Most industry watchers understand that insurers have needed to push through steep rate rises in recent years to ensure a profitable and sustainable future.

This is particularly the case in home insurance, where underwriters continue to make a loss, and the personal lines giants have been at pains to stress the slew of challenges faced, from climate change to covid to inflation.

Properties with high flood exposure can expect unaffordable premiums, and the blame for that cannot be placed at insurers’ doors.

But a string of recent news articles indicates some consumers are being whacked by massive premium increases – many times inflation or insurers’ publicly stated expectations – often with no real explanation given.

Some headline examples:

Malcolm’s home cover is up 47% despite rarely lodging a claim. Are Australia’s insurers out of control? (The Guardian, September 20)

Stephanie used to pay $94 a month for home insurance. Four years later, she's paying $600 (9news, September 19)

$32k insurance shock for homes that never flood (The Courier Mail, September 16)

Of course, some homeowners may be underplaying their exposure to risks such as flood.

But insuranceNEWS.com.au is aware of one Melbourne resident, with zero flood risk, whose insurer put through a 100% increase for home and contents. He’d had no claims, and no change to the sums insured, other than a 10% rise the insurer had imposed itself.

This resident went through the internal dispute resolution process, but the insurer declined to give any specific reason for the dramatic rise beyond generalised comments about the factors that can alter a premium.

NSW resident Malcolm Chew, who spoke to the Guardian, had a similar experience.

In fact, his premium rise was even harder to take because he had carried out significant work on his home to reduce fire risk, including adding toughened glass and a sprinkler system under the eaves.

“Their words to me were, ‘It makes no difference [to the premium], but we appreciate the effort that you go to,’ ” he said.

Insurers may feel a few disgruntled homeowners running to the newspapers pose no real threat. But pressure is building.

Union press releases accusing the industry of “gouging” were written-off as ill-informed, but they still got a decent run in the mainstream media and helped contribute to an increasingly hostile atmosphere.

A recent column in the Australian Financial Review counsels insurers that – based on the supermarkets’ experience – they are “better to get ahead” of the price gouging accusation, because “once it is made, it is difficult to shake”.

The column also warns that, with a federal election due before the end of May next year, politicians will be looking for “easy cost-of-living pressure targets”.

We know the federal government is talking to insurers about home insurance affordability and what to do about it, and the final report from the inquiry into the 2022 floods is imminent.

A flood pool is one option, direct subsidies another. Neither may eventuate, but any kind of government subsidisation will bring even greater scrutiny.

A lack of explanation given to those hit by apparently excessive premium rises exacerbates their frustration. And a recent Australian Financial Complaints Authority ruling indicates that if insurers cannot justify such increases, they may be forced to scrap them.

Failing to consider risk reduction work also risks irritating the government. In an interview with Insurance News earlier this year, Financial Services Minister Stephen Jones stressed the importance he places on the issue. He wants to see insurers reducing premiums when homeowners or communities invest in mitigation.

“I’ve got to say I’m a bit impatient on the progress that’s being made here,” he said. “We have got to get this moving.”

Insurers have a right – and a responsibility – to charge premiums that reflect the risk.

But in the current environment, apparently excessive increases without proper explanation are fraught with reputational danger.

The less reasonable insurers are seen to be, the more pressure the government will feel to act. And no industry wants to be an “easy target” in the run up to an election.