Failed vettings and insurance

[Fransurrey]

The horse I was due to buy failed vetting on two legs, so I've walked away, as I already have two money pits and don't need a third. Vet said insurance would be an issue for him. They still wanted me to take the horse (!), planning to re-vet him with another practice (they weren't happy with my vet). I said no. My understanding is that if a horse has failed a vetting you have to declare this, so a repeat is a waste of time. Am I right?

This is all academic to a point, as I don't plan to buy him, now, but I do suspect they plan to sell him to someone else and waste their time and money, not to mention commit fraud.

 

[Mrs. Jingle]

In recent years when I have insured a horse I have had to actually send the insurers a copy of their pre purchase vet exam so in my case a 'failed' vetting would have most certainly have at least lead to an exclusion of some sort or outright refusal to insure anyway if the failing was a serious issue.

Not sure if it i fraud if to their knowledge the horse is sound, but your vet has found issues with it, if their vet has no record of treatment etc. would it still be fraud? Interesting point but a salutary lesson to get a decent vetting done on intended purchase if you dont have the funds to lose your money completely or even treat the horse when it gets sick or sorry after purchase.

 

[ihatework]

If he was re-vetted and passed I’m not sure why it would be an insurance problem. Vets and vetting can be really subjective.

You have decided you trust your vets opinion, that is what you have paid for and you are walking away. All fine. Leave the sellers to do what they think is best for their horse in their circumstances.

 

[Shay]

You often have to provide a copy of the PPE - but if he was re-vetted and found sound then I agree - it won't automatically be an insurance problem. You would provide the sound PPE. Neither the new vets, nor the insurance company, would know about a different failed vetting. The only complication might be if you then use the same parctice as for the failed vetting as your usual practice. They would then have an obligation to declare that they had seen the horse whilst with a previous owner.

 

[BlackRider]

Well my horse passed the vetting, but the vet had added a couple of minor comments (that did not detract from his soundness) which resulted in all sorts of exclusions!

 

[Carrottom]

You often have to provide a copy of the PPE - but if he was re-vetted and found sound then I agree - it won't automatically be an insurance problem. You would provide the sound PPE. Neither the new vets, nor the insurance company, would know about a different failed vetting. The only complication might be if you then use the same parctice as for the failed vetting as your usual practice. They would then have an obligation to declare that they had seen the horse whilst with a previous owner.

The problem here is that an insurance contract is one of utmost good faith, meaning that you have a duty to disclose anything in your knowledge that might affect the underwriter's decision whether to take on the risk or change the terms at which they insure. Failure to disclose anything gives them the right to decline any claim.

 

[stormox]

You made your decision not to have him based on your vets report. Fair enough. But why do you think its committing fraud to sell him to someone else? Another day another vet- he may well pass. A vetting is only a snapshot in time.......I have sold horses before that have failed the vet with one buyer and passed when vetted a few days later for another buyer....

 

[be positive]

Horses can "fail" vettings for numerous reasons, many of which will resolve quickly so if this horse is checked by a different vet and found to be sound then offered for sale again there is no fraud involved and no reason to think they are wasting anyones time or money, if their vet finds an issue then they have the option of treating it before trying to resell.
If every horse that failed to pass a vetting was written off there would be a serious shortage available, I have had a few fail to pass that flew through the next vetting, it may be something as simple as a bruised foot that requires a few weeks off.
You obviously need to go with your vets advice but unless he diagnosed an issue, which is tricky under vetting conditions, it may be something and nothing once checked out and certainly nothing to do with any future insurance.

 

[Fransurrey]

You made your decision not to have him based on your vets report. Fair enough. But why do you think its committing fraud to sell him to someone else? Another day another vet- he may well pass. A vetting is only a snapshot in time.......I have sold horses before that have failed the vet with one buyer and passed when vetted a few days later for another buyer....

Not fraud to sell him to someone else, but when I called two companies to get quotes (pre PPE), they explicitly asked me if the horse had ever failed a vetting, so I assumed that if the vendors know this and don't disclose to a new purchaser, it would be some sort of fraud. Asked people on yard what they thought and none of them have gone on to buy a horse after a second vetting a week after the first.

I don't intend to act on it in any way. The two lame legs were noticeable and because of the price I didn't go any further - he was a lot of money for an unproven horse, so I wasn't willing to gamble. If the lameness had been unnoticeable by me, I might have acted differently, hence the question, as I'm still looking!!

 

[Fransurrey]

Horses can "fail" vettings for numerous reasons, many of which will resolve quickly so if this horse is checked by a different vet and found to be sound then offered for sale again there is no fraud involved and no reason to think they are wasting anyones time or money, if their vet finds an issue then they have the option of treating it before trying to resell.
If every horse that failed to pass a vetting was written off there would be a serious shortage available, I have had a few fail to pass that flew through the next vetting, it may be something as simple as a bruised foot that requires a few weeks off.
You obviously need to go with your vets advice but unless he diagnosed an issue, which is tricky under vetting conditions, it may be something and nothing once checked out and certainly nothing to do with any future insurance.

I see your point, but this was an odd action with two opposing legs on a young horse that hadn't done much. Definitely not a bruised sole. Looks like it's a rather grey area!!

 

[Ambers Echo]

The contract is between the vetting vet and the prospective buyer. The vetting vet actually needs the buyers permission to disclose any issue to the seller and the seller won't get a copy of the report. Even if they ask for it. (I wanted to see Max's). So I can't see how the seller can be held responsible for formally disclosing the issues if they aren't even legally entitled to know about them. But I agree the whole area is confusing. I find it odd that you can get insurance without a vetting at all but if you have a vetting you may get all sorts of exclusions. Which is one of the many things that puts me off having horses vetted.

 

[w1bbler]

I checked with insurance company when I had one fail on a minor lameness that vet thought was worth re-vetting in a couple of weeks.
No idea how the insurance would find out you had a failed vetting, but you are supposed to disclose it & the details of both vettings would be taken into account. If using a different practise would seem fairly unlikely the insurance would ever discover, but it would be fraud not to disclose & if found out that effects every insurance not just horse

 

[Goldenstar]

The sellers are not committing fraud by continuing to try to sell the horse.
I do think any insurance company that gives cover on a horse without a five stage vetting needs it head examining

 

[stormox]

I think if an insurance company asks a buyer if their new horse has ever failed a vetting it means with that buyer.
I fail to see how any previous vettings, passes or fails, can be known as any vetting is between the person that pays for the vetting and the vet. The result may not even be known to the seller.

 

[ROMANY 1959]

My sons last horse, came out of polo and into Polocrosse . She was noted to be. One tenth lame on a circle on left fore, but I knew the seller, and knew the horse had hardly ever been lame apart from abcess and throwing a shoe now and then. We bought her and never had a days lameness in 4 years of owning her. That leg and the other fore were excluded, as Ins company said if left was not right , then the other fore leg would compensate . She is with a new owner now , we sold her 2 years ago. We keep in touch and still never been off with lameness . It all depends on why the vet thinks said horse is lame.

 

[Fransurrey]

I think if an insurance company asks a buyer if their new horse has ever failed a vetting it means with that buyer.
I fail to see how any previous vettings, passes or fails, can be known as any vetting is between the person that pays for the vetting and the vet. The result may not even be known to the seller.

Ah, see I didn't know that the seller doesn't always know the result. This is the first vetting I've attended and the owner was there. It's all been very educational, for sure!

 

[sportsmansB]

I was selling a lovely 5yo horse who was sound as a bell. One vet came and on a particular pinch test to the top of the tendon on a foreleg he didn't react the way the vet wanted. He hadn't even trotted up at this stage, the vet said he wouldn't go any further, advised the horse to be box rested for 2 weeks and he would come back. I didn't box rest the horse as I think its unnecessary stress on a sound 5yo, he came back in 2 weeks and horse reacted the same way. Buyer loved the horse and I offered to have him scanned and revetted at a well respected practice. He passed with flying colours and scans came back clear. That buyer still took him, I still don't know what the first vet was thinking - but it certainly made me realise that one vets opinion shouldn't write off a horse.
Not saying your vet was like the one above, just that someone selling a horse is not necessarily committing fraud due to a failed vetting. If that purchaser hadn't bought my horse, I wouldn't have told other potential customers about it either.