Insurance renewal - NFU's new clause?

Stinkbomb

Stinkbomb

Well-Known Member
Joined
7 January 2007
Messages
3,974
Location
Cloud cookoo..
goldenoakmochachino.blogspot.com
Ive just had my renewal through for NFU insurance and they now inform me that they have done away with specific exclusions and now have the clause that the horse isnt insured for any condition that it has suffered for in the past, WHETHER YOU CLAIM OR NOT.

Now does this mean if my horse has a one off case if colic, for instance and he had required a vet, but it is a one of case, and requires no further treatment that NFU will not cover any cases of colic my horse may have even if its years later and nothing to do with the original colic?? (just using colic as example )
 
I'm with NFU and didn't know about this!

Eriskayowner said:
Don't use NFU (not that I think they're bad, just I don't pay for my horses' insurance), but that sounds a bit unfair.

How will they know, though, if you don't tell them that in 1998 your horse colicked?!
Click to expand...

I guess that if your with the same vet, the vet will know and they have to fill in the claim form...
 
They will know because they require the details of all veterinary practises your horse has been registered at and will write to them for information... We are with NFU and have to say that hearing this is quite worrying.
 
This isn't new, it's been in NFU's wording for at least a couple of years. (I remember phoning them up about it yonks ago!)

Doesn't bother me in the slightest, it's just an easier way of administrating things from their perspective I imagine. Save's on the form filling and medical declarations. No insurance company is going to cover you for a repeat of a previous injury/illness whether claimed for or not.

Your colic example is a grey area. A single one off episode of spasmodic colic years ago is unlikely to be an issue! However if your horse has regular bouts then yes you would not be covered unless specifically agreed on.

I wouldn't hesitate to use NFU, they really are one of the most reputable horse insurance companies around.
 
I've always understood that has been the case with all insurance companies (or maybe I'm just cynical?) and that NFU are just making it clearer....
 
I dropped my NFU horse policy last year when the new underwriters changed the cover.

I was told that exclusions would occur if exactly the same event ie the same type of colic - rather than all types of colic.

My cover had previously included an excess. This became an exclusion. The local NFU office queried this as they thought it unreasonable, but underwriters came back that that was what was available. I chose to cease the policy. Still use NFU for house and cars.
 
OH no. I've been with NFU for a few years, and I always thought that if you didn't claim you would still be covered - and for exactly this reason I have not made a claim for anything yet, even though my injury and illness prone TB has had multiple call outs for loads and loads different things.

I didn't claim because so far I've been able to comfortably afford to pay each bill, and the insurance was for if i needed it and I've not wanted to claim on the smaller bills because I was worried I might end up excluding a leg or something if i needed it for a big claim.

Is there any point being insured anymore then?
 
Misinterpreted said:
What about if i register with an entirely new vet, and if I need a big claim I use the new vet? Perhaps that's the way round it then?
Click to expand...

That is called FRAUD.

I honestly think you are all getting your knickers in a twist.

In your case, say for example your horse cuts it's leg, needs a few stiches, bill comes to not much more than excess and you don't claim. This does not mean your horses entire leg is excluded!!! What is excluded is anything DIRECTLY related to that specific illness/injury.

It is the same with any insurance company. The only difference is that NFU are more transparent than most ....
 
Err, think that might risk insurance fraud!

I'm taking the attitude that it is worth insuring a new horse for the first few years, but dubious about continuing the cover as exclusions accumulate.
 
If it puts your mind at rest my competition horse has recently undergone a full lameness work up, and operation .... at great expense to NFU.

When assessing my claim they asked for a veterinary printout since I have owned horse. Not unusual and duely supplied. Before I sent it off I noticed that the previous year there was a listing of 'examine lameness'. I'd completely forgotten about it, it was an innocent/innocuous short lived lameness following a stumble out hacking, and I didn't claim as the bill was so low.

I did wonder if NFU would pick up on it and question in more depth. They didn't, they paid up in full no quibble.

I have dealt with NFU for 10 years and they have always been 100% professional
 
Im still dubious about the colic type illness... if your horse coliced and the reason was unknown, acording to my new policy colic would NOT be covered again. Seems unfair when in most instances an illness such as colic can be for any number of reasons and "usually" a one off vets call out.
 
ihatework said:
If it puts your mind at rest my competition horse has recently undergone a full lameness work up, and operation .... at great expense to NFU.

When assessing my claim they asked for a veterinary printout since I have owned horse. Not unusual and duely supplied. Before I sent it off I noticed that the previous year there was a listing of 'examine lameness'. I'd completely forgotten about it, it was an innocent/innocuous short lived lameness following a stumble out hacking, and I didn't claim as the bill was so low.

I did wonder if NFU would pick up on it and question in more depth. They didn't, they paid up in full no quibble.

I have dealt with NFU for 10 years and they have always been 100% professional
Click to expand...


That sounds more promising!
 
Stinkbomb said:
Im still dubious about the colic type illness... if your horse coliced and the reason was unknown, acording to my new policy colic would NOT be covered again. Seems unfair when in most instances an illness such as colic can be for any number of reasons and "usually" a one off vets call out.
Click to expand...


If you are still worried I would send NFU a letter detailing the timescale of the colic, treatment, amount spent, and lack of colic history since. Then ask them to confirm to you , in writing, if your horse is excluded from future colic events.
 
ihatework said:
That is called FRAUD.

I honestly think you are all getting your knickers in a twist.

In your case, say for example your horse cuts it's leg, needs a few stiches, bill comes to not much more than excess and you don't claim. This does not mean your horses entire leg is excluded!!! What is excluded is anything DIRECTLY related to that specific illness/injury.

It is the same with any insurance company. The only difference is that NFU are more transparent than most ....
Click to expand...

I wouldn't really do that :D
Another question. He's an ex NH racehorse so he's got a history beyond what he's done whilst with me. I am aware of all of his previous injuries/illnesses that he has had in his past before I owned him, would this mean they are excluded too do you think?
 
There are other insurance companies who also have this clause. I'm sorry I cant give names as I cant remember but this week I have been making enquiries about horse insurance and this seems to be a general theme.
 
That clause was on my renewal last year.

You always have had to tell any insurance company for every non-routine vet visit anyway, regardless of claiming. They've just stated it.

I actually prefer it, because they don't do blanket exclusions on legs/backs etc. If your vet says it's an entirely new condition, you have no problems them paying out.
 
I cancelled my insurance for my 2 with NFU after reading the new clause. Mainly cos Id had 10 years of cover and hadnt claimed for anything, and could have claimed £££ and now think I should have taken them for every penny like most people do!

Preferred the specific exclusions approach, I know people say its no different cos of disclosure but the new approach gives them lots more wriggle room IMO.

I dont mind them changing it for new policies but I objected to them changing it on existing, esp as big chap is now getting on a bit so might be more likely to need them.

So putting the ££ in savings ac instead and telling him to stay well and Not to eat Too Much Snow and get Tummy Ache next winter.....
 
If you read the small print it also say that they will only pay HALF if your horse requires an MRI scan. As my horse has now had two of these this year at a cost of £950 each i'm glad i'm NOT with NFU. Scottish equine paid up every penny. :)
 
I recently had to have the vet out to Pirate for colic, i was in 2 minds wether to make a claim with my insurers or not, after speaking to my vet about it, i decided to claim because if at anytime in the future i had to make a claim for the same problem then they would'nt pay out because the vet has to notify them that the horse has suffered with the condition before, therefore because if i had'nt notified the insurers of a bout of colic then they are under no obligation to pay out, so at the end of the day you are dammed if you do and dammed if you don't. I thought it had been this way for most insurers for has long as i have insured horses.
 
I think all insurance companies are a con, I won't use any. I just belong to bhs to get 3rd party cover and take vet bills as they come. Touch wood £800 has been my highest. Even a vet told me one day that I would be better off opening a savings account than going through a insurance company.
So many people have been left high and dry when the companies wouldn't pay out that I won't go there. My mate had a very expensive hoys horse insured for £10.000 and was loaned out for a year. The horse got sent back home cause he kept going lame in the end. The insurance company wanted a vet check when horse came back. The only thing the vet picked up on was the horses feet were not in the best off condition so 6 months later when the horse was dianosed with navicular they wouldn't pay anything.
To much small print for my liking.
 
Stinkbomb said:
Yep just noticed that too :(

Are scottish equine good then? ive never heard of them.
Click to expand...

They have been VERY good. My girl has had mild lamness in the same leg before unrelated and they could have not paid up if they wanted too but they did pay up thankfully.

They are part of the same group as petplan as they told me this on the phone when I rang Petplan to cancel.
 
Considering the risk they take on ,it never ceases to amaze me that it is possible to insure for veterinary treatment and loss of use,particularly when you look at the way some peoplewill milk them.If insurers didnt work on this basis ,no one would be able to afford cover for genuine claims.I have found NFU to be extremely fair and wouldnt hesitate to use them again.
 
i've been with KBIS for 10yrs and every yr at renewal they ask if my horse has needed to see a vet for anything other than routine vaccinations. there is zilch point in not claiming for something if it goes over the excess because if anything ever goes wrong (even if you dont have to fill in a form like KBIS ask for) then the insurance company will ask the vet who fills in the form if the horse has ever been seen for anything similar before. if they say yes then they wont pay. so, unless you're planning on getting a new vet out each time you have a problem then you're a bit stuffed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top