WishfulThinker
Well-Known Member
OK, Now do you have to declare every illness/ailment that your horse has received treatment for to your insurers?
As presumably they will if you ever need to claim, see the horses vet records and may refuse to pay out if the horse has had a similar illness before and you haven't declared it. Is that correct?
I am not a negligent owner, but, I do think that some ailments do not require a vet - or at least when on the very low/mild end of the scale they don't- its a waste of time and money.
I am just wondering, as what if a horse is at a yard where they are OTT with vets call outs - in that they call the vet before you, even for small things that dont need a vets call out.
My horse, last year managed to do various things that prompted vets visits. The first was a nail in foot, it was not even 1/2 cm and about 3mm into the frog - horse did not feel it, was not lame and didnt care about nail being removed - in fact I have removed larger stones from his frog. But the yard called the vet - so it is on his record as he had a nail in foot and pouticing etc etc.
This I do NOT view as a better safe than sorry visit - this I view as un needed and a waste of time. I was also a bit riled as to get to out fields you had to go past a building site for the YO new house - so the likelyhood of nail being picked up there was high - it was a building nail, not a farrier one. And after this insident they changed the routes to the field.
2nd was mild colic. Caused by him (against my orders!!) being put into a lush paddock from what was almost a starvation paddock - I know the dangers of good doers and laminitus etc and so was erring on the side of caution. All the other horses also had mild tummy upset and gurgles...........but they didnt have the vet out. He was fine after 3 hours, and yes it is better to be safe than sorry, but they described his behaviour and to be honest if it had been me dealing with him I wouldnt have called the vet, but I would have walked him about and monitored him.
So now he has Colic on his record - he has never had any upset since.
During the foot visit a caugh was picked up and he was treated as having a respitory illness and on ventipulmin - which did sod all, but I had my suspicions about the cause of the difficulties and so told vet he was better - it was to an extent, especailly if he was kept in. It was the butter cups.
We moved a month or 2 later and he never cughed again.
Now, I know we do have to be vigilant, and give our horses the best care............but I am of the school of wait and see with minor ailments. So I would not have - if asked - had the vet out for these issues. However he was under the care of a sharer at the time, and also the yard rules are that if the owner isnt there the vet is called - even BEFORE the owner is called, so you have no say.
So................I havent told my insurance - and as he is on loan theloanee has not told the insurers about these ailments as I feel that they were things caused by the environment he was in and he will not be in a similar one again. Dont get me wrong, the yard is brilliant, it just didnt agree with him one little bit.
Am I bad for not telling them? I have paid out almost £350 in fees for these combined things/visits - so wouldn't have even gotten ££ from insurance as had £400 excess.
As presumably they will if you ever need to claim, see the horses vet records and may refuse to pay out if the horse has had a similar illness before and you haven't declared it. Is that correct?
I am not a negligent owner, but, I do think that some ailments do not require a vet - or at least when on the very low/mild end of the scale they don't- its a waste of time and money.
I am just wondering, as what if a horse is at a yard where they are OTT with vets call outs - in that they call the vet before you, even for small things that dont need a vets call out.
My horse, last year managed to do various things that prompted vets visits. The first was a nail in foot, it was not even 1/2 cm and about 3mm into the frog - horse did not feel it, was not lame and didnt care about nail being removed - in fact I have removed larger stones from his frog. But the yard called the vet - so it is on his record as he had a nail in foot and pouticing etc etc.
This I do NOT view as a better safe than sorry visit - this I view as un needed and a waste of time. I was also a bit riled as to get to out fields you had to go past a building site for the YO new house - so the likelyhood of nail being picked up there was high - it was a building nail, not a farrier one. And after this insident they changed the routes to the field.
2nd was mild colic. Caused by him (against my orders!!) being put into a lush paddock from what was almost a starvation paddock - I know the dangers of good doers and laminitus etc and so was erring on the side of caution. All the other horses also had mild tummy upset and gurgles...........but they didnt have the vet out. He was fine after 3 hours, and yes it is better to be safe than sorry, but they described his behaviour and to be honest if it had been me dealing with him I wouldnt have called the vet, but I would have walked him about and monitored him.
So now he has Colic on his record - he has never had any upset since.
During the foot visit a caugh was picked up and he was treated as having a respitory illness and on ventipulmin - which did sod all, but I had my suspicions about the cause of the difficulties and so told vet he was better - it was to an extent, especailly if he was kept in. It was the butter cups.
We moved a month or 2 later and he never cughed again.
Now, I know we do have to be vigilant, and give our horses the best care............but I am of the school of wait and see with minor ailments. So I would not have - if asked - had the vet out for these issues. However he was under the care of a sharer at the time, and also the yard rules are that if the owner isnt there the vet is called - even BEFORE the owner is called, so you have no say.
So................I havent told my insurance - and as he is on loan theloanee has not told the insurers about these ailments as I feel that they were things caused by the environment he was in and he will not be in a similar one again. Dont get me wrong, the yard is brilliant, it just didnt agree with him one little bit.
Am I bad for not telling them? I have paid out almost £350 in fees for these combined things/visits - so wouldn't have even gotten ££ from insurance as had £400 excess.
