Insurance exclusions

N

NeilM

Well-Known Member
Joined
15 January 2008
Messages
2,706
Location
Nth Somerset
Visit site
I had a bit of a random thought, following on from the E&L post.

How is it that (some) insurers place exclusions on various bits of horses after a claim. For instance, if your horse gets an injury in a front leg, which the insurer pays for the treatment of. Do they automatically exclude that leg from any future claim, despite the fact the leg has healed perfectly?

That is rather like offering motor insurance, but excluding the drivers door or the front bumper if you have prior claims in that car for those accidents.

I can understand it with ongoing issues, laminitus for instance, but it seems like a bit of a cop out, unless I have this whole exclusions thing wrong.
 
Well if a horse gets colic then when it comes to renewel the following year,then that's excluded!
My cob is insured with KBIS and on his five star vetting,he had one fibrous skin nodule,he is now excluded on all losses directly or indirectly from fibrous skin nodules....and I had only just paid the premium...I owned a TB mare that in the end Petplan had nearly excluded everything,apart from colic(They tried that one my vet fought it!)her eyes(She smashed both eye sockets,on two seperate accidents)all her legs......you have to bear in mind that she was the most accident prone equine that,did not need another man or animal to get into the scrapes she did....and on the one time I phoned for another claim form.....I was told 'Your not very lucky Mrs **** are you!'...she was not far wrong!
If you feel that your being unfairly treated with the exclusions put in place you can contest it,along with your vet if she/he feels that it will not pose problems later...in my case the vet who vetted my cob,did not think that his one skin nodule was worth the hassel!
laugh.gif
 
Re E&L - I took my boy into Western Counties last night, as he's having an op today; and they gave me a piece of paper with loads of info on it. In big bold letters it said 'horses insured with E&L will be regarded as NOT insured and payment will be due on collection of the animal'. Very interesting and very telling I thought!

My horse will have an exclusion on his entire near side hind, due to OCD in that stifle and he's having arthroscopy there today. Even if it's a hoof problem, I will never be able to claim ont hat leg ever again. I think the insurers are trying to protect themselves, but I occasionally think it's a bit over the top to exclude a whole limb, especially where the problem was caused by a one-off injury. I suppose they believe that injury could bring problems later on.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I occasionally think it's a bit over the top to exclude a whole limb, especially where the problem was caused by a one-off injury

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly my point. If you ding your car, you lose your no claims bonus, but your whole car is still insured.

Injuries heal, so why exclude and entire limb. It must get to a point where it is not worth insuring at all (probably what the insurers want).

As for E&L, make your coments on the other thread, as they appear to have someone replying to complaints.
 
I have never made a claim before (was very lucky with my last horse) but my new lad has just had a lot of intensive dentistry work done including an extraction (a result of an accident he must have had with previous owner approx 4 yrs ago)

So - I spoke to Petplan equine and they mentioned exclusions and were very vague when I asked if this was just for that particular tooth (which has now been removed) or for the whole mouth. She didnt really answer and said it would depend on the long term prognosis (of a tooth that no longer exists?!?)

Very vague but reassuringly she said my premium would not increase regardless of claims because they take the premiums from across all the horses they have insured as an average so I thought that was really good and no nasty surprises next year as a result of the claim (assuming the claim is paid out of course!)

confused me too though!
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I occasionally think it's a bit over the top to exclude a whole limb, especially where the problem was caused by a one-off injury

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly my point. If you ding your car, you lose your no claims bonus, but your whole car is still insured.

Injuries heal, so why exclude and entire limb. It must get to a point where it is not worth insuring at all (probably what the insurers want).

As for E&amp;L, make your coments on the other thread, as they appear to have someone replying to complaints. <font color="blue"> I have done now I've found the thread, but I hadn't seen it when I saw this post, hence I responded to your OP. Wish I'd not bothered.
crazy.gif
</font>

[/ QUOTE ]
 
Oh dear, nothing I said I hope
blush.gif


My OH is insured with E&amp;L (at least her horses are), so there is nothing on that thread I did not already know. They are a PIA when it comes to procedures and paperwork, which is why my OH is currently paying for some minor treatment of her horse herself, as she really can't be bothered with all the hassle. This is probably the whole reason FOR the hassle. She pays for her insurance, but does not claim as it is not worth it. Seems to me that the insurance is pointless, but she thinks not. Her horse, her money and I know when to keep my trap SHUT.

And that is one of the things that got me thinking about exclusions
grin.gif
 
Its not pointless, so many things can go wrong with horses that even if half a horse is excluded, the other half is still insured and likely to go wrong sooner or later.
grin.gif


The worst thing is, as you make a claim and a particular limb/condition is then excluded, next time round your premium also goes UP as less of the horse is covered.
crazy.gif


I also think it sucks that even though you pay full premium you won't get LOU or LOA if either is as a result of, or relating to, any excluded limbs/conditions.
mad.gif
 
I had an interesting conversation with my YO tonight, who said that she got a leg re-included in her insurance, a year after it was excluded because of injury, following a letter from the vet stating that the leg had healed perfectly and posed no problems.
Forgot to ask who she was insured with though!
 
I've just had my insurance through. Note that quite a few things are discluded from the insurance, including injuries to stifle.

Now, she was treated for a cut stomach in April. She had grazed her stifle in the accident but didn't receive any treatment for it. I guess the vet put it all in his report of the total injury, but I think this is a bit much.

Plus, premium has gone up.

I must ring the insurers....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top