Failed vetting

[ihatework]

I don't insure, partly because of exclusions talked about frequently on this forum. So I have no personal experience. But it seems that you do not have any experience of making a claim on a leg which has an active exclusion for a splint?

So I will stick to my advice to the OP, that if she insures the horse and has an exclusion for a splint, that she would likely face quite a battle to get a payout on, for example, a tendon strain, while that exclusion is in place. So, in her shoes, I would err on the side of caution and start from the belief that the whole leg is pretty much excluded even if only the splint is mentioned. Because it's my impression that's how insurance companies are these days.


Happy, as I say in my signature, to be politely corrected by anyone with actual examples from real life.

Yawn. Horse 2

 

[ycbm]

Yawn. Horse 2

I'm sorry for boring you, but you haven't come up with the example I asked for.

Horse two did not have an active exclusion on a splint. It had the normal 'all pre existing conditions excluded clause' that I believe all insurance policies now have.

I am still waiting for someone to come up with an example of a completely trouble free claim for some other lameness having been paid out on a leg with an active, specific, exclusion for a splint.

I wouldn't be surprised if someone can, from one of the better insurers, but insurance seems so darned picky these days that I wouldn't be surprised if no-one can.

In the meantime, surely it would be safer for the OP to assume the worst if she is going to buy the horse after other posters have told her to walk away altogether?

I've no idea what I've done to annoy you, ihatework. Can you please either put me on user ignore or just keep things civil?

 

[ihatework]

Done. User ignore being activated.
Haven't got time to keep wasting my breath correcting your inaccuracies.

 

[ycbm]

Done. User ignore being activated.

Thank you.