Barefoot and Insurance

SpottedCat

SpottedCat

Well-Known Member
Joined
18 May 2007
Messages
11,668
Visit site
I'm getting quotes to renew my horse insurance at the moment, and in reading the small print, I noticed something very interesting - several companies now stipulate that along with having to vaccinate and have a worming programme, your horse must be shod/trimmed by a registered farrier, otherwise the insurance is not valid.

I'm not judging either way - I've watched a KCLaPierre Trimmer and he did a super job, as good as any farrier - and I use a normal farrier myself.

But all you barefoot aficionados might do well to check with your insurance company to make sure you are covered, or you could get a nasty shock when it comes to claiming!
 
I can understand the insurance companies wanting you to use a registred farrier, but how on earth can they prove you worm your horse regularly ?
 
I suspect if you claimed and the cause was a heavy worm burden then they would reject the claim.

I just either buy through my vets or keep the receipts, always have.
 
Mine says that too. Also says you must have your horse's teeth done by the vet or dentist at least once a year otherwise that will invalidate the policy. I think mine says that about farriers as well.

I was with Equestrian Direct for years and the policy always said that, and have just moved over to Amtrust Equine; policy says the same.

BTW, I saw your post about insurance co's SC. I called KBIS for a quote on mine this year and they wanted me to have a 5 stage vetting done plus a signed letter from my vet saying that he would never require any more treatment for his spavins before they would even consider quoting....
smirk.gif
I went for Amtrust because they were realistic and just excluded hock spavins from the policy! They weren't the cheapest though, Petplan were cheaper but I found them pushy and rude on the phone so didn't go with them.
 
I wasn't aware of that clause Spotted Cat but I use a KCLP trimmer and it wouldn't put me off. Considering Petplan paid out £5000 for the consequences of bad shoeing, and haven't had to pay a penny in the 4 years my horse has been barefoot and trimmed by a DAEP, they ought to be grateful!!
 
I guess I would be wary because insurance companies can and do use these clauses to get out of paying for entirely unrelated things. It's the same principle as needing to tell them about any non-routine vets visits - if you don't and they request your notes they can then quite legitimately refuse to pay for any other claim, related or not, because you did not tell them.

Likewise if they ask for your farrier's contact details and you have been using someone who isn't a farrier, they could, for example, refuse to pay out on colic. Unrelated, yes, but within the terms of the agreement you have with them as I read it...

Just worth knowing because IMO it basically means if you have this clause in your terms you may as well not bother having insurance if you don't use a registered farrier. Maybe I am too cynical though, maybe the insurance company would only use it as a get out if there was a foot/leg/back/muscular issue (which is enough of an exclusion for me thanks!).

Ladylina - there is a clause in most of them which says you have to generally care for the animal properly including but not limited to feet etc - words to that effect basically.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top