How does insurance work for loans/ part loans?

[soloequestrian]

I've seen recommendations that the owner should always insure the horse, which is sensible in that you know it's actually insured BUT what happens in a loan scenario where the horse gets injured and the loaner was the cause of that injury, for instance taking the horse out in unsuitable tack, it gets loose and gets injured? What type of insurance would cover that? Would the loaner need their own liability insurance or something? Would BHS Gold membership cover the loaner?

 

[Sarys]

I've seen recommendations that the owner should always insure the horse, which is sensible in that you know it's actually insured BUT what happens in a loan scenario where the horse gets injured and the loaner was the cause of that injury, for instance taking the horse out in unsuitable tack, it gets loose and gets injured? What type of insurance would cover that? Would the loaner need their own liability insurance or something? Would BHS Gold membership cover the loaner?

Rider and liability insurance to me is a must for anyone handling the horse. Bhs, pony club, harry hall etc. I would ask loner to have that in place as a minimum

 

[poiuytrewq]

I would always 100% recommend fully insuring a loaned horse. I took a horse on loan from friends and they stated they wouldn't expect me to pay for large vets bills or put him through a lot of treatment if he got injured/ill.
Turned out my idea of a lot of/ invasive treatment and theirs was very different. Thank god I had him well insured because he had ££££££ of treatment and several claims. I don't know what would have happened had he not been insured because it was treatment I didn't really agree with and certainly couldn't have paid for.

 

[Nicnac]

Our loan contract states loanee insures horse with proof sent yearly to owner upon renewal. If not sent loan automatically ends. If owner paying insurance then loanee needs at least 3rd party which could be via affiliation to BE/BD/RC or BHS.

 

[AppyLover1996]

I currently have a horse on loan, I pay the insurance monthly and sent a copy to both the insurers and also the owner, plus I have my own rider insurance too

 

[Polos Mum]

The safest for all parties is that the owner insures the horse for vets fees / disposal / death. When horses get injured the insurance company doesn't do an investigation to find out why / who was to blame (it's not like car insurance in that way). Even if I as an owner do something mad (feed a whole sack of carrots to my beloved on his birthday) the insurer will still pay out on the colic claim (assuming it's covered in the policy).

Poor fencing causes lots of injuries and there is never a bun fight over whether the yard owner is to 'blame'.

If the horse causes a third party injury (damages a car for example) then the person who has suffered a loss (the car owner) can choose to claim against the person in 'control' of the horse at the time or the owner or the yard owner (if faulty fencing was a cause). Most likely they choose to go after the person who is insured as they are most likely to be able to pay up.
If the loaner chooses not be be insured for public liability, No.1 they are daft because it's cheap and simple to do and No.2 there is no risk to you as the owner if your horse is insured anyway.

If neither the loaner nor the owner is insured - IMHO your both daft as it costs c.£60 odd from a choice of providers for wide ranging cover. Albeit often that is cover of last resort - it is still cover.

 

[Goldenstar]

The owner insures the horse and needs third party .
The rider has their own third party to cover the horse when it is under her care or control .

 

[poiuytrewq]

Question to those saying the loaner only needs third party.
In my situation as above. I'd have been screwed and things *could have become really difficult if I hadn't had insurance in place. I believe with full loans its pretty much the norm that the loaner is responsible for vets fees occurred in their care (regardless of reason/blame etc)
Yes, I suppose i could have just said no and washed my hands of it from the beginning but isn't that the kind of thing that gives loaners a bad name.

I maxed out my insurance (twice) got the horse to a point where no treatment was needed for the forseeable future and he was "ok" and returned him in a good place. I'm really not sure what else i could have done but refusing to pay would have been awful.

 

[Polos Mum]

Question to those saying the loaner only needs third party.

I think in your case you knew the horse wasn't being insured by the owner - so that is different.
Someone needs to do it, so if the owner won't then, as you say, sensible for the loaner to do so.

The ideal is that the owner insures (and if part of the deal the loaner pays the premiums to the owner) - so you're right the loaner is 'responsible for insurance' but it is held in the name of the owner so if the horse is returned mid way through treatment - the insurance can continue.

If the loaner holds the policy the owner might not be able to insure for (what will then be) a pre-existing condition. So the owner finds themself with an injured horse and no way of getting insurance cover.

 

[Goldenstar]

I think in your case you knew the horse wasn't being insured by the owner - so that is different.
Someone needs to do it, so if the owner won't then, as you say, sensible for the loaner to do so.

The ideal is that the owner insures (and if part of the deal the loaner pays the premiums to the owner) - so you're right the loaner is 'responsible for insurance' but it is held in the name of the owner so if the horse is returned mid way through treatment - the insurance can continue.

If the loaner holds the policy the owner might not be able to insure for (what will then be) a pre-existing condition. So the owner finds themself with an injured horse and no way of getting insurance cover.

Exactly

 

[soloequestrian]

Thanks everyone.
So imagine a part loan situation (this is all imaginary!)
Scenario 1:Horse injures itself in the field, don't know why, owner has insured it for vet fees so insurance pays out.
Scenario 2: Horse is being ridden by owner, spooks into traffic, injures itself and there is damage to car. Owner's insurance pays for vet for horse, owner's public liability pays for damage to car.
Scenario 3: Horse is being ridden by loaner, spooks into traffic, injures itself and there is damage to car. Owner's insurance pays for vet for horse, loaner's public liability pays for damage to car.
Is this correct and if so what is the point of care, custody and control insurance? In Scenario 3 the horse is being handled by someone who doesn't own it so why would that come under the direct horse insurance and public liability rather than CCC? Or have I got 3 wrong? Baffled by it all!

 

[Polos Mum]

I'm no expert but if you are being paid to look after someone else's horses then I don't think the standard public liability policy would cover you. You'd need to read the terms of public liability policies but I think BHS one (which I have) doesn't work if I'm being paid.

So if I had a livery here and I was looking after them and they caused damage to a car my BHS policy wouldn't cover me - where as if it was my own horse, or a horse I had on loan it would.
CCC I believe is more for staff on yards.

In a loan scenario, the need for your own insurance is there because you as a loaner can't guarantee the horse owner has the insurance they told you they have. I know of loan situations where the loaner has been paying insurance 'premiums' to the owner when insurance hadn't been taken out !!

It's all grey when it comes to sharers as it could be argued they are paying to ride your horse / or are they contributing to costs - probably down to a court to decide.

 

[terrierliz]

I have one on loan, I don’t insure my own two, I do have public liability. It was discussed and agreed that I would cover up to £5k in vet fees if the need arises.

 

[Muddywellies]

I thought you had to have an insurable interest in whatever you are wishing to insure. Loanee has no insurable interest so surely the owner needs to insure the horse. Loanee would then need their own rider insurance. I would have thought the insurance company would not accept the policy if there is no insurable interest?

 

[mavandkaz]

I have one out on loan. I do not insure my horses (other then public liability).
So it was agreed that loanees would pay for any vet treatment caused by their negligence or field accident. And I would pay for any ongoing investigations and treatment (she has arthritis so may need steroid injections from time to time).
Due to this, they have taken out their own insurance to cover vet fees, and of course the also have public liability insurance, which I have proof of.
At the end of the day, if the horse needed excessive vet treatment I wouldn't expect them to continue the loan as horse is no longer fit for purpose and so it would be my decision on what to do next.

Care and custody insurance is if you are being paid to look after/handle someone else's horse

 

[Polos Mum]

I thought you had to have an insurable interest in whatever you are wishing to insure. Loanee has no insurable interest so surely the owner needs to insure the horse. Loanee would then need their own rider insurance. I would have thought the insurance company would not accept the policy if there is no insurable interest?

If the loan agreement states that the loaner is responsible for vet treatment - the the loaner certainly does have an insurable interest (to protect themselves from vets costs)

You are right that a loaner wouldn't get death payout under insurance - which is why when a loaner takes out insurance the £nil purchase price and loan details are shared with the insurer.

(also another good reason why owner should hold the insurance)

 

[Muddywellies]

If the loan agreement states that the loaner is responsible for vet treatment - the the loaner certainly does have an insurable interest (to protect themselves from vets costs)

You are right that a loaner wouldn't get death payout under insurance - which is why when a loaner takes out insurance the £nil purchase price and loan details are shared with the insurer.

(also another good reason why owner should hold the insurance)

But you need a 'sum insured' . How can that be zero ? (My own horse cost me nothing to buy, but I had to state a value/sum insured for the insurance). Gosh what a minefield.

 

[Polos Mum]

But you need a 'sum insured' . How can that be zero ? (My own horse cost me nothing to buy, but I had to state a value/sum insured for the insurance). Gosh what a minefield.

If you're only insuring for vets fees then the value of the horse is £nil. You aren't insuring for loss of the horse / value of the horse, you're insuring for the risk you have to pay vets fees. If the horse was worth £500 or £50,000 it doesn't make any difference to the cost of the vets fees that the insurer is willing to cover.

 

[Julia0803]

We had a horse on loan. Luckily we insured him. The insurance company knew he was on loan and not ours, it was on their standard list of questions.

Lucky we did as he had about £9k worth of treatment within 12m.

 

[NoodlesHalloween]

But you need a 'sum insured' . How can that be zero ? (My own horse cost me nothing to buy, but I had to state a value/sum insured for the insurance). Gosh what a minefield.

The sum insured can either be for the insurable interest to protect against expensive vet fees or for loss of use so yes a loaner can take out the insurance to just cover the risk of vet fees

 

[Britestar]

I have a loan horse and she's insured by me for vets fees. I have PL.
She has zero value as they wouldn't pay a value on death, as does not belong to me.

 

[ihatework]

For any owners of loan horses I would always recommend the insurance is kept in the owners name and paid for out of the owners bank account. You can always have the loaners transfer the premium to you.

Not only is this so you can ensure that the policy is kept up to date but more importantly for continuation of cover. If there is a breakdown in the loan agreement and the horse is returned to you injured/ill with ongoing vets fees accumulating then you will be covered. If the policy is in an ex-loaners name then ……

 

[starbucker]

Need to be careful as some policies are void if they are double insured

 

[NoodlesHalloween]

Need to be careful as some policies are void if they are double insured

Generally it is only death benefits that you need to be careful as far as double insuring is concerned but some insurance will not have an issue with this and for vet fees you can cover over different policies. I would always explain the situation fully to the insurance company so their underwriters can advise.

 

[maya2008]

In my experience, loanee usually insures. It's more of an issue if the horse is worth a reasonable amount though, as that would be due back to the owner. Then, owner should insure. I kept the insurance on our shetland when she went on loan. Was much easier when she then got ill and came back into my care, as the whole thing was one continuous insurance claim in my name.

Care, custody and control is if the person insured is being paid - so is a business insurance. My sharers/loaners have always had third party to cover them.

 

[Skib]

I have BHS rider insurance for peace of mind when handling or riding the share horse, or hacking a RS horse. But I suspect that I am double insured as I may be covered by our house insurance policy and BHS will only pay out as insurer of last resort (meaning if no other insurance does)
I joined BHS and took it out before my very first hack and have never regretted it.