Insurance exclusion - does this seem right?

[JulzS]

Just got my renewal through and I have 2 exclusions added:

1. excluding claims resulting from or connected to the back/spine, and associated soft tissue structures.

2. excluding claims resulting from or connected to spavins.

Background - In the past year my horse was diagnosed with arthritis in both hocks and I have claimed for his treatment. At one point he had a mildly sore back but this was diagnosed as a symptom of the hock arthritis as he wasn't using his legs correctly. He has never had any other back problem.

I am happy (well not happy but you know what I mean!) about exclusion no.2 but cant see any reason for no.1. Am I right to question them and ask for it to be removed?

Thanks

 

[St Nicnaclaus]

Well worth questioning the exclusions and working with your vet to have them removed.

It really pees me off that animal insurance does this. It's the only insurance that gets away with it.

If you claim for a bang on your car, you don't get the rear offside wing and bumper excluded the following year or if your kitchen burns out, they don't exclude your kitchen - your premium just goes up which happens every year any way with horse insurance

 

[lachlanandmarcus]

I don't like the fact they are so quick to exclude a whole section of the horse for a minor thing.

But I don't think the comparison with car etc is valid, since a bonnet once repaired is no more likely to be hit again than one that was never hit, but a horse with an issue in an area probably is, purely statistically. I just think they should be less lazy and more precise in what's excluded and to be fair, make many of the exclusions temporary eg for 1 or 3 years which would show them it isn't a thing that will just flare up or a chronic condition.

 

[JillA]

A similar thing happened to me years ago, with the proviso that I could apply for it to be lifted in a year (I think it was). I did and they refused, and I was majorly hacked off - it excluded both her hind legs, after a suspected slipped stifle as a 2 yr old (no claim just the required notification).
I was muttering about it to a top horse vet and he said fight it, their business is made up of owners like you. I wrote threatening adverse publicity in the equestrian press, particularly as whilst they had excluded a significant proportion of the horse they had made no corresponding reduction in the premium. They lifted it straight away.

 

[Polos Mum]

Definitely worth talking to them and if necessary getting your vet to talk/ write to them so if they insist on something it is much more specific, if anything at all.
It's their job to reduce their liability as much as possible - hence they try it on with large wide ranging exclusions in the hope people won't realise they can be challenged or be bothered to do so.