Failed vetting and insurance

I have bought several vet failures for MrGS to hunt .
These horses had experiance that made them valuable to us ,the epic Moses who failed a flexion test and was obese was one . I gambled that a strict exercise regime and a drastic diet would bring him sound it did and he carried MrGS for many years although the leg did for him in the end .
However I did not expect an insurance company join me in the gamble .
 
It is a tricky one. I have not insured mine, but I have three and one is a veteran so insurance options are limited anyway. Hopefully I will come out in the black financially in the long run. However, I recognise that not everyone is willing or able to take the financial risk and that is what insurance is for. Have you tried ringing a broker - e.g.https://www.seisinsurance.co.uk/. They are usually much better than filling in the online forms. It may be that an exclusion is applied to the policy. I know of one horse that sailed through a 5* vetting but died two years later. A vetting is of limited utility even if the horse passes. The good news is that you know a lot about the health of this horse now. Did you tell the vet the reason you wanted to buy the horse and ask them if the horse was suitable for that purpose? It may well be.
 
Hack4fun said:
It is a tricky one. I have not insured mine, but I have three and one is a veteran so insurance options are limited anyway. Hopefully I will come out in the black financially in the long run. However, I recognise that not everyone is willing or able to take the financial risk and that is what insurance is for. Have you tried ringing a broker - e.g.https://www.seisinsurance.co.uk/. They are usually much better than filling in the online forms. It may be that an exclusion is applied to the policy. I know of one horse that sailed through a 5* vetting but died two years later. A vetting is of limited utility even if the horse passes. The good news is that you know a lot about the health of this horse now. Did you tell the vet the reason you wanted to buy the horse and ask them if the horse was suitable for that purpose? It may well be.
Click to expand...

If you are not prepared to take a financial risk then buying a horse is not a great idea, buying a lame one is definitely not sensible, insurance is not going to cover the limbs that are currently showing an issue and unless the OP is dishonest when applying it is irrelevant what the purpose it will be used for, a lame horse, even if it is not easy to see, is a lame horse and without further investigation no one knows whether it is fit for purpose, it may be something and nothing but it could just as easily be the start of something serious and I think the vet may well be going on gut instinct by failing it twice, I believe in gut instinct and would respect a vet that was of similar mind.

One of my liveries was slightly off when vetted, just one front foot taking a few unlevel steps on the turn, he needed shoeing so we thought that was why, vet agreed so we brought him home with the option to return within 2 weeks if he did not come right, after he had been shod he was totally sound so he stayed, the owner did not insure so there was no issue with the vet cert saying about the unlevel strides.
 
I wouldn't necessarily rely on the KBIS Catastrophe Policy - I have just renewed for a second year and this time was asked to provide a veterinary history; and they've excluded colic and any injury to the pelvis and hind limbs - i.e. Most of the benefit of the policy!

My horse has never had colic and had mild hind limb lameness 3 years before the start of the policy which was checked out and has never been seen since! I now have to go through the palava of getting the exclusions removed on what is an accident specific policy in the first place!
 
Not really relevant to OP but I knew an elderly couple once who had a horse they put out on loan, then went lame with spavin and was therefore returned to the owners as the loanee wasn't prepared to bare the expense of getting it sorted and it wasn't insured. The owners were going to insure the horse, wait the deferment period of 28 days and then get the vet out and make a claim as they felt this was the only way the mare could be treated. I said the vet would know it was a pre existing condition never mind the insurance company, they are not stupid and you would have to get it vetted in order to insure it anyway. Never mind the fact they were trying to defraud the insurance company! Never found out what happened as the owners then left the yard to pastures new. .

OP I wouldn't go ahead with this, unless as others have said you get a 0% credit card so have financial backup if it all goes pear shaped.
 
Ceifer said:
I think KBIS will do catastrophe cover without a vetting.
Click to expand...

Surely if you've had a horse "fail" two vettings this would need to be disclosed though? I think non-disclosure under the circumstances the OP describes would be fraud and at best would invalidate the policy if found out, at worst it could land you in a whole heap of trouble!
 
FestiveFuzz said:
Surely if you've had a horse "fail" two vettings this would need to be disclosed though? I think non-disclosure under the circumstances the OP describes would be fraud and at best would invalidate the policy if found out, at worst it could land you in a whole heap of trouble!
Click to expand...
Catastrophe cover is purely for accidents.

The cover is for accidental, external injuries only (i.e. involving an open wound), plus the inclusion of three life saving veterinary procedures; Colic surgery, joint or tendon sheath flushing as a result of sepsis and surgery for pastern or pedal bone fractures.
Lameness cover resulting from the vetting wouldn’t be covered as standard.
KBIS state a vetting isn’t required. If they ask you would have to say but it wouldn’t affect the cover.
 
milliepops said:
I should imagine KBIS still send the same form they do for a normal policy though, where you have to sign to say the horse is fit and well and disclose any pre-existing conditions.
Click to expand...
Maybe. Although it would negate the reasoning for the insurance. I would have said it’s for horses that do have existing problems and the owners want cover for injuries as above.
 
perhaps but I would have thought in order to provide colic cover, for instance, that the insurer would be interested in whether the horse had suffered previous episodes of colic.

I know people that have taken the catastrophe policy out as a cheap option rather than paying up for the normal competition or leisure horse policy, not because there was anything wrong with their horse, just as a safety net with the intention that any other bills would come from their own pocket.
 
milliepops said:
perhaps but I would have thought in order to provide colic cover, for instance, that the insurer would be interested in whether the horse had suffered previous episodes of colic.

I know people that have taken the catastrophe policy out as a cheap option rather than paying up for the normal competition or leisure horse policy, not because there was anything wrong with their horse, just as a safety net with the intention that any other bills would come from their own pocket.
Click to expand...
Very good point.
It would need investigating in OPs case but I’d be querying the Vet first and seeing if an area could be pinpointed as they couldn’t answer the question accurately anyway if the insurance company did ask.
 
Ceifer said:
Very good point.
It would need investigating in OPs case but I’d be querying the Vet first and seeing if an area could be pinpointed as they couldn’t answer the question accurately anyway if the insurance company did ask.
Click to expand...

The horse was lame at the two vettings, no vet is going to pin point a reason without further investigation it is not part of the vetting process at best they could make a guess but most would be cautious about putting that guess on paper, most buyers would have pulled out at this point not be going ahead with the purchase and trying to obtain insurance cover for a horse that may have a serious undiagnosed condition, it would have to be mentioned if the insurance company asked and they would probably question what investigations had been done, they would probably also question why the OP had bought a lame horse.

As GS said earlier she may be prepared to take a gamble but does not expect an insurance company to join her.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top