Insurance is a complex business. Underwriting a policy for an individual involves gathering lots of personal and demographic information, medical data, and a solid understanding of lifestyle, habits, and hobbies. It’s precise, statistical work that really digs into the minutiae, except when it comes to nicotine.

Vapers and pouch users in the UK are used to being messed around by various institutions. But there is something particularly galling about being put into the same risk category as a smoker when you’re not a smoker. Indeed, policy seekers who are listed as smokers can, according to industry data, expect to pay somewhere between two and four times higher premiums.

Which insurance companies penalise non-smoking nicotine users in this way?

I had a good look at different insurance providers, and sadly, the vast majority hike up premiums on any nicotine user, even if they don’t actually smoke. Some of the big firms and insurers, such as Legal & General, Vitality, Zurich, and the Post Office, classify non-smokers as people who are completely free of nicotine for over 12 months.

During my research, I didn’t find any insurer, even specialists, who offered non-smoker rates to people using harm reduction products.

Can you just not disclose that you vape?

While it might seem like a good idea to fight this lack of fairness, it’s not recommended. You have to disclose to insurance companies that you use nicotine, even if it's in the form of harm reduction products like vapes or pouches. Failure to do so could see a further claim denied or reduced if they find out you are a vaper.

Non‑disclosure of material information is one of the main reasons insurance claims get declined. Mainstream UK guides say insurers can and do request urine or saliva cotinine tests as part of medical screenings to confirm smoking or vaping status. These tests are more likely to happen if you claim a significant sum, but your application throws up some inconsistencies.

As always, honesty is the best policy.

Why do insurance companies do this to safer nicotine users?

While it's easy to criticise insurance companies as cash-grabbing monsters, it’s important to look at the factors behind these unbalanced policies. Here are their main reasons:

  • Traditional smoking has high rates of illness and mortality. As we’ve all seen in several studies, the effects and damage of long-term smoking can still show up in users for some time, even if they have quit through vapes or pouches.
  • Insurers are a cautious bunch. They’re just as susceptible to the “we don’t have enough data” arguments as politicians and the media. Indeed, these people would probably require aeons of longitudinal research on the impact of pouches or vapes before they’d move an inch on their policies.
  • In the world of insurance, over-pricing is safer than under-pricing. Additionally, if all the insurers are treating vaping and smoking as the same, there is little incentive for one company to stick its neck out and serve harm reduction product users.
  • People who use vapes or pouches are typically ex-smokers. As such, they are more likely to return to smoking than policyholders who have never smoked.

Final thoughts

As the data comes in, it’s clear that vapes and pouches are far safer than smoking. However, the word doesn’t seem to have reached insurance underwriters. Of course, these people are on top of this research, and they are collecting data on the relative health outcomes of these cohorts. Whether this leads to adjustment in attitudes towards non-smokers is another matter, of course.

Sadly, it’s just another situation where harm reduction behaviours are punished by our institutions. Vapes and pouches should be relatively cheaper and more accessible for non-smokers, and so should insurance.