315 Consumer Rights Protection: PICC Property and Casualty Becomes the Focus of Complaints; Regulators Take a Strong Stand to Rectify Industry Malpractices

AI Questions · What management flaws are exposed behind the high incidence of complaints against PICC Property & Casualty?

Author: Liu Bai

This image is AI-generated.

Recently, according to media reports, the China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission officially confirmed the 2026 on-site inspection plan for insurance institutions. Several insurance companies and insurance asset management companies have been included in the comprehensive inspection list, and some institutions are undergoing follow-up inspections related to previous rectification issues.

From the published inspection list, the comprehensive checks cover five insurance companies: PICC Property & Casualty, China Life Property & Casualty, Ping An Life, PICC Pension, and Taiping Pension, as well as nine insurance asset management companies. These institutions will undergo full on-site inspections by the China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission and its local offices. The inspection covers key areas such as solvency, business compliance and operational behavior, risk management and internal controls, financial data authenticity, investment compliance, related-party transaction management, and corporate governance effectiveness. This is a systematic assessment of the overall management and operation of these organizations.

Additionally, Taikang Group and its subsidiaries, including Taikang Property & Casualty and Taikang Life, will undergo follow-up inspections to verify the implementation of rectification measures identified in earlier inspections.

PICC Property & Casualty Becomes a Focus of Consumer Rights Protection

As the leading player in China’s property insurance market, China Pacific Property & Casualty Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “PICC P&C”) has not only led in business scale but also become a major target of consumer complaints. Recently, multiple public complaint platforms have revealed issues faced by the company.

In Jingzhou, Hubei Province, a complainant surnamed Zhuang reported at the end of 2025 that when handling subrogation procedures at PICC Jiangling Branch, an insurance officer told him that the process was inconsistent with actual requirements and that communication was poor, raising suspicions of “deliberate difficulties for the insured.” After intervention by the local insurance industry association, the company explained that verification of the authorization letter’s authenticity was needed. However, disputes caused by opaque procedures and poor service are not isolated cases.

On third-party complaint platforms like Black Cat, numerous complaints against PICC P&C focus on “refusal to pay claims,” “abusive clauses,” and “poor service/attitude.” For example, a car owner complained that during the car purchase process, he was forced to buy insurance from PICC Daqing Branch, without signing, confirming, or authorizing, and that the insurance company illegally issued policies and bundled group policies, constituting serious violations. The complainant now demands a full refund, deletion of the policy, and an apology.

Another complainant stated that, due to an elderly person’s accidental operation without facial recognition, PICC P&C silently deducted payments from his bank account every year starting in 2020 until March 15, 2026, when the deduction was discovered. Bank statements show the recipient was Alipay (China) Network Technology Co., Ltd., and Alipay’s records show the recipient as China Pacific Property & Casualty Insurance Co., Ltd. The consumer contacted PICC P&C in Hangzhou, Zhejiang, and was told that PICC has no authority to process refunds and that refunds must be handled through third-party Alipay.

Disputes in the health insurance sector also attract attention. A consumer in Luoyang, Henan, reported that his father, who underwent coronary artery bypass surgery for acute coronary syndrome, applied for a “Renren Ankang” million medical insurance claim with PICC Luoyang Branch, but received a “Claim Denied” notice. The insurer refused to pay, citing the non-disclosure of a skin abscess hospitalization record from four years prior. The complainant accused this of blatantly violating Article 16 of the Insurance Law regarding the “two-year non-pleading period,” and the denial had no medical relevance to the heart condition.

In fact, PICC P&C had previously been publicly reprimanded by regulators for infringing on consumer rights. In January 2021, the former China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission issued a notice revealing that its Consumer Rights Protection Bureau found issues such as failure to issue insurance policies promptly after underwriting, non-compliance with approved insurance rates, and use of obsolete policy clauses, showing a disregard for consumers’ legal rights.

Regulators stated that PICC P&C’s actions seriously infringe on consumers’ right to information, fair transaction rights, and other basic rights, damaging consumers’ legitimate interests. The company will be strictly dealt with according to laws and regulations.

Frequent Litigation Against Property & Casualty Companies

Consumer complaints are just the tip of the iceberg; many disputes that cannot be resolved through negotiation end up in court. Data from the Supreme People’s Court show that in 2025, courts nationwide accepted 392,000 insurance disputes, a 21.3% increase year-on-year; 371,000 cases were concluded, up 17.4%. Among these, property insurance contract disputes accounted for 287,000 cases, a 17.1% increase, with a total case value of 175.96 billion yuan, up 6.7%.

Specifically, Tianyancha data indicates that in 2025, Taikang Online was involved as a defendant in 2,213 court announcements, including 990 for motor vehicle traffic accident liability disputes, 175 for liability insurance contract disputes, and 145 for non-motor vehicle traffic accident liability disputes. PICC P&C was involved in 2,180 court announcements, including 1,453 for motor vehicle traffic accident liability disputes and 149 for subrogation rights disputes. Ping An Property & Casualty appeared in 2,007 court announcements, with 1,138 for motor vehicle traffic accident liability disputes and 147 for subrogation rights disputes.

High-frequency litigation not only consumes significant judicial resources but also damages the companies’ market reputation and customer trust over the long term.

Litigation also occurs between institutions over major contract disputes. For example, Yong’an Property & Casualty was ordered by the Chongqing High People’s Court to pay over 150 million yuan in total for contract disputes with Mashang Consumer Finance, including service fees and penalties, significantly impacting its business performance. Such cases reveal vulnerabilities in some property & casualty insurers’ business cooperation, contract management, and risk control.

In response to industry misconduct, regulatory penalties have intensified. Data shows that in 2025, insurance institutions received a total of 4,694 regulatory fines, with property & casualty companies accounting for over half (2,454), making them the primary violators.

Notably, leading institutions received hefty fines. On February 8, 2025, PICC P&C was fined 4.3 million yuan for violations including improper use of unapproved or unfiled policy clauses and rates, false reporting, and failure to handle reinsurance properly. The total penalty, including fines on branches, reached 11.15 million yuan, and 27 responsible personnel, including Yuan Hui, Zhang Haibo, and Wang Shuguang, received warnings and fines totaling 1.84 million yuan.

Taikang Online also received a “multi-million yuan” fine. On February 8, it was fined approximately 8.23 million yuan for violations such as not strictly implementing policy rates, selling insurance products without proper licensing, and submitting false reports and documents. The company’s illegal gains were confiscated, and the total penalty reached about 10.34 million yuan. Twelve responsible personnel, including Yuan Jin, Zuo Weidong, and Jiang Qi, received warnings and fines totaling 1.31 million yuan.