Insurance question

S

sbw

Active Member
Joined
12 August 2012
Messages
37
Visit site
I'm thinking about taking out a policy on my two horses (healthy 9yo & 11yo) but as I have owned them several years some companies require a 2 stage vetting. I'm wondering if I take out a policy which doesn't require them to be vetted & I were then to have a claim for something other than injury (say DJD, kissing spines etc) is the company more likely to try and say it was a pre existing condition?
 
Depends on their small print.

If you don't require a vetting (normally for horses under a certain value) then the onus should be on them to prove the condition was pre-existing. Shouldn't take much for a vet to say that there has been no history.

If an insurance company doesn't want to pay out, they'll find a way.
 
Agree - I hear more and more of people who were insured but end up paying huge vets bills as the insurance company finds some tiny wiggle room to get out of it. Read the small print very very carefully.
Perhaps you might find a company that will take a full history from your vet (which presumably shows vists for vaccinations and no much else) as evidence of their current health? It would be worth asking and more information for them in a full vets history than in a basic 2 stage.
Why do you suddenly want to insure them?
Maybe if you put set their value very low (a nominal £500 or similar) then you might find the insurance companies more willing to cover for vets fees without a vetting?
If you want loss of use etc, it might be more difficult.
 
Thank you.

I had a bad experience 10 years ago so haven't insured since but I have been thinking about it for a while since reading some of the posts on here!

Horses have only the odd very minor thing (pus in foot & a wire cut) in their history but if paying for a vetting will give them less “wiggle room” I would rather have the peace of mind.
 
Last edited:
I have a Scottish equine policy and they were happy to insure both of mine up to £5000k without a vetting. I had to verbally declare over the phone any issue/injury that I had called a vet out for, or any pre-existing condition I was aware of. If they actually have something neither me or my vet have seen any evidence of yet (asymptomatic) then they will cover it. I was very specific during this discussion as I don't trust insurance companies either.
 
They can't just deny a claim with no evidence something was pre-existing...they could try but if you referred it to the financial ombudsman they wouldn't get very far!

To be honest, if you made a claim they would probably request a full vet history to check previous history. Something like kissing spines would only ring bells as being pre-exisitng if your horse was diagnosed within the first month or so of cover. But if your vet history was clean then they can't really prove it was pre-existing, unless they had a random witness statement!
 
Thanks, that makes me feel it’s a bit more worth while.

The reason I mention kissing spines is because I was shocked to hear a horse I sold as a 5yo was diagnosed with severe ks at 9 & pts :(
 
sbw said:
Thanks, that makes me feel it’s a bit more worth while.

The reason I mention kissing spines is because I was shocked to hear a horse I sold as a 5yo was diagnosed with severe ks at 9 & pts :(
Click to expand...

These things do happen, they can't expect owners to have a crystal ball and the law is there to make them payout when they start squirming. The law is concerned with what is reasonable and any unreasonable contract is thrown out.
 
I think they only usually ask for a vetting certificate if you want "loss of use" on your policy (for example, if you had an eventer who had to retire from eventing and you wanted the money to buy a new eventer). Petplan don't ask for one if you don't want LOU cover.
 
SEIS only need a vets cert if over 2500 sum insured and LOU cover. I think the next stage up was 5000 if no LOU.

LOU seems to be a con to me as I read the small print and if the horse can be used as a broodmare you only get 60% (if you have insured for 100%) or 30% (50%). I wondered who was to say which mares could be used as a brood mare and since I didn't buy mine as a brood mare as far as I am concerned she would still have lost her use if she could be a broodmare (and breathe lol). Costing me over 500 a year for 4000 vets fees with a 140 excess. I think I will probably cancel after the first year and put the money in a high interest account.
 
FfionWinnie said:
LOU seems to be a con to me as I read the small print and if the horse can be used as a broodmare you only get 60% (if you have insured for 100%) or 30% (50%). I wondered who was to say which mares could be used as a brood mare.
Click to expand...

The insurance co I worked for would refer all LOU claims to a referral vet who would then review and comment if the horse had any residual value. Generally every horse had some kind of residual value as a field companion. The only time we paid a LOU claim in full was if the horse had to be PTS but didn't meet the BEVA criteria for humane destruction, which would mean a mortality claim wouldn't pay out.
 
Ha yes high interest account is probably a stupid thing to say. I'd be better financially to pay off my mortgage with the money and put any vet bills on a no interest credit card!!
 
Elbie do you think it's worth me having LOU then. My mare is a very well bred pedigree Am. Paint. I would expect they would say she was a broodmare then wouldn't they? Is it their appointed vet or mine that makes the decision? Thanks.
 
Hmmm...bit hard to comment on whether it's worth it!

Insurance is always a bit of a gamble. You need to think, although you may never get 100% of the full market value of your horse, would you be happy to get nothing if you didn't have the cover? Also, I have seen cases where horses were PTS but didn't meet the BEVA criteria, however, would've met LOU but the owners didn't take out LOU cover. LOU does make the premium higher so I can see why people don't take that cover out.

I think it varies between companies on how they work out the residual value. Some may take it as a percentage of the sum insured, whereas others have set amounts they deduct, eg. £200 for residual use as a field companion.

Insurance companies refer to a vet they have appointed themselves. They see the first referral as your vet, they then appoint their own as a second opinion. This vet does not 'work for' the insurance company, he just provides a professional opinion that is unbiased. If your vet agreed with the decision, they then appoint a third vet, who I think both parties have to agree on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top