scats
Well-Known Member
A friends mare was found to have ulcers a few years ago, but during investigation has a lot of tests for various othe things that came back negative. During the process of claiming on insurance, the vets sent across the info which obviously included the horses testing negative for these various things. Friend was then incensed to find that insurance company excluded all these things. She rang and complained and was told that because the vets had considered their could be a problem and it was investigated, then it was in their policy to exclude it, despite the investigation proving fruitless and the horse actually having no medical issues with these areas.
Friend argued that the risk of her horse actually having this problem was surely now significantly lower than a horse who hadn't been tested, yet the untested ones remain covered and hers, negative for the issues, was no longer covered. When you think about it, if insurance companies work on possible risk, it's a bit of a backwards way to do things.
Friend argued that the risk of her horse actually having this problem was surely now significantly lower than a horse who hadn't been tested, yet the untested ones remain covered and hers, negative for the issues, was no longer covered. When you think about it, if insurance companies work on possible risk, it's a bit of a backwards way to do things.