How AI Search Is Recommending RV Insurance: Monthly Trends

Executive Summary

Progressive RV Insurance holds the coverage lead at 75.4% valid recommendation coverage in September 2026, down from 86.9% in July. That 11.5-point decline is a significant movement and marks a second consecutive month of decline for the category leader. The gap to the next brand, Good Sam Insurance Agency at 65.5%, widened slightly from 9.3 points in July to 9.9 points in September, as both brands declined at similar rates.

Foremost Insurance was the standout riser, climbing 7.5 points from 17.9% to 25.4% coverage, a significant movement that represents a two-month upward streak. Its top-three recommendation rate moved from 8.6% to 14.4%. Good Sam Insurance Agency recorded the sharpest decline in the category, falling 12.1 points from 77.6% to 65.5% coverage, while Progressive RV Insurance and GEICO RV Insurance each declined 11.5 points.

The category moved lower across most of the tracked field. Four brands posted significant declines from July to September: Progressive RV Insurance, Good Sam Insurance Agency, GEICO RV Insurance, and Roamly. The single riser, Foremost Insurance, narrowed the competitive distance between itself and several larger brands, with its gap to Good Sam Insurance Agency closing from 59.7 points to 40.1 points over the three-month window.

Each monthly run begins with 800 prompt-surface observations (557 unique questions in September, up from 518 in July) across the benchmark's defined AI/search surface universe. Of those, all 800 mentioned a tracked brand or competitor; 431 were relevant and 369 were irrelevant in September (396 relevant and 404 irrelevant in July). The public metrics use the 264 qualified observations in September (290 in July) that survive both qualification stages. August sat between these points with 559 unique questions and 274 qualified observations.

Key Findings

Benchmark Context

The report separates the raw collection universe from the qualified analysis set. Brand-level recommendation percentages are calculated within the qualified benchmark set.

These stage counts show how the raw prompt-surface collection narrows to the qualified set used for every brand-level metric in this report. Qualified surface breadth held steady at six AI surface families, so the declining qualified denominator reflects collection volume rather than a change in which AI channels are covered. August's intermediate reading of 274 qualified observations sits between the July and September figures.

Benchmark-Level Metrics

The declines in recommendation-shaped answer share and valid shortlist share mean fewer AI responses in September were structured as direct recommendations. August's intermediate readings were 50.0% and 75.9% respectively, indicating a continued downward pattern across the three-month window. The benchmark cannot establish whether this shift caused the coverage declines observed across most brands; it describes a change in the answer-structure distribution alongside the coverage movement.

AI Recommendation Trend

The category leader retained its position while coverage declined across most of the tracked field, with only one significant riser.

The category-level change came from the combination of several significant declines across the upper half of the field, alongside one significant rise. Foremost Insurance's 7.5-point gain was the only movement flagged as significant in the upward direction. No brand exceeded normal month-to-month variation between August and September alone; the significant movements accumulated across the full July-to-September window.

What Changed This Month

Progressive RV Insurance

Progressive RV Insurance remains the category leader but recorded a significant decline in valid recommendation coverage, falling 11.5 points from 86.9% in July to 75.4% in September. The top-three recommendation rate moved from 80.0% to 70.5%, and the rank-one rate moved from 75.2% to 67.4%.

Raw mention presence moved only 0.6 points, from 97.9% to 98.5%, so AI systems still surface the brand almost universally even as recommendation frequency fell. That pattern points to a shift in how often the brand is placed as the leading recommendation rather than a loss of visibility.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which prompt categories moved Progressive RV Insurance from the rank-one position to second or third, and which alternative brand is taking the top spot?

Good Sam Insurance Agency

Good Sam Insurance Agency posted the largest decline in the category, down 12.1 points from 77.6% in July to 65.5% in September, a significant movement. The top-three rate moved from 54.8% to 43.2%, and raw mention presence moved from 83.8% to 75.4%.

The valid recommendation count fell from 225 in July to 173 in September. The bulk of the decline occurred between July and August, when coverage dropped 11.2 points; the August-to-September change was a further 0.9-point decline on a smaller observation base.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which external sources or prompt patterns are associated with the presence decline, and which competitor is now mentioned in the prompts where Good Sam Insurance Agency disappeared?

GEICO RV Insurance

GEICO RV Insurance fell 11.5 points from 44.8% in July to 33.3% in September, a significant decline that brought the brand to its lowest coverage level in the tracked window. The top-three rate moved from 26.6% to 17.8%.

Rank-one placement declined from 1.7% to 0.4%. The valid recommendation count fell from 130 in July to 88 in September. The decline was spread across August and September, with a 7.6-point drop in the first interval and a further 3.9 points in the second.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which recommendation prompts moved GEICO RV Insurance out of the top three, and are particular surfaces or question types driving the loss?

Roamly

Roamly declined 9.6 points from 52.4% in July to 42.8% in September, a significant movement. The top-three rate moved from 19.0% to 11.0%, while raw mention presence declined from 56.9% to 48.9%.

The valid recommendation count fell from 152 in July to 113 in September. The largest single-month move was the July-to-August decline of 7.1 points, with a further 2.5-point decline into September.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which prompts shifted Roamly out of the top three, and which competitor brands are being recommended in its place?

Foremost Insurance

Foremost Insurance was the only significant riser, climbing 7.5 points from 17.9% in July to 25.4% in September. The top-three recommendation rate moved from 8.6% to 14.4%, and raw mention presence moved from 23.8% to 29.9%.

The valid recommendation count rose from 52 in July to 67 in September on a smaller observation base, indicating the brand gained placement frequency across the board. The gap to Good Sam Insurance Agency narrowed by 19.6 points from July to September, and the gap to GEICO RV Insurance narrowed by 19.0 points, as Foremost gained while both larger brands declined.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which evidence sources or prompt patterns are associated with Foremost Insurance's higher placements, and can the pattern be extended to additional prompts?

Small-Count Brands to Watch

Several brands operate on small observation counts, and their movements should be read with caution. American Family Insurance declined from 3.5% to 2.6% coverage, with 7 valid recommendations in September versus 10 in July. The Hartford declined from 4.8% to 3.0%, with 8 valid recommendations. Safeco Insurance declined from 3.5% to 1.5%, with 4 valid recommendations. These shifts are within normal variation for such small counts and should not be over-interpreted.

Competitive Repositioning

The competitive structure shifted notably across the three-month window. The gap between Foremost Insurance and Progressive RV Insurance narrowed from 69.0 points in July to 50.0 points in September, and the gap between Foremost Insurance and Good Sam Insurance Agency narrowed from 59.7 points to 40.1 points. Both changes reflect Foremost's rise alongside declines from the larger brands, marking a repositioning of the category's middle rather than a change at the top.

Buyer-Intent Interpretation

In September 2026, all 264 qualified observations fell into the Brand Recommendation cluster. The benchmark did not capture pricing or comparison prompts in a qualified form, which means the public metrics cannot answer questions about how AI systems present cost, value, or direct head-to-head tradeoffs. Those commercial questions remain open for company-level analysis.

Brand Opportunity Summary

The benchmark identifies where attention is warranted; a company-level analysis is needed to explain why.

Evidence Behind the Benchmark

The aggregate metrics are built from prompt-level observations (query, surface, recommendation outcome, rank, sentiment, and citations where exposed). Company-level analysis can go deeper into prompt, competitor, surface, and evidence patterns. Source presence is not automatically treated as proof of causation.

About This Benchmark

This report is part of the LLM Authority Index AI Market Discovery research program.

• AI Industry Market Discovery
• AI Industry Market Discovery Methodology
• AI Industry Market Discovery Metrics
• AI Industry Market Discovery Standards

Report-Specific Interpretation Notes

• September 2026 qualified observations (264) are lower than July (290); all brand-level percentages are calculated within the qualified set, so percentage changes partly reflect the smaller denominator.
• Small-count brands (under 15 valid recommendations) should be interpreted with extra caution; their movements are directional signals, not proof of trend.
• Raw collection size (800 prompts) is separate from the qualified analysis set; the public metrics use only the qualified observations.
• Month-over-month movement identifies changes worth investigating; it does not by itself establish the cause of those changes.
• The three-month window (July through September) provides the series context for significant movements; single-month changes between August and September were generally within normal variation.

Next Step

The Public Benchmark Shows Where a Brand Is Winning or Losing. A Company-Level Audit Shows Why.

Beneath the aggregate percentage sit the questions that matter for strategy: which high-intent prompts is a brand winning, which competitor takes the recommendation when a brand loses, what attributes do AI systems associate with each option, and which external sources shape those answers. The public benchmark tracks the surface movement; it does not expose the underlying prompt and evidence patterns that drive it.

A company-specific AI visibility audit maps those prompt, surface, competitor, ranking, sentiment, and evidence-source patterns into a prioritized visibility strategy. It identifies not just where a brand stands, but which specific prompt clusters and surfaces offer the highest-value opportunity for improvement.

Request an AI visibility audit