Insurance question

[trundle]

Not my situation fortunately, but someone else's. I would appreciate all thoughts and opinions!

Alice owns a horse, Bert, that no longer meets her needs. She loans him out to Zara. The loan is intended to be long-term / permanent, as Alice has a new horse.

Zara insures Bert for everything except LOU. While Bert lived with Alice, he was not insured at all - Alice had a "vet pot" into which she put money each month. Zara insures him for a value of about £2k.

Two years into the loan, Bert sadly colics very badly and has to be put down. The insurance company pays out for his value. Is Zara legally / morally obliged to offer that £2k to Alice?

 

[diggerbez]

ooh tricky one...am guessing that there is no contract? i wouldn't know about legally but if it was me i would feel morally obliged to give her some of the money as she's had initial outlay on the horse...but then i guess it depends upon how alice has been- did she take an active interest in bert or effectively just dump him on zara?

 

[beaconhorse]

Well yes because at the end of the day the horse belonged to Alice and as Zara cannot return the horse she should compensate Alice. Whether Alice chose to insure the horse herself is irrelevant

 

[Toby_Zaphod]

[ QUOTE ]
She loans him out to Zara. The loan is intended to be long-term / permanent, as Alice has a new horse.


[/ QUOTE ]
This is why arrangements need to be put into writing so all parties know exactly where they stand. It appears that the horse was loaned to your friend, it matters not wether it is permanent or not. The crux of the matter is that the horse is <font color="red"> loaned </font> &amp; due to that the horse never belongs to your friend. The right of ownership has never been transfered.

Now as to the legal issue. I don't think that Zara needs to pay anything to Alice. Zara paid the insurance &amp; Alice didn't have anything to do with insurance &amp; in fact never paid any anyway when she had charge of the horse. If the horse had died when under Alice's charge she would have received nothing. Just because ther loanee covered the horse with insurance doesn't mean that anything should go to Alice.

Morally?......well, different people have different standards &amp; values, it's a matter for individuals

 

[Maesfen]

In a word - NO! The horse still belonged to Alice didn't it so she is entitled to the money although it would be very nice and understanding of her if she reimbursed Zara the premiums she had paid out on as well as any expenses incurred in the loss plus a generous gift on top, so I'd be thinking along the £1000 mark as he was insured for £2000. I agree, it is slightly unusual that the owner didn't have him insured at all even just for death so does put a slightly different slant on things as I assume she would have just written him off if it had happened while with her.

I have some horses on loan to others; two I pay the insurance for so no question about them; the other, the loaner pays although it is understood if something like this happened, it would be me paid out and not them because at the end of the day, he is still mine even although he's also on permanent loan to her. We both look at it as she is renting him for the price of the insurance which is only £70 anyway so not a great sum for a whole year of her own personal horse anyway.

I think you might get all sorts of answers to this!