Insurers exclusion

[wickedwilfred]

I am in the process of insuring a competition horse and have submitted a valid full veterinary report, complete with x-rays. The insurance company are now saying they will not cover him for injury to his front legs apart from bleeding as in their opinion, there is ‘re-modelling on the navicular bone’, even though there is no evidence of this on the report and all the comments against this sectioin read ‘normal’. Am I able to contest this ? After all, what is the point of having an expensive veterinary report done, if the underwriters can ignore the findings, or re-interprete to suit themselves ?

 

[ihatework]

It pretty standard and quite frustrating.
Might be worth sending to other insurers as there is often a variation in interpretation.

We pulled out of a sale last year after insurers excluded hocks and stifles on X-rays, minor remodelling that our Vets felt were, on the basis of probability, not clinically significant.

 

[Priyashome]

NFU were they only ones who didn't want to exclude my horses back or back legs due to a comment on the (passed) 5 star vetting which said she was slightly asymmetrical. Their view was a pass is a pass, end of story. Good luck x