Insurance and PTS

J

jillykins

Member
Joined
5 February 2014
Messages
28
Visit site
This is a bit of a rant really, and is also in the veterinary forum. We bought a horse 18 months ago with a 5 stage vetting. Shortly after that we were advised that his pelvis was uneven so a lot of time was spent building him up. He then had a fall jumping, a bout of azoturia, manipulation on his poll under sedation (probably as a result of the fall) and in July this year was diagnosed with ulcers. Following treatment for the ulcers he started going really well. Unfortunately he fractured his long pastern a week ago, with the fracture going into the fetlock. We took the agonising decision to PTS as the thought of 3 months box rest for this boy with all of his previous problems was just too much to contemplate - as it was so likely that some of them would reappear with the stress/confinement.

Because we took the decision to PTS I have been told that the insurance won't pay up. However it was done to save our boy more pain and stress, and although this did not enter our minds, from a financial point of view would be cheaper for the insurance company than the cost of the operation. I know there are plenty of people that would have put him through the operation but we honestly believe that this option would not have been a kind one to a wonderful boy who had been through so much pain in different ways in his short life.

No nasty comments please as it has been an unbelievably difficult week. I just wonder about the way insurance companies work as they would pay up to operate on a horse when it would not be in his best interests.
 
You elected to put your horse down; it was not done under BEVA guidelines, therefore the majority of insurers will not pay out.

I am aware though that KBIS have changed the wording in their policy in the last 12 months and they were kind enough to make me an ex gratia payment towards the disposal costs of a young horse that (similar to yours) had blown the veterinary fees payout several times over and which I elected to have destroyed as I did not believe he would have a quality of life.
 
you wou;ld most likely have been ok if you had spoken to the insurers first however why did the vets not warn you of the consequences. If the vets are saying it needed doing there and then that should be covered by the BEVA guidelines. Are you going by what the insurance company has said or by a third party suggesting they may not pay out.
You also need to talk to the vets about whether they feel you could have a case under BEVAo guidelines as some companies and we all the ones will always initially try to find a get out clause and need sorting out.
 
Thank you for your comments. It was done with his welfare in mind. I don't believe it would have been kind to have put him through more pain and stress which would in all likely hood have brought back ulcers and possibly azoturia, as well as a high chance of arthritis in his fetlock.

In answer to popsdosh, it was the vets who said the insurance would not pay out. Whilst I wish it could have been different I still believe I did the best thing for my boy. I have seen him in pain too many times in the past 18 months to wish more on him when I can't explain that it is for his benefit
 
Last edited:
Shame that the vet could not have spoke to them on your behalf, when mine needed putting down or going for very long and expensive treatment with no guaranties my vet talked to insurance company and I did get part payment and other costs.
Bottom line is you did what was right for your horse and I hope in the future that you get a new horse and have lots of fun times as I did after mine.
 
So sorry for your loss :(
As I understand it, loss of animal insurance is only paid in the event of catastrophic injury or illness, where the only humane option available is immediate euthanasia.
If there are any potential treatment, management or other (like field retirement) options, loss of animal doesn't apply.
I made a similar decision to the one you made and really empathise xx
 
Sorry to hear of your loss & right now it must feel incredibly raw, but what Flicker said. If there is any treatment available, even if unpalatable to you, it doesn't meet BEVA guidelines. It may feel unfair but that is what the loss of use option is there for. If they paid out for such circumstances on basic policies probably few of us could afford any cover at all.
 
I am so sorry for your loss.

I've been in exactly the same position with a horse and my then insurance company - I understand the beva guidelines but I really think there needs to be some kind of other option in there for when the horses welfare is going to be compromised to a degree that isn't acceptable to the owner. Just because we can, it doesn't mean we should.
Most owners ( in my experience) have a line in their heads that they don't think is acceptable to ask of their horse and I find it very sad that in situations such as yours the insurance company can't respect that. Not least from a business point of view - it would save them a fortune !!!

Your horse was lucky to have an owner who loved him enough to do right by him despite the other things.
 
Thats exactly why you should talk to them first! Dont blame insurance companies if the owner does something outside the terms and doesnt clarify it first. Its because of that the BEVA guidelines are in place and they are your guideline. Lets face it you are asking they should pay out everytime an owner deems its better to put a horse down. You see it so many times where owners take out insurance and expect it to cover death under any circumstance. It doesnt and owners would not want to pay the premiums! Like I say really the Vet should have clarified the situation to the owner before going ahead as the owner is not normally thinking straight at that point.
 
My warmblood was put down. Few years ago.
He did not meet the BEVA guidelines and nfu refused to pay.

I however fought their decision and 6 months later they paid out in full.
I stated the animal welfare act and that I would be breaching it if I hadn't have had him pts.

Read the act clearly.
They may well reconsider.

As with all companies.
They will refuse at first and hope you accept it.
Its when people fight a decision they have to think again.


I am sorry for your loss.
 
I am so sorry for your loss, and this thread is incredibly timely for me. I had mine put down on Monday - he had had treatment that required box rest, which I knew would be a challenge, and two days in I made the decision not to put him through it. I didn't even consider trying to claim for euthanasia costs or under death cover, because I knew it wouldn't meet the guidelines - even though the stress was so dreadful it was clearly inhumane. What I find appalling about the guidelines is that, in situations like mine, there is a strong incentive to put the horse through hell until it reaches the point where destruction merits a payout. As it is, I have hundreds to pay for destruction and disposal and nothing in the kitty to replace him (when I feel ready) - I definitely did the right thing by the horse, but not everyone would make that choice because of the way the rules work, and that's horrifying.
 
firstly, well done you for thinking of him first, secondly so sorry for your loose and thinking of you at this difficult time

i am not very good with insurance stuff but a friend had a little mare who passed 5 stage vetting then 6 months on started going lame, 4 years in and many vets and test down the line it turned our she has a crushed disk in her spine, mare was put to sleep as she didn't want to put her through an operation, the insurance refused to pay out and it went to court (small claims i think!) vet who put the horse down was there and spoke and in the end it the court said it was the right thing to do for the horse

best of luck for you xx
 
You did the right thing for your horse. The whole world of insurance is a cold, strange one oriented on profit, and this is an example of why I do not insure mine.
 
Having worked in horse insurance, there are people out there that would choose to put a horse to sleep in order to get their money back off the insurance company rather than end up with a happy but worthless field ornament/hacker or who just can't be bothered with box rest or rehabilitation. The guidelines help prevent this situation, not everyone is a caring person who has the horse's best interests at heart.
 
I had my horse of a lifetime PTS and NFU wouldn't pay out as I didn't first box her down to the vets for an xray. Her hock was broken and the tendon hanging out. They said she might become field sound with an operation and box rest and that I chose not to do that. Fair enough, yes I did, but I was cross. I did offer to get her leg x rayed once she was dead but that was not acceptable.
It would have saved them money as it would have gone to £5k for the treatment, and she was only insured for £1500.
Both I and my vet spoke to the insurers prior to PTS.

I am sorry for the loss of your horse, you did the right thing.
 
Clodagh said:
I had my horse of a lifetime PTS and NFU wouldn't pay out as I didn't first box her down to the vets for an xray. Her hock was broken and the tendon hanging out. They said she might become field sound with an operation and box rest and that I chose not to do that. Fair enough, yes I did, but I was cross. I did offer to get her leg x rayed once she was dead but that was not acceptable.
It would have saved them money as it would have gone to £5k for the treatment, and she was only insured for £1500.
Both I and my vet spoke to the insurers prior to PTS.

I am sorry for the loss of your horse, you did the right thing.
Click to expand...

Was the hock obviously broken before pts? If yes then as far as I knew you had grounds for immediate destruction and the insurance company should have paid out. I had a horse with a badly broken back leg who was also dying of shock and there was no option other than immediate shooting....I guess for insurance companies there are degrees of "broken bones" but for obvious breaks there is no chance for the horse's future.
 
I am so sorry for your loss OP but tbh I believe I know of an even worse situation than yours.

A friend had a 2 yr old with colic, which was taken by trailer to the nearest horsepital, about 12 miles away, in the middle of the night, to be operated on with a 1% chance of full recovery because otherwise the insurance company would not pay out. Needless to say, the filly didn't make it through the op. In the cold light of day, my friend may have made a different decision but at the time she took the attending vet's advice, which was to go.

We have made that decision in advance and that is one reason why we don't insure - that and the fact that even when we did have a mare pts under BEVA guidelines, there were so many hoops to jump through that we gave up. I am of the opinion that insurance companies intention is that the owners will take the responsible decision and thus forfeit the payout.

I think I would question your vet about why they told the insurance company that there was a possibility of recovery from a broken bone for this horse. I would also be wondering if I should change my vet to a more realistic one.
 
Last edited:
Pearlsasinger said:
I am so sorry for your loss OP but tbh I believe I know of an even worse situation than yours.

A friend had a 2 yr old with colic, which was taken by trailer to the nearest horsepital, about 12 miles away, in the middle of the night, to be operated on with a 1% chance of full recovery because otherwise the insurance company would not pay out. Needless to say, the filly didn't make it through the op. In the cold light of day, my friend may have made a different decision but at the time she took the attending vet's advice, which was to go.

We have made that decision in advance and that is one reason why we don't insure - that and the fact that even when we did have a mare pts under BEVA guidelines, there were so many hoops to jump through that we gave up.
Click to expand...

I find it hard to believe that vets would operate on a horse with a 1% chance.
 
YorksG said:
How rude!
You may find it hard to believe, however as I know the same owner and the owner of the yard she was on at the time, I can assure you that it was indeed the case.
Click to expand...

Not rude, just honest, why would any vet advise an operation with a 1 % chance of success ?
 
So sorry for your loss OP. I've been in a similar position - and not aware of the other experiences on this thread - I sought insurance payout and was successful. I had spoken to the insurers before PTS (I had the luxury of time to do this) and my vet was amazing and confirmed to the insurers that while treatment was theoretically possible, it was not on the welfare interests of my horse. I had wanted to keep her - even if fully retired - but it wasn't right for her at all (and sounds like your situ is similar). Can your vet speak to the insurers for you? In my experience it was worth following up.
 
bonny said:
Not rude, just honest, why would any vet advise an operation with a 1 % chance of success ?
Click to expand...
I can think of two reasons without much thought, one would be for the money, one would be for research. However the vet offered the op and did not offer pts under BVA guildlines, rather than advising it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top