Insurance exclusions...

cc14

cc14

Well-Known Member
Joined
12 June 2011
Messages
263
Location
The Yard...
Visit site
Hi everyone, I have a quick question about insurance. Mine, up until now, has been uninsured, but a change in circumstances means I think I will now have to. First things first please dont turn this into an "everyone should be insured" post, I am not stupid, and as I have said only now I have a change in circumstances will I be unable to fund large vet bills, so I am trying to do the sensible thing :o

My question is about exclusions - he went lame a few months ago, and the first vet was called after a while and she suspected it was an old injury which we had niggled which would never be repaired and he would probably be unable to return to full work. She prescribed Bute and told me to see how he goes - no tests done purely through examination. Second vet ran xrays, diagnosed suspected sprain to his fetlock, injected with Cortisone and expects full recovery, although possibility he may need another injection in upcoming months. He also mentioned he may be more at risk to spavins, but this is not certain. Since the injection, the swelling has gone and he has come completely sound.

If I was to get him insured, is it likely this leg/joint/injury would be excluded, even if he was to get a kick or something, leading to an issue completely unrelated? And as the opinions of the two vets were completely different how would that work? Sorry this is so long I'm just not having much luck getting through to insurance companies and online quotes dont seem to ask about current injuries! Thank you in advance xx
 
I would think that this would be included under existing conditions and thus you would have an exclusion for lameness in that leg. Probably the best thing to do would be to phone and speak to the insurance company direct and they will give you the best advice.
 
Thats my plan for tomorrow, just wanted a bit of advice before hand :)

Do you think he would only be excluded for related lameness, or lameness altogether? IE if he had an issue in his stifle/kick injury?
 
I'd assume the same I'm afraid. Anything they can find from prior to the insurance period will be excluded. You might be ok for an injury to that leg but I'd suggest you check. When I recently started my claim for my horse's suspected navicular I was asked to fill in all his previous vet and injury history and I'm assuming this is because they won't pay out on anything they can say may have been there before.
 
I was fairly certain they would prbably rule out bone diseases etc just wanted to make sure it wouldnt be the entire leg regardless of the cause of injury! Seems ridiculous that if he broke his leg I would not be covered...
 
Agree with all above but its pretty routine for most horses to have exclutions on their insurance... pretty sure that when mine gets renewed my horse will only be covered for the front half LOL :rolleyes:
 
They may ask for you to get him vetted before you can take out a new policy on a horse that you have owned for some time,although it may depend on value.
 
MeganLindsx said:
Agree with all above but its pretty routine for most horses to have exclutions on their insurance... pretty sure that when mine gets renewed my horse will only be covered for the front half LOL :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

^^ THIS.

My horse slipped in the field and had an injury to his sacroiliac. He's now fully sound and although I have to be careful there is no reason he won't stay sound and able to carry on his work. He is 7 and SJs.

The insurance renewal came through and he is excluded for 'any claims associated with the pelvis or hind limb lameness'. I queried what would happen if he did a tendon or got kicked.

Anything internal eg tendon would not be covered at all. Any injury eg kick would only be covered if there was 'clear visible evidence that the injury was caused by something external' eg a wound....... so essentially only half the horse will be covered.

I am still deciding whether to renew or self insure....
 
You may find if you are completely honest,the leg can be covered. My renewal just came through with an exclusion added due to a recent injury. I rang and asked them more about it,as it is very unlikely to recur( touching wood) and the whole exclusion has been lifted. I suspect yours wont be quite so simple due to the nature of the investigations,but good luck,you may find a company that is helpful and won't exclude it.
 
My old YM's horse had all four legs, its liver (due to poisoning) and digestive system excluded... needless to say the horse is no longer insured!
 
Insurance companies differ and underwriter's opinions differ. Frankly, if I were you I would disclose the fetlock sprain and call it just that. You are then likely to have an exclusion placed on the fetlock. IF this then does resolve then you could request the exclusion is removed further down the line but you would more than likely need a vet to sign it off. I would not mention anything to do with spavin to be honest as this is just something the vet has said could happen. Your horse doesnt have spavin so there is no need to mention it. Most insurers are fair and, even if you horse injures the same leg that is excluded, if thevet confirms it is not related to the excluded condition then you should be fine. Just check the wording of the exclusion - I don't think it's fair insurers exclude a while legif only one part is the problem. If your horse was kicked and sustained a fracture on that same leg the previous condition has nothing to do with it.

I was an equine underwriter for nearly 7 years and our claims handlers were pretty reasonable - it helped the ones who dealt with h orse claims were horsey people mind!
 
We ended up with a couple with so many exclusions we stopped bothering. As we have 6, the premiums were out of control, and 1 years premiums would cover major surgery, so now have 3rd party only. Having struggled to get money out of them on the odd occasion decided it wasn't really worth the hassle.
 
Always check with the company if the exclusion is permanent.

You may have loads of exclusions but if they are for non-chronic illnesses/injuries, i.e. your horse had a kick injury and they excluded that leg, they may take that off if the vet can prove (with a letter or vet history printout) that your horse has been sound for a year etc
 
Elbie - a good point made about how long the exclusion lasts, didnt think about that so thankyou.

So carrying on, is there anyone in particular you would recommend I go with who, in your experience, have been good with exclusions, or is it just going to be a case of ringing round? Will have to be a job for tomorrow given its a sunday...
 
Excellent advice being given, you do need to make sure you tell them exactly what happened. My lad had a nasty wound to a hind just weeks after I bought him which resulted in a claim. The following year on renewal that leg was excluded. My vet spoke to the company and then wrote to them confirming it was skin flap injury, no lameness and will not affect horse for rest of life. The company left the exclusion on for the following 12 months and then lifted it. That was 2005, now in 2012 he has done his inferior check in the same leg but they are paying for all treatment, thank god !

I think you need to research whatever company you are planning to use, a few friends have gone with a very cheap company that advertises a lot on internet and have had real nightmares with that company.
 
NFU have a very reasonable exclusion policy in that they don't do blanket exclusions. You won't be able to claim for the same injury twice, but they won't just exclude that leg. If your vet says that whatever problem is different to what you have just experienced, they will pay out
 
AA - dont worry I know exactly who you are talking about!

Will have to do a bit of ringing around I suppose, but my issue is the two conflicting views of the vets. The vet who correctly diagnosed and treated is not my usual vet, and for geographical reasons cannot be unless I win the lottery to pay his travel fees every time (which believe me I would!) so will have to hope that usual vet is happy to agree that second vet was correct. Fingers crossed...
 
cc14 said:
AA - dont worry I know exactly who you are talking about!

Will have to do a bit of ringing around I suppose, but my issue is the two conflicting views of the vets. The vet who correctly diagnosed and treated is not my usual vet, and for geographical reasons cannot be unless I win the lottery to pay his travel fees every time (which believe me I would!) so will have to hope that usual vet is happy to agree that second vet was correct. Fingers crossed...
Click to expand...

That company refused to pay out to a friend whose horse slipped off the side of a bridge, stating horse should not be ridden across bridges. Horse died.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top