Insurance cancelled public liability cover

St Nicnaclaus

St Nicnaclaus

Well-Known Member
Joined
9 May 2007
Messages
9,216
Visit site
Dog (Springer) is lovely but doesn't like anything painful being examined by vets. He's perfectly happy to go into vets but both times he has been injured, he has growled. No bearing of teeth or agression and is perfectly happy to be held by me.
He doesn't growl when being vaccinated or having a health check.

Insurance asked for medical history and the vets have remarked in his history at both visits (2 years apart) that he growled upon examination. Insurance have now written to me stating that they have contacted their underwriters who have cancelled the PL part of his insurance. I can either accept this or cancel my insurance within 14 days. They have not said how this will effect the claim for his recent vet treatment.

A) Is is usual for vets to include behaviours in their medical notes?
B) Is it worth fighting this for a dog who is an absolute poppet and extremely well trained?

TIA
 
Is that insurance in case he bites someone or insurance for any third party claim? If the first I would just accept it, I can’t see how you could fight it anyway?
 
She can fight it because he doesn't growl during the yearly vaccinations and health checks, only when he is being examined when in pain. No other aggression showed, so I would speak to the vets to ask their rationale in writing this in the notes, no muzzle was needed and why did they show the insurance company?
 
That could be really serious. If he did accidentally nip or scratch someone and they got ill from it, you could be faced with a very big claim from the victim.

I would be looking to join some kind of umbrella organisation like the BHS is for horses that has Public Liability insurance as part of your membership. It may be in your house insurance if you check that first.

I would fight it with the insurer, it's unreasonable to expect a dog in pain not to react when examined by a vet. That's just completely normal. He hasn't bitten. He can be muzzled.
.
 
bonny said:
Is that insurance in case he bites someone or insurance for any third party claim? If the first I would just accept it, I can’t see how you could fight it anyway?
Click to expand...
It's normal annual insurance covering vet fees, public liability, etc. Just seems strange that they are willing to insure him for everything bar public liability.
 
@ycbm yes agree that I can get PL insurance via Dogs Trust etc for £25.

I am really surprised that vets would include those comments in a clinical history that is sent to insurance company. I have never seen comments on behaviour in the multiple clinical histories I have seen for horses and know damn well at times vets have dodged a kick! I also know cats can be a nightmare at the vets so do they also include cat tried to scratch me when sending clinical history to insurers?
 
It is very normal / routine to include comments on how an animal has behaved / reacted during examinations in clinical notes so that whoever next handles them knows how they are likely to react as they’re supposed to be an accurate record. It’s normally for staff and patient safety reasons. (Eg in the case of a nervous cat it might state that they prefer to be examined in their basket, need wrapping in a towel for certain procedures, need certain anti anxiety medications before certain types of procedures etc… In the case of a dog it’s normal to state if there’s any parts of examination they react negatively to, if they need a muzzle for certain procedures, if they tried to bite when certain procedures are performed etc).

Some systems will allow things like this to be flagged in a separate section that flashes up when you open the record and doesn’t usually appear in printed/ emailed notes but not all have this functionality (& not all vets use it)

It is expected if history is requested for any reason that a full unedited version is sent

I would say it would be highly unusual for an insurance company to alter your level of cover based on behaviour at the vets when in pain.

Check your T&Cs and if it’s not stated clearly in there then I’d take it to the ombudsman as I’ve never heard of this happening before.

(I mean I have a blooming weird quirk in mine that if I bring the hooligan to work with me for some reason (not that we’re allowed anyway) then he’s not covered for 3rd party liability but if he’s admitted as an inpatient to the same exact place for health reasons then he is 🤷‍♀️)
 
Last edited:
Eugh this is bonkers. I've no advice really, just sympathy.

I was really puzzled at the vet one day when the locum asked if mine needed muzzled for examination. It turned out a previous vet had written a note that she hadn't been happy on a previous examination (in which a thermometer was shoved up her bum). She hadn't so much as growled on that occasion, just yelped (I'd bloody yelp too).
 
Unfortunately most pet insurers (or their underwriters) these days are looking for any and every excuse not to pay out, or as in this case, to refuse or withdraw cover for the most bizarre reasons.

I recently changed insurer and at the end of the existing (fully paid up) policy, cancelled the monthly direct debit. They emailed me to advise that they would cancel the policy - which still had a couple of weeks to run - if I didn't reinstate the direct debit. Now (a) the policy was already fully paid up, so why would I need to pay any more when I hadn't accepted their renewal quote? and (b) the customer can't reinstate a direct debit, this has to be done by the originator (the insurer) and why would I sign up to that when I wasn't going to be using their 'services' again? Couldn't see the point, and told them so. They still cancelled the policy so my dog was uninsured for the last 14 days of his policy even though cover was paid for. Imagine if your car insurer did that? Other customers (there is a Facebook page!) who hadn't cancelled their direct debits at the end of the policy had funds taken which they then had problems getting refunded.

I now face the issue that my new insurer may take umbrage at my policy being cancelled even if for a nonsense reason and will fight any payout - but I'd already set up the policy with them before the direct debit nonsense with the old mob, so what do I do? Fight it with the ombudsman if it comes up I guess.

Sorry for digressing but what I was going to say before rudely interrupting myself is that anything you say or that happens at the vets may be used against you by an insurer. In most cases a vet will back you up in a dispute if they believe the claim isn't related to (for example) a passing comment. A dog growling or yelping under examination is a bit of a tiny straw for an insurer to clutch onto in my opinion; in many cases where there isn't an obvious cause of a problem, the vet will have to try to provoke a response to find pain or discomfort and there are many degrees of 'response' which vets are clearly aware.

The average 'third party' is not going to be sticking anything up your dog's bottom or twisting its legs about!

Sorry for the rant but pet insurance has become a complete nightmare of a minefield of a clusterf*!k and really needs properly sorting out.
 
smolmaus said:
Would an incident at the vet even be relevant to public liability? The vet is not the "public" and would have their own insurance. Not that any of this makes sense, really, but even by their own "logic" this is stupid.
Click to expand...

My PL/travel insurance (I was bored waiting for a ferry so read the whole bloody thing) wouldn't cover anything involving a family member or anyone I was travelling with/part of my party).
 
Vets can't pick and choose what history they send, it's fraudulent to alter or omit any of the clinical notes. And yes, a vet details the whole exam. If a dog growls when its abdomen is palpated for instance, this could be clinically relevant as it may indicate pain there.
I have never known PLI to be refused on the basis of this, but then maybe it happens and we don't hear about it.
 
This has just reminded me that I recently got an email from Napo saying that they wouldn't cover any RTA claims if the dog was off lead in sight of a road. I did query it with them but don't appear to have had a reply...
 
Thanks all - as always some great input and ideas of how to proceed. I will be contacting the partner of the vet group tomorrow to discuss as he may be able to fight my corner with the insurers. It does seem barmy for them to cancel just the PL part of the policy and if HHO hasn't heard of this before either it's new or my insurance company are being dicks.

Really interesting to learn that clinical history includes non-clinical information too.
 
Out of interest would you be willing to disclose which insurer this is?

cbmcts said:
This has just reminded me that I recently got an email from Napo saying that they wouldn't cover any RTA claims if the dog was off lead in sight of a road. I did query it with them but don't appear to have had a reply...
Click to expand...

Now that one I have seen enforced, although it wasn’t Napo, in terms of turning down an RTA claim where the insurer deemed the owner negligent.
 
Just an add on to this, NAPO cancelled my dog's public liability cover after reviewing his vet history as part of a claim. Admittedly he is an almighty sod at the vets and it's only fair that anyone who may come into contact should know that he may bite under stress. Always muzzled and if he has to be left there, he has the gabapentin and trazodone protocol to keep him sedated but his vet records rightly say that caution is required when handling him.

I have to admit that when I got the email saying that they were cancelling his PL, I laughed because it started with 'we're not judging him and understand that he may be scared at the vets but...' (they so were judging him!) and was going to let it go because I'd already had his renewal quote and it was extortionate so was moving to another insurer and he had PL cover under my house insurance. However, I started thinking about how you are always asked 'have you ever had insurance refused or cover withdrawn?' for any insurance quote such as car, house, travel insurance etc and what were the implications if you had to answer yes. Well, I discovered that it means that price comparison websites are no longer an option, quite a few insurers will no longer quote, it's inevitable that prices will be higher and there is a query that it might be recorded on your credit report. It would be very easy to be illegal on something like car insurance because you didn't declare the refused cover with all that that entails. Also PL cover is not just for bites, it's also for damage to property and injury to members of the public such as RTAs or if the dog knocked someone over and injured them.

So I challenged the withdrawal of cover with a formal complaint to Napo saying that it was an unfair decision because
the aggression was situational and only occurred when vet/staff had to handle him when he was already uncomfortable
that professionals were excluded from claiming under PL anyway
that I was being penalised because I was a responsible owner and made safety a priority by being upfront and warning them and taking precautions such as muzzling and using sedation as appropriate.

I did make it clear that I was prepared to take the issue to the Financial Ombudsman if we couldn't resolve the complaint.

In fairness to Napo, they came back to me very quickly, we had a discussion and they agreed to talk to my vet for their opinion and go back to their underwriters dependent on what my vet said. I had offered to accept an exclusion on any claim for aggression. They said they spoke to my vet (I asked, they hadn't) and agreed to reinstate the cover in full - apparently you can't have exclusions on that section of your policy. I'm not sure that they would have reinstated the cover if I hadn't made the complaint formal so putting it under regulatory scrutiny.

I did have a chat with my vet who I have a good relationship with anyway about how records are written as he had recorded conversations we had about previous treatment in quite an ambiguous way that had raised queries from Napo when I claimed. He had responded to the queries and clarified what the entries meant and they did pay the claim but he did admit that recording was something that could be done more clearly.

Despite all the above, Napo are a company I would use again, they paid out 2 big claims for both my dogs in this insurance period, they were entitled to query the records as frankly, many of the entries from both my vets and their out of hours vets were as clear as mud and they do cover previous conditions as long as they haven't occurred in the last 2 years even on a new policy. They also dealt with the complaint fairly and quickly. The only reason I didn't renew was price - with 2 older dogs, the premiums nearly matched the potential cover and was just too expensive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top