Methodology

Insurer scoring rubric

Each insurer in our directory is scored on five public, repeatable dimensions:

Appeal friendliness (0–25). Length of the appeal window, clarity of the procedure, willingness to accept follow-up evidence after an initial denial.
Claim turnaround (0–20). Median days from claim submission to resolution, from the carrier's published commitments and verified user reports.
Coverage clarity (0–20). How explicitly the policy defines pre-existing, congenital, bilateral, and hereditary conditions.
Exclusion footprint (0–20). Volume and breadth of policy exclusions versus the median for the category.
Customer-side friction (0–15). Reimbursement workflow, vet-direct-pay availability, required submission format.

Win-rate estimates

Our per-denial-reason win-rate estimates are conservative ranges derived from de-identified user submissions, state DOI complaint dispositions where the underlying denial reason is stated, and our own appeal-letter outcomes where the user reported back. We publish the midpoint and label it as an estimate, never a guarantee.

What our scores do not measure

We do not score on price. Price is a personal trade-off; we display it for context.
We do not score on brand familiarity, marketing spend, or affiliate payout.
We do not weight Trustpilot reviews directly — they are a useful pattern check, not a scoring input.

Reproducibility

Every score is a function of public inputs (the carrier's policy, the carrier's appeal procedure, the state DOI's record) plus a clearly defined transformation. We are happy to share the input dossier for any insurer; email methodology@petclaim.app.