation of Independent Veterinary Practices and the Pet Industry Federation.
• Building partnerships – New members such as The Vet Connection, Stonebridge, IFIG, Vet AI and NashTech were welcomed in the room, while others attended as prospective members from across the pet insurance market.
• Four-Legs framework in action – Under PEIA’s “Four Legs” model, progress is being made across policy and regulation, membership, communications and operations – from regulatory mapping and consultation responses to a new financial committee chaired by Tanya Daniels (Genasys).
• Sharon also stressed that PEIA is deliberately lean and collaborative: it is intended that much of the work will be powered by members themselves. There are opportunities for people to lead areas such as vet engagement, microchip reform and data collaboration.

Strengthening the Vet–Insurer Relationship

A recurring theme throughout the forum was the need to bring the veterinary community and insurers closer together.

Sharon reported that she has spent the past few months speaking with vets, and the message has been consistent: vets want to understand insurance better, build relationships, and many would consider some form of affiliation or membership with PEIA. A dedicated Vet Engagement Working Group is now in place, and thoughts for a think tank event for vets are being developed.

PEIA’s presence at London Vet Show generated strong interest from corporate groups, with IVC Evidensia, CVS and others beginning to engage more actively with the Association. The shared view is clear: insured clients generally enable better continuity of care, but the current system needs reform if it is to remain affordable and sustainable for owners, vets and insurers alike.

Ruby’s Law: Protecting Victims and  Their Animals

The first keynote came from barrister Christina Warner, founder of Ruby’s Law – a proposal to close a serious gap in domestic abuse legislation where companion animals are concerned.

Drawing on her background in criminal prosecution, international criminal law and family law, Christina set out how:

• The Animal Welfare Sentience Act 2021 acknowledges that animals feel fear, abandonment and pain, creating an ethical foundation for stronger animal protection.
• UN General Comment 26 on the Rights of the Child makes it clear that children should not be forced to witness animal abuse – whether in domestic settings or in wider cultural practices such as bullfighting or dog fighting.
• Yet the Family Law Act 1996 and Domestic Abuse Act 2021 are effectively silent on pets: family courts currently lack clear powers to include animals in non-molestation and occupation orders, even where an abuser is harming, threatening or using an animal as a tool of coercive control.
  
  

Ruby’s Law is designed to sit at the intersection of animal protection, family law and criminal law, giving courts explicit authority to include pets (broadly defined – from dogs and cats to horses, goats and exotics) within protective orders when victims flee abuse. It would also support stronger sentencing, better police and judicial training, and potentially specialist “pet intervention” programmes for those who breach such orders.

Christina closed with a warning and a note of optimism: with birth rates falling and pet ownership rising, the stakes will only increase in the coming years. But globally there is growing recognition of animals as family members – from Mexico’s constitutional changes to Spain’s recognition of pets as family – and Ruby’s Law has already secured cross-party support in Westminster, Stormont and internationally.

For PEIA members, the session underlined how closely animal welfare, human safety and insurance are intertwined – particularly where claims and liability issues arise in domestic abuse contexts.

The Innate Health Assessment (IHA): Tackling Extreme Conformation at Source

Next, Marisa Heath, Director of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare (APGAW) and co-founder of the Innate Health Assessment (IHA), introduced a very different – but equally systemic – challenge: extreme conformation in companion animals.

Marisa explained how APGAW, designed to function more like a Select Committee than a “talking shop”, has spent years focusing on a small number of high-impact welfare issues, including small abattoirs and, more recently, extreme conformation in dogs.

Working with veterinary bodies, welfare groups and behavioural experts, the group created the Innate Health Assessment:

• A 10-question structured assessment of an individual dog’s physical features (such as muzzle length, skin folds, eyelid shape, jaw alignment, limb conformation and ground clearance). Users answer yes/no questions supported by clear guidance and AI-generated images.
• Each answer is scored; a pass currently requires 80%. Skipped questions count as fails. The tool gives a simple pass/fail outcome and a breakdown of where the dog did not meet the criteria, with signposting to further information.
• It is intended for puppy buyers, breeders, local authority inspectors and advertisers, helping them decide whether a dog should be bred from, bought, licensed or used in marketing. A separate version allows businesses to take an IHA before featuring dogs in advertising and to sign a pledge not to use extreme-conformation animals in their campaigns.
  
  

To bring the tool to life, Gary from PetProov walked delegates through the online IHA platform, which PEIA helped connect into the project. Built largely pro bono, it uses PetProov’s expertise in identity checks, data tracking and verification to deliver a one-minute digital assessment that also captures useful trend data (such as breed, breeder details and local authority).

Early indicators are promising: around 600 assessments have already been completed, with an average user satisfaction score of 8.6/10. Frontier Economics has assessed the IHA as a low-cost, highly effective way to change public behaviour and improve animal health and welfare. APGAW is now working on a cat IHA, with interest from governments in Wales, Scotland and internationally.

For insurers, the potential is obvious: healthier dogs mean fewer avoidable surgeries, lower long-term vet bills, less pressure on rescue centres – and, ultimately, more sustainable pet insurance products. Marisa explicitly linked this to the UK’s £8bn pet market and the need to protect it for both economic and public health reasons.

Behaviour as a Predictable Risk Factor: Why Prevention Belongs in Insurance

Jo Middleton, Director of the International Institute of Canine Ethics (and Head of the International School of Canine Psychology), brought a behavioural-science lens to one of the hardest areas for insurers to influence: incidents that become high-severity claims.

Her central point was simple but powerful: behaviour is both predictable and modifiable — which means it should be treated as a risk factor that can be addressed before an incident becomes a claim.

Jo challenged the idea that premium and underwriting decisions should be driven largely by breed and age alone, arguing that the most meaningful drivers of preventable harm sit in a triad:

• The dog (learned responses, fear/anxiety, early socialisation, pain, sleep and nutrition)
• The owner/guardian (handling style, education, supervision, ethics)
• The environment (exposure and management — especially around children and household routines)

Incidents, she explained, are rarely caused by a single factor in isolation.

They’re typically the result of a combination of dog + owner + environment, and many bites stem from fear, stress, anxiety, pain or resource guarding, rather than “aggression” as a headline label.

The “silent trigger triad”: pain, sleep, nutrition

One of the most practical elements of Jo’s talk was her focus on three commonly overlooked behavioural drivers:

• Pain can change tolerance levels and reactions dramatically (in dogs as in humans).
• Sleep quality matters: dogs need significant restorative sleep, and poor rest can reduce resilience and increase reactivity.
• Nutrition and gut health can influence cognition and behaviour — meaning advice and consistency in this area has real risk implications.

Jo described how behavioural “trigger stacking” can build across a day, excitement, overstimulation, novelty, discomfort and fatigue, until a dog reacts in a moment that appears sudden to people, but is actually the predictable end-point of accumulated stressors.

A case example: the domestic setting risk

Jo illustrated how claims can emerge from familiar, domestic scenarios, not “dangerous dogs in public”. She described a post-homing case where a greyhound (new to a home environment) bit a child after the dog had retreated to its safe space and the child entered it, leaning over the dog’s head.

Her wider point: risk is often created by supervision and understanding, not “bad dogs”. Small body-language cues can be missed, especially by children, which is why education, management, and safe-space boundaries matter.

What insurers can do: from reactive to preventative

Jo encouraged members to think about behaviour risk the same way insurers think about home or motor risk: not just paying claims, but reducing the likelihood of loss.

She suggested practical levers insurers could explore:

• Behaviour-aware questionnaires / matrices (routine, environment, supervision, enrichment, handling approach)
• Training and education pathways (recognising stress signs, canine first aid, ethical handling, recall)
• Partnering with vetted ethical professionals (to support rehabilitation and reduce repeat incidents)
• “Lower your premium” incentives linked to completed learning, verified training, or behaviour support
• Post-incident review and support that aims to prevent recurrence, not just handle the claim
  
  

Jo also highlighted a systemic challenge: the dog training/behaviour space is not consistently regulated, which makes ethical, evidence-based partnerships especially important.

Why it matters: claims, reputation, and ethics

Jo framed the return on investment in three layers:

• Commercial: fewer preventable claims, lower legal/medical settlements, and more predictable risk
• Brand: stronger positioning as a supportive, welfare-led insurer
• Ethical: promoting public safety, responsible guardianship, and better welfare outcomes
  
  

Her closing message landed strongly with the room: dogs aren’t “the liability”, unmanaged behaviour and unmanaged environments are. If insurers can help shift the system around the dog, outcomes change for everyone

CMA Remedies Through an Equine Lens

Bringing the conversation back to regulation and day-to-day practice, Angela, an equine vet, co-founder of PetScribers and elected member of BEVA Council – and a PEIA member – explored what the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) veterinary remedies could mean for equine practice.

Angela reminded the room that:

• The CMA’s provisional analysis is based largely on small animal practice, yet equine work is structurally different. Owners often use multiple vets (general, sports horse, reproductive, dentistry), with shared records and more dispersed, ambulatory practice models, patchy connectivity and highly variable procedure costs.
• Insurance penetration is low and many owners self-fund, and insurance limits have barely shifted while veterinary costs have increased substantially – placing equine insurance “on a knife edge”.
• CMA proposals on written prescriptions and fee caps raise practical concerns. A suggested £16 cap for written prescriptions may not reflect the time and administrative burden, especially when prescriptions must often be issued from the field without easy access to practice systems. BEVA supports transparency and competition in medicines supply, but argues that fees should realistically reflect the work involved and that secure digital prescription tools will be essential.
  
  

The equine perspective reinforced a key PEIA message: one-size-fits-all regulation can have unintended consequences. Species-specific nuances, practical realities on the ground and the economics of different types of practice must all be understood if remedies are to support, rather than undermine, sustainable care and insurance.

Microchips, Data and the Next Phase of Collaboration

Sharon’s update also highlighted growing momentum around microchip reform and data sharing. Conversations with Phil McKinnon and the microchip database sector have shown that, while the landscape is fragmented with 20+ databases, there are powerful opportunities to use what already exists more intelligently.

Ideas discussed included:

• Linking live policy information to microchip records to flag where multiple policies exist on a single chip – an immediate potential fraud red flag.
• Using microchip data, together with tools like the IHA, to better understand breeding patterns, welfare risks and insurance outcomes.
• Exploring how PEIA members can collaborate with microchip operators, PetProov and others to build more robust, shared datasets that support both welfare and sustainable insurance.
  
  

This sits alongside wider data-driven initiatives PEIA is developing, including a data and insights working group and closer ties with NAPHIA to share international insights.

Looking Ahead

In closing, Sharon and the PEIA team set out what comes next. The Forum series will continue in 2026, with upcoming sessions already planned to feature:

• Dave Martin, Head of Animal Welfare at IVC Evidensia, on welfare insights and insurer–vet collaboration.
• Phil McKinnon on the “journey of the microchip” and how better utilisation could support both welfare and insurance.
• Mark Pilkington (Equus Claims Management) on horse and dog liability claims.
• Rich Thatcher (NAPHIA) on working together across the Atlantic. TBC

The 2 December forum was recorded so that slides, summaries and key resources – including information on Ruby’s Law, the IHA and CMA responses – can be shared with members via the PEIA website.

What was most striking, though, was the tone in the room. Whether they were actuaries, claims managers, underwriters, vets, technologists or campaigners, attendees kept returning to the same core ideas:

• Animals are not just “risks”- they are sentient beings at the heart of family life.
• Sustainable insurance depends on prevention, data and collaboration, not just pricing.
• Vets, insurers, regulators and welfare organisations have far more to gain by working together than by operating in silos.
  
  

PEIA exists to hold that space. This forum showed how powerful it can be when the whole ecosystem is willing to sit round the same table, and stay there until real change starts to happen.