> if insurance companies didn't play this silly game with renewals they could keep their own cost's down
Insurance is an odd business where the normal rules of competition don't quite apply in the same way. Renewals are a good illustration of this dynamic.
Year 1: insurers A, B, and C all charge about the same and all have about a third of the market.
Year 2: insurer A increases renewal prices. Some customers stay and some leave. Because A's old customers are paying more, new customers can be charged less.
Year 3: B and C have a problem. If they stick to their old method, they are now more expensive than A for new customers. In addition, their old customers are eyeing up A and thinking about switching.
Year 4: all three insurers are now charging low prices to new customers and high prices to old customers. No one company can stop doing this alone or they will get no new business.
In fact this dynamic applies to almost every feature of an insurance policy. I am sure a few readers here remember when insurers started introducing smoking and non-smoking rates and how quickly the whole industry adopted them: they had to, otherwise they were too expensive for non-smokers, and therefore ended up with only smokers – who of course claim more.
The only solution to these dynamics is mutual agreement, which isn't permitted under competition law, or government or regulatory diktat, as with the abolition of gendered pricing or last year's imposition of renewal pricing rules.