Insurance when horse PTS

J

jillykins

Member
Joined
5 February 2014
Messages
28
Visit site
This is a bit of a rant really. We bought a horse 18 months ago with a 5 stage vetting. Shortly after that we were advised that his pelvis was uneven so a lot of time was spent building him up. He then had a fall jumping, a bout of azoturia, manipulation on his poll under sedation (probably as a result of the fall) and in July this year was diagnosed with ulcers. Following treatment for the ulcers he started going really well. Unfortunately he fractured his long pastern a week ago, with the fracture going into the fetlock. We took the agonising decision to PTS as the thought of 3 months box rest for this boy with all of his previous problems was just too much to contemplate - as it was so likely that some of them would reappear with the stress/confinement.

Because we took the decision to PTS I have been told that the insurance won't pay up. However it was done to save our boy more pain and stress, and although this did not enter our minds, from a financial point of view would be cheaper for the insurance company than the cost of the operation. I know there are plenty of people that would have put him through the operation but we honestly believe that this option would not have been a kind one to a wonderful boy who had been through so much pain in different ways in his short life.

No nasty comments please as it has been an unbelievably difficult week. I just wonder about the way insurance companies work as they would pay up to operate on a horse when it would not be in his best interests.
 
Britestar said:
Ask your Vets to write the insurance company a letter outline the circumstance under which the horse was put to sleep. It can make a difference.
Click to expand...

I agree with this.

I'm sorry to hear that you have been through such a horrible time and that it has culminated in such a tragic way. You did make the right decision and it infuriates me that when a decision has been made based in very real welfare issues and concerns, insurers usually won't pay out (but it is worth having the situation clarified for them).

I know people who have had to force their horse to endure unimaginable pain and rapidly diminishing quality of life, until the condition became ' bad enough' for pts to become a valid insurance claim. I did not agree with their choice but nor do I believe owners should have to be put in this position in order to claim the insurance they pay to have. You made the right decision and good for you because no claim can be worth having your horses pain and suffering on your conscience.
 
...and, if the insurers object any further, take it to the ombudsman. It would be quite ridiculous to suggest that a horse should be allowed to die slowly in pain to suit the insurer's small print.

I am very sorry for the OP's trouble and can sympathise completely. I wonder how much business the insurers would lose if it became known how they deal with claims of this kind?
 
Dry Rot said:
...and, if the insurers object any further, take it to the ombudsman. It would be quite ridiculous to suggest that a horse should be allowed to die slowly in pain to suit the insurer's small print.

I am very sorry for the OP's trouble and can sympathise completely. I wonder how much business the insurers would lose if it became known how they deal with claims of this kind?
Click to expand...

I wish it was more widely known! The ombudsman is a great suggestion.
 
Orca said:
I agree with this.

I'm sorry to hear that you have been through such a horrible time and that it has culminated in such a tragic way. You did make the right decision and it infuriates me that when a decision has been made based in very real welfare issues and concerns, insurers usually won't pay out (but it is worth having the situation clarified for them).

I know people who have had to force their horse to endure unimaginable pain and rapidly diminishing quality of life, until the condition became ' bad enough' for pts to become a valid insurance claim. I did not agree with their choice but nor do I believe owners should have to be put in this position in order to claim the insurance they pay to have. You made the right decision and good for you because no claim can be worth having your horses pain and suffering on your conscience.
Click to expand...


This - way more eloquently put than I managed on the other post.
 
I was told by my vet that if I waited for insurance to sanction PTS, and therefore pay up, my horse would have to endure prolonged agony whilst waiting. He advised for my sake, to take the decision and forgoe the payout. I did, he was right. I've never insured a horse again for this reason! I maintain control, I save money to pay for their vet bills. In 15 years since doing this I've never regretted it, nor had many issues either for that matter.
 
jillykins said:
No nasty comments please as it has been an unbelievably difficult week. I just wonder about the way insurance companies work as they would pay up to operate on a horse when it would not be in his best interests.
Click to expand...

I am sorry for your loss and you did the right thing. As for the above, my insurance company would have paid out £1K on drug treatment that had no hope of working (and there are no trials that support its use) rather than pay out the few hundred quid he was worth (by that point) for death. Also putting him at risk of colic or internal bleeding, not to mention the pain which he was in and we were only just managing. I had him PTS. I also changed my rather spineless vet.
 
jillykins said:
This is a bit of a rant really. We bought a horse 18 months ago with a 5 stage vetting. Shortly after that we were advised that his pelvis was uneven so a lot of time was spent building him up. He then had a fall jumping, a bout of azoturia, manipulation on his poll under sedation (probably as a result of the fall) and in July this year was diagnosed with ulcers. Following treatment for the ulcers he started going really well. Unfortunately he fractured his long pastern a week ago, with the fracture going into the fetlock. We took the agonising decision to PTS as the thought of 3 months box rest for this boy with all of his previous problems was just too much to contemplate - as it was so likely that some of them would reappear with the stress/confinement.

Because we took the decision to PTS I have been told that the insurance won't pay up. However it was done to save our boy more pain and stress, and although this did not enter our minds, from a financial point of view would be cheaper for the insurance company than the cost of the operation. I know there are plenty of people that would have put him through the operation but we honestly believe that this option would not have been a kind one to a wonderful boy who had been through so much pain in different ways in his short life.

No nasty comments please as it has been an unbelievably difficult week. I just wonder about the way insurance companies work as they would pay up to operate on a horse when it would not be in his best interests.
Click to expand...

When my horse was PTS with wobblers the consultant at the hospital said he would claim under 'humane grounds' as the horse may have fallen in the field and not been able to get up. As it was the insurance did question it with the vet but he was adamant and stood his ground. You could argue that he may have been fine for a number of years in the paddock and never ridden again but you could also argue about falling on someone and being dangerous and I think thats what swung it for the insurance company and I got his value under the policy.

Your vet will need to argue with the insurance company that your horse was pts on humane grounds if he could argue that it was not in the horses best interest to keep it alive, given the poor prognosis.

So sorry for your loss, always a difficult decision :(
 
A horrible scenario, we've had three horses PTS in the last four years so I can appreciate how hard it is.

I'm unclear what you claimed for from your insurance company, was it Loss of Use or was it for the cost of the PTS?

In my first case, the horse a six year old KPWN x TB, was PTS following OCD in his stifle and unsuccessful surgery, this was done in agreement with the Insurers, when we had exhausted all treatment and where offered a 70% LOU payout if we retired him, or full payout if we PTS. The decision wasnt based on finances, rather quality of life for a personal centric competition horse who loved attention.

The second was another KPWN x TB who had Cushings and was becoming progressively lamer, we didnt have LOU insurance due to his age (16), and the decision was made in conjunction with the advice of the farrier and vet, we then told the insurance company, after the event. They went nuts to start with until they realised we weren't after a LOU claim.

The thirs was my wifes a Gypsy Cob, who had really bad Nueralgia to the extent that he was in ever increasing discomfort, it was getting worse and in conjunction we made the decision to PTS, we did not persue LOU even though he was insured for LOU, as it was our decision to cut short the process and ease his suffering.

Depending on which Insurance Company you are with, I would try the vets letter as long as he is willing to state that it was to prevent further suffering you should be in with a chance.
 
Nothing much to add except what an awful decision. Insurance companies really need to look to their services. If only one of them would start looking at horse welfare then others would follow suit for competition reasons
So so sorry. X
 
pepsimaxrock said:
Nothing much to add except what an awful decision. Insurance companies really need to look to their services. If only one of them would start looking at horse welfare then others would follow suit for competition reasons
So so sorry. X
Click to expand...

Nobody would afford the premiums ,a lot of insurance underwriters are very keen to get out of the equine market so competition wont come into it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top