Insurance exclusions: Fair or Trying it on?

[Nasicus]

Just had my Insurance renewal invitation through from KBIS for my 19mo Filly.
They are claiming they will be excluding the following:
Any losses as a direct or indirect result of cut to right hind limb
Any losses as a direct or indirect result of cyst, wart, sarcoid, melanomas (and a few others, basically any kind of skin lump).
And they want to pop the price up £10pm.

Now, I have had two claims on this Filly this year.
May she had a benign, congenital cyst removed from her false nostril, something she'd had from birth. Easy operation, no complications and swift healing.

September, she sliced the flesh on her right hind limb and had two large wounds. Mercifully all the important stuff underneath was completely untouched, and whilst we're only now in the final run of it healing closed, she hasn't had a single jot of lameness the entire time.

Just asking for opinions on whether to challenge these exclusions or not. It seems very extreme to exclude her from any kind of skin thing ever for having a single cyst removed. I could understand if they excluded cysts, but everything?

Would it be worth looking around for another insurer? Her claims have only ever been for superficial things, nothing at all do suggests shes going to have long term problems, but having an entire limb excluded at such a young age?

Anyway, cookies to all those who have read this far!

 

[popsdosh]

They havent excluded the limb just any condition that could be attributed to the cuts previously. To be honest young horses are notoriously expensive to insure as you have found out they get into mischief and things happen.
Was the cyst sent away for analysis as I guess their trying to cover themselves if it was tested and was definitely benign its worth challenging .

 

[Nasicus]

Thanks Pops, I'm pleased that's not an entire exclusion, it's my first renewal where I've ever had to claim to the language is still new to me.

I'm pretty sure the cyst was tested, as they took a sample from the fluid inside it and sent it off to see what it was, bit I don't think they tested the actual exorcised lump itself, not an option that was given to me!

 

[SEL]

It's worth challenging them. When my renewal came through this year they'd excluded ALL genetic conditions after my mare's test for PSSM came back positive. When I pointed out via email that she only had 1 condition they backtracked.

I suspect that if you push back it gets escalated to someone with a bit more knowledge.

 

[Nasicus]

Good ideal SEL. I suppose they're hoping on someone not challenging and just accepting it?

 

[cobgoblin]

I would query what they mean as to the indirect effect of the cut to the hind limb. If the horse becomes lame in that leg in the future are they always going to attribute it to the cut?

 

[Nasicus]

That would be my concern Cobgoblin. The wording does make it sound like she'd be covered if she cut it again, but I can imagine any lameness in the future they'd try pass off as due to the cut.
I need to ring them really and discuss it really, especially the exclusion on skin stuff. That just reeks of mickytake.

 

[soulfull]

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

 

[Nasicus]

To exclude every kind of skin lump possible? I'd have to disagree with you there.

The leg though, I can understand a bit more.