H & H insurance article

[minesadouble]

Has anyone else read this? I have to say that after reading it I think the best thing for me to do is cancel my horses' insurance policies and save myself £100.00 per month. The way it reads it seems almost unusual to get paid the value of your horse if it is PTS unless it is involved in a major catastrophic incident!
I have just been on the BHS website to check out their gold membership public liability cover and think that I may as well join the BHS and save my £1,200.00 per year to pay for any eventuality that may occur!!

 

[charlimouse]

That is exactly what I do, I am a BHS Gold member, so I have public liability. I was quoted £6000 a year to ensure just one of my eventers!!!! I think the total was going to be £10,000 a year to ensure all my horses. In the 3 years I have been without insurance, I have only had about £1000 of vets bills, so I have saved myself £29,000!!!!!!!!! Which is more than what the insurance would have payed out if one of my horses was injured or PTS. I have made a completly seperate bank account where I put the money I would be paying on insurance, so it is gaining interest, but there if I should need it.

 

[The Bouncing Bog Trotter]

I'm so glad you posted in this. I read the article last night and was very concerned about the death cover. If I read it right, my horses are only covered for death if they suffer a catastrophic injury and are PTS immediately. Recently my 2yold was kicked in the field and we thought her stifle was fractured. She was taken to horspital for xrays and thank goodness she was ok. But, reading this article, if she hadn't been and she was PTS, I wouldn't get paid out for her death.

If I read the article right, you only get paid out for death in these circumstances if you have Loss of Use Cover. I use both Petplan and NFU and I'm going to write to them for clarification.

With 3 horses to cover, BHS membership and a special credit card/bank account sounds a good idea.

I look forward to seeing what answers you get.

 

[ladyt25]

I have not read the article but from what you have said it sounds as if it's rather misleading and causing undue panic.

As an equine underwriter I get to see a lot of the claims we deal with and I can't say there are many cases where the total sum insured of a horse hasn't been paid out on death.

The reason for euthanasia does have to be in accordance with BEVA guidelines though so therefore the vet basically has to say this is the only option for the horse. There are often cases of people who do elect to have their horse PTS when it wasn't actually necessary. For example the horse has arthritis or something similar - it is not going to be able to be used for say showjumping but is perfectly capable of being retired to grass or being used as a hack.

If the policyholder decided they didn't want to keep the horse and decided well they'd just have it PTS and claim the death money to get a new horse then NO this would not be covered! IF that same person had Loss of Use cover then the death WOULD be covered

Yes insurance can be expensive and it's entirely down to the inidividual whether they have it or not I can perfectly understand putting money away in savings but the thing with insurance is, it always seems expensive but when you need it you're glad you have it! It just sounds like this article has not been very well written if the impression you get is that insurers do not want to settle claims.

What i think maybe people need to understand is just how many fraudulent claims insurance companies have to deal with. It is the fault of these fraudulent claimers that insurers now do question people a fair bit more when a claim is submitted.