Insurance Quote

Tiddlypom said:
To make a profit. So they are not interested in insuring anything that they may ever be required to pay out on, and they will do anything that they can to wriggle out of paying out if a claim is put in.
Click to expand...

of course all insurers need to make a net profit to pay staff, overheads, cost of capital etc or they can’t stay in business. That means more policies need to make them a profit than make them a loss, or it’s not sustainable.
 
GoldenWillow said:
I am with NFU and have more cover (tack, transport, complimentary stuff) for the same value horse hacking. I've just renewed and premium was 545, I'm stuck with NFU as they are only company who will insure my tack with the set up I have but they are very reasonable compared to that and have also paid out a largeish claim on horse with no problems.
Click to expand...
Barclays sport Equipment insurance cover. It’s brilliant, flexible, tailored, covers in lorry, and on horse (if horse got loose), specific and very affordable.

I’ve third party through BD membership.

When i had horse insurance it was only for vet fees.
 
Tiddlypom said:
To make a profit. So they are not interested in insuring anything that they may ever be required to pay out on, and they will do anything that they can to wriggle out of paying out if a claim is put in.
Click to expand...


On the flip side, they're up against people who know their horse has a problem, insure it, and wait a few weeks before they get a vet to look at it.

.
 
ycbm said:
On the flip side, they're up against people who know their horse has a problem, insure it, and wait a few weeks before they get a vet to look at it.

.
Click to expand...

I have seen that, and I had a discussion with an insurance professional and it is almost impossible to meaningfully report it. As someone paying higher premiums for insurance (due to claims history) at the time, and seeing someone insure a horse to wait six months and have stifle surgery, and boast about it was very annoying.

Insurance is always a business, and you need to decide if the upsides and downsides work out for you or not, with realistic expections on what can be covered and paid out on.
 
NFU are not greatly interested in horse insurance they really only want to have it as an add on with clients for whom they they carry a lot of other insurance .
they lose money on it so are not greatly interested in stand alone horse cover .
its a no brainier to self insure with a credit card and put away the cost of cover every month .
YCBM is right what’s driving these issues is people who know their horse has an issue and then quietly cover it and sit a while .
Imo insurance companies need to do two things never cover horses that have not got a five stage vet ,remove the no five stage cert required under 5k and only cover horses when they change hands so no owing a horse for a while and then covering it.
This would cut their claims a considerable amount .
 
Goldenstar said:
insurance companies need to do two things never cover horses that have not got a five stage vet ,remove the no five stage cert required under 5k and only cover horses when they change hands so no owing a horse for a while and then covering it.
This would cut their claims a considerable amount .
Click to expand...

I completely agree with this. Five stage vetting if you already own the horse, and same on purchase, irrespective of value. I would add that I wouldn't insure one horse already owned if the person owns several. All or none.

I've known two serial offenders, and a nationally known dentist who advised a client to insure because they would need to do some work in a year's time if the horse developed as they expected it to.

.
 
Last edited:
ycbm said:
I would add that I wouldn't insure one horse if the person owns several. All or none.

.
Click to expand...
I understand the proposal to insist on a vetting but why this ^^

I don't insure my oldies because if they have something major enough to need more vet attention than a look over and some bute/ABs or a couple of stitches I will be calling time.
Whereas I do insure the ridden ones because they are at a different stage in their life, where I would be actively choosing to try and fix a bigger issue.
I'm not sure why the oldies are relevant to my insured horses?
 
milliepops said:
I understand the proposal to insist on a vetting but why this ^^

I don't insure my oldies because if they have something major enough to need more vet attention than a look over and some bute/ABs or a couple of stitches I will be calling time.
Whereas I do insure the ridden ones because they are at a different stage in their life, where I would be actively choosing to try and fix a bigger issue.
I'm not sure why the oldies are relevant to my insured horses?
Click to expand...

Because people do insure the one they think is going wrong .
Its wrong but they do .
 
milliepops said:
I understand the proposal to insist on a vetting but why this ^^

I don't insure my oldies because if they have something major enough to need more vet attention than a look over and some bute/ABs or a couple of stitches I will be calling time.
Whereas I do insure the ridden ones because they are at a different stage in their life, where I would be actively choosing to try and fix a bigger issue.
I'm not sure why the oldies are relevant to my insured horses?
Click to expand...


Because the offenders I've known have been multiple horse owners and it's a glaring flashing light to me if someone owns four horses happily and then suddenly wants to insure one when nothing has changed in their situation.

I can see a compromise for retired horses on purchase of a new horse or change of value in a competing horse, maybe. I think that would cover you.
 
ycbm said:
Because the offenders I've known have been multiple horse owners and it's a glaring flashing light to me if someone owns four horses happily and then suddenly wants to insure one when nothing has changed in their situation.

I can see a compromise for retired horses on purchase of a new horse or change of value in a competing horse, maybe. I think that would cover you.
Click to expand...
Oh i understand your point now.
I guess if you could only insure at point of transfer of ownership then that would cover it? you could let the cover lapse then whenever you chose but not start it up again.
I can see issues with loan horses though ;) I have insured loan horses where the owners wouldn't have done (my HAPPA horse being one example, but I did also have private loans before that I insured myself).
 
blodwyn1 said:
Try carriage house insurance Colchester. I have found them to be excellent.
Click to expand...

I changed to them after some eye-watering quotes for my then new horse from Petplan, Shearwater and NFU. I’ve not needed to use them but a friend recommended them as she has had a good experience of claiming.
 
I had a good experience claiming with Carriage House, but as per my post above, had issues with the exclusions on renewal so I’ve had to go elsewhere.
 
I have always insured, until my oldie died last year. I paid out nearly £4K in the end, trying to save her. £4K that I paid out in premiums over that time. My other older one is pretty much excluded for everything and I would not treat anything bar minor external injury, she is broken enough. I would pts for tendon issues or serious colic or broken bones or anything like that, so no point insuring, and the new one has a savings fund. I am keeping the insurance going for the others until the fund is large enough, then I will just pay the premium cost into that. That way, when my horses are old and really need the help, they won’t be excluded from it by age or previous issues or whatever. I did ring up to insure the new one. They wanted the vet history or other horses I had that were not insured and apparently having had a horse die makes you higher risk.

Insurance is great for a young horse, for people who sell them on before they get old. That was my conclusion on it all!

Not sure how you would 5* vet an unhandled or lightly handled youngster though...!
 
Kamikaze said:
I also got slammed after claiming for previous horse, although I did get a lot of money out of them. Nfu ramped up to £90 a month. I switched to Scottish equestrian. They didn’t care about previous claims.
Click to expand...


I am with Scottish equestrian, well was my two only have their ears and dock left to insure, and they have been brilliant.

Actually asked my vet to send in a report stating one of mines back legs hadn't given him any trouble in the previous 5 years since that claim and then paid out for a unrelated claim on a back leg.

Can not fault them from my view.
 
I have just started a claim with them so it will be interesting how it goes. He had had cellulitis 3 times. They lifted that exclusion after he was 12 months clear which i thought was quite kind of them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top