euthanasia due to insurance excluded condition

H

happy_talk

Well-Known Member
Joined
27 August 2007
Messages
521
Visit site
Just pondering, what happens if you choose to euthanise a horse for a condition that has previously been treated under insurance. The condition was not resolved after 1 year of the claim, the condition/area of the horse has been excluded from the insurance renewal. It is in the best interest for the horse/all that the horse is euthanised... will the insurance pay out for the loss of the horse?
 
i've had a look at SEIB T&Cs (1st ones I found online)- and as I understand it, no they won't pay.

Anybody with any real experience?
 
Unlikely. Insurance companies tend to pay out for loss of horse if humane destruction is the only option available. There should be a list on the BEVA website detailing what constitutes immediate euthanasia on humane grounds; this list even excludes some life-threatening conditions (in which case, vets can recommend euthanasia and perform a post-mortem to show that the horse would be unlikely to survive treatment/surgery). Even in the case of surgical colic in a horse covered for this eventuality, the insurance companies tend to provide cover for surgery but not for euthanasia should the owner elect not to send the horse to a referral centre for further work-up.

Elective euthanasia outside of these circumstances rarely, if ever, allows one to claim back the horse's value.
 
Any exclusions I have ever seen on a policy have only been listed in the vets fees section, therefore previous conditions should not effect a pay out on death.

However insurance companies will only pay out on death if it meets BEVA guidelines, as in the horse is suffering and there are no other options. Not just because you don't have the money to continue paying for vet treatment now it is excluded.
 
Think its probably in the small print. My friend got the cost of destruction covered for colic even tho it was excluded, but horse had to be destroyed under humane grounds, regardless of what the insurance exclusions were he was not treatable, & if not pts would have died anyway.
 
I sadly do have direct experience of this and Petplan most definitely did not pay out on his death :( He had been previously treated and over a year before so had exclusions on his stifle. They would not pay out as he was excluded for the stifle even though he was destroyed and his condition met BEVA guidelines.

Had he NOT been excluded they would have paid out. Don't be fooled into thinking the exclusions only cover veterinary fees but you will be covered for loss of the horse. It just doesn't work like that :( :(
 
My guess would be yes. My understanding of being pts under 'humane grounds' means if a horse is not expected to make a recovery sufficient for it to live a good quality of life, if its pain cannot be controlled, if there is no hope of a full recovery. If the horse in question has to be pts on 'humane grounds' in accordance with BEVA protocol then if you have 'loss of horse' on your policy (which everybody does you will get paid out regardless of whether the condition occurred after the end of your 12 months worth of treatment under that claim.

Many people get confused between loss of use and loss of horse and in the case of loss of use this is a whole different kettle but the term pts under 'humane grounds' would still apply if the horse qualified under the criteria set out by BEVA.

Even non life threatening conditions can be included. For example my previous horse was pts under 'humane grounds' as he was a wobbler at the age of ten and could not be helped as he was too badly affected. He could have fallen on anyone at any time or fallen in the field and been unable to rise so was therefore deemed unsafe and his quality of life poor, and his prognosis extremely poor. I got paid out for him.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
applecart14 said:
My guess would be yes. My understanding of being pts under 'humane grounds' means if a horse is not expected to make a recovery sufficient for it to live a good quality of life, if its pain cannot be controlled, if there is no hope of a full recovery. If the horse in question has to be pts on 'humane grounds' in accordance with BEVA protocol then if you have 'loss of horse' on your policy (which everybody does you will get paid out regardless of whether the condition occurred after the end of your 12 months worth of treatment under that claim.

Many people get confused between loss of use and loss of horse and in the case of loss of use this is a whole different kettle but the term pts under 'humane grounds' would still apply if the horse qualified under the criteria set out by BEVA.

Even non life threatening conditions can be included. For example my previous horse was pts under 'humane grounds' as he was a wobbler at the age of ten and could not be helped as he was too badly affected. He could have fallen on anyone at any time or fallen in the field and been unable to rise so was therefore deemed unsafe and his quality of life poor, and his prognosis extremely poor. I got paid out for him.
Click to expand...

This ^^

It has to be humane grounds - a horse with an unsoundness which is not inhumane doesn't count - until, presumably, it is inhumane to keep it alive. In the meantime, I think you would be expected to 'treat' the horse at your own expense, if the ins. cover on it has expired, or have it pts sooner than that and take the subsequent loss, also.

This happened to some friends. To keep a slightly lame horse with no hope of return to soundness or saleable value just wasn't viable, so they took him to the hunt... Ins. co wouldn't pay as he 'could have' gone as a field companion (except that he was a liability on total turnout and no work :( )
 
Last edited:
interesting isn't it! where's an insurance expert when you need one!

when discussing I do mean loss of the horse - not loss of use.

Having read a few different things, I don't think they would pay as I think most policies have a clause whereby an illness or disease initiating prior to the start of the cover (more than 1 yr) are not covered. It is not a veterinary emergency- more of a terminal disease.
 
I have been in that situation. I claimed for navicular and after a year he was still lame. I had him PTS. They did not pay out.
 
Presumably one would have to insure against death and loss of use, and if the limit is twelve months, then also presumably, the claim would have to be made within that time scale.

Insurance Companies will generally use any path available to avoid making payment, which means that we the public, will have to use any system open to us to succeed in our claim, I suppose.

Alec.
 
happy_talk said:
Just pondering, what happens if you choose to euthanise a horse for a condition that has previously been treated under insurance. The condition was not resolved after 1 year of the claim, the condition/area of the horse has been excluded from the insurance renewal. It is in the best interest for the horse/all that the horse is euthanised... will the insurance pay out for the loss of the horse?
Click to expand...



In a nut shell, for what you have described - no they wont. Your Ts & Cs will go into more detail :)
 
no sorry

If we bother to read the small print (which most of us don't) It is clear that you are only covered for a 12 month period for any claim.
so if you go over this you are no longer covered for anything related to that claim
 
As I have already said I have been in this situation and they did not pay out. I agree re checking T&C's or better still ring them and get it from the "horses mouth".

The whole reason they exclude is so they don't have to pay out for "anything" after the 12 months are up. This includes loss of horse/death.

The insurance companies would go out of business if they paid out on every death even after the 12 months limit is up and exclusions been placed on your policy.

My work involves lots of direct contact with equine insurance companies so I speak from a personal and work side of things.

I know from my work that they would not pay out but when I rang to cancel my policy, the lady on the end of the phone told me I should claim. I knew she was wrong but did as she suggested,Petplan's answer was.....a bit fat NO. The 12 month period had passed and I had the exclusion on my policy. Even though he was PTS under BEVA guidelines there is no way on this earth they would pay out as I had the exclusion for the stifle.
 
My insurance company didn't pay out because my vet wouldn't agree that he was PTS under Beva guildlines even though he recommended that I do it and it was within a claim period. Lame on 3 legs! Navicular in both fronts, hind suspensory desmitis, bone spavin, and a failed kissin spine op that he had been intensively rehabbed for 26 weeks!! He'd had every treatment option available and the steps needed to help the back and suspensory conflicted, one box rest, one exercise. I ended up feeling very let down:(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top