Exclusions on insurance

[ecrozier]

Just recieved insurance certificate for our new horse. He is about to turn3, so obviously not backed, and never been lunged, so we went for the 2 stage vetting. He passed, the vet was not concerned about anything, but his feet hadn't been trimmed for ages and the vet noted that he had trush in one foor, cracks in both hind feet, and one slightly boxy foot. All of these comments were deemed 'of no clinical significance with correct farriery' and the vet actually told [revious owner that she really ought to have had his feet better trimmed before vetting.
Anyway, his policy has just come back, excluding ALL FOUR FEET! Now this seems ridiculous to me, as he has no history of any problems, and the vet said no reason that he should in the future. Is there any point at all in me phoning them? He has now had his feet trimmed and we have treated the thrush....is it ever possible to get an exclusion like this lifted? And will this exclude the 'inside' of his feet - eg if he ever gets navicular etc? TBH if it does I am tempted to cancel the insurance and put the £40 a month into a savings account instead! I mean how many of horses problems involve at lest investigating the feet!!!
Any opinions/advice gratefully recieved!

 

[Vixxy]

In Norway the exclusions are horrific, how about not covering treatment or loss of use, death for anything leg or back related for any horse????

I use to insure all of my horses when I had a small school here, but then one year I put a claim in for my Sec D with arthritis who in the end had to be put to sleep as he would not despite vets best efforts stop dragging his toe even in walk. Bute illegal here and insurance would not cover any vets bills or death as apparently according to them (not vets) arthritis is an injury not an illness!!!! I spent thousands on vets bills for my much loved much missed saint of a cob my then 5 yr old could ride off leadrein.

I imported Taffs and he wasnt cheap at all and the cost of importing was and still is high (25% vat, standard £500.00 import fee per horse and £1500 transport from UK to here), I thought getting the best policy was protecting my investment rightie ho learnt the hard expensive way, I never saw a penny despite ombudsman saying I should get money but they wouldnt persue, I would have to take to court and my vet give evidence. I just quit and have never insured one of mine again.

 

[CBAnglo]

My horse was due for farrier when I had him vetted - vet said needed shoeing and feet slightly boxy because of crap farrier.

Insurance company excluded all 4 feet as well.

I got the original vet to write a report to the insurance company (NFU) saying exactly what she said to me at the vetting and the exclusion was lifted. You might try the same?

 

[ecrozier]

Thanks all. CB anglo that sounds very similar - our boy had not had his feet trimmed for possibly 4 months....! So no great surprise that they weren't in best condition.
Will call insurers in the morning and investigate what can be done.

 

[ladyt25]

I would agree with CBAnglo, it seems a very daft exclusion to be honest so I would call them and query it and, if necessary provide an additional vet letter.

It may be they will keep the exclusion on for a set period but I would question what IS covered, have they specified any particular condition (ie thrush) or just a general exclusion? That in my opinion is far too broad an exclusion for a horse just having poor feet/thrush they'd be better off applying a shoeing warranty.

At the very least see if you can get a more specific exclusion. If your horse say, got a nail in it's foot, they effectively have that excluded with this wording. Personally I think that's unfair.