Insurers get tough on 'barefoot' horse claims

PeterNatt

Well-Known Member
Joined
15 July 2003
Messages
4,531
Location
London and Hertfordshire
s68.photobucket.com
A leading equine insurer has warned that it may reject claims involving 'horses' feet when the animal has had hoof care from anyone other than a registered farrier.
NFU Mutual's move is clearly directed at owners choose to keep and ride horses without shoes and often use use so-called 'barefoot trimmers' to tend to their horses feet.
"We fully support owners who choose not to have their animals shod, which is why our policy wording refers to 'regular foot care' rather than 'regular showing" Nicola Whittaker of NFU Mutual told ETN.
"We refer to a 'registered farrier' to avoid unregistered and unqualified farriers carrying out farriery - which is illegal under the Farriers 9 Registration Act 1975 in this way, we can be certain that the person caring for the horse's feet has the appropriate qualification and experience".
"Should a policyholder choose to use someone other than a registered farrier to provide foot care for their animal, then in the event of a claim involving or related to the foot, the NFU Mutual could repudiate the claim".
"If a claim related specifically to the horse's foot, for example, in the case of Lameness due to foot imbalance, then NFU Mitual would want to reassure itself that the person who had carried out any shoeing or trimming of the horse's feet was suitably trained and qualified to provide this care and had not inadvertently contributed to the problem"

From Equestrian Trade News April 2012
 

quirky

Well-Known Member
Joined
3 January 2008
Messages
9,846
Location
Purdah
Visit site
Very interesting and probably very prudent of NFU as it appears anybody can put a rasp in their hand and call themselves a BP etc.
 

Goldenstar

Well-Known Member
Joined
28 March 2011
Messages
46,020
Visit site
Good for them next they ought to get to work to save money by sorting out the work of some of the registered farriers.
 

amandap

Well-Known Member
Joined
23 June 2009
Messages
6,949
Visit site
I thought "Farriery" was trimming and preparing a hoof for a shoe under the Farriery act? :confused:

I will await 'experts' sorting this one. :D
 

jinglejoys

Well-Known Member
Joined
21 November 2005
Messages
1,345
Visit site
Hmm so it looks as though IF I want to get a very expensive NFU policy I'm goin to have to have a farrier who sometimes turns up(or doesn't),brngs his dog to bounce around dashing under my mules feet,rushes to do the job as quick as he can to whiz on to the next appointment he's late for,doesn't tell me a thing about what he's doing or move the mule around,digs it in the ribs with a file and doesn't even know that mules and donkeys are trimmed differantly to horses...I'll stick to what I've got thank you ;)
 

amandap

Well-Known Member
Joined
23 June 2009
Messages
6,949
Visit site
I thought "Farriery" was trimming and preparing a hoof for a shoe under the Farriery act? :confused:

I will await 'experts' sorting this one. :D

ps. It looks as if it wont affect horses already in shoes needing to go barefoot to rehab though. :confused: These claims are often because of shoeing.

That's my understanding to however The Nfu can write up there policy's as they like.
They will have to word it very carefully if they are sighting the Farrier Act as a definition I imagine though. I don't know much about the legal side.

Have you got a link to your source PeterNatt?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Tinypony

Well-Known Member
Joined
31 December 2006
Messages
5,211
Visit site
I don't think anyone would need to worry if they had taken a horse barefoot under vet's supervision, even if they were using a barefoot trimmer.
Having said that... aren't NFU the insurance company that are widely acknowledged as wanting to frighten off their equine business with by hiking up their premiums?
I don't insure for vets cover, and many people who own more than one horse don't, choosing instead to put money aside every month and just insure for public liability. Even if I had one horse, I'd think twice to be honest, the cost of insurance is so high now.
 

Goldenstar

Well-Known Member
Joined
28 March 2011
Messages
46,020
Visit site
I don't insure my horses as I have to many but if the NFU want to save on claims they need to stop insuring horses without a five stage vetting last year I saw them pay out thousands in vet fees to a horse that was purchased pin fired lame behind and with the most terrible bad feet ( terrible shoeing) it cost them up to the vet fees limit and was then PTS madness.
 

DragonSlayer

Well-Known Member
Joined
2 July 2008
Messages
7,787
Location
Rigil Kentaurus
Visit site
...and before anyone gets upset, barefoot trimming is fine, although I am happy with my farrier doing my horses, it's the use of an angle grinder I take serious exception to. Those beasties were designed for METAL, not on a live animal.
 

cptrayes

Well-Known Member
Joined
4 March 2008
Messages
14,749
Visit site
NFU are just looking for yet another way to save paying out on claims, of course.

But I completely agree with them restricting hoof care to qualified people for people who are insured with them. There are four organisations in this country offering good, extensive training. I believe at least one of these runs courses which are accredited for qualified farriers Continuing Professional Development points.

I look forward to a more enlightened time when they refuse to pay out for huge vets fees or humane slaughter before a horse with navicular spectrum lameness has been given a proper barefoot rehab.

I also look forward to a time when farriers training includes an in depth knowledge of how nutrition affects feet and requires a period in the training of a farrier who actually has hard-working barefoot horses on his books.

And oh, let's see that pink pig fly now, when the Insurers include a clause that says all horses must have their shoes removed for 3 months of the year, like we did in the old days before there were so many diagnoses of caudal hoof lameness.
 
Last edited:

Black_Horse_White

Well-Known Member
Joined
11 February 2008
Messages
2,229
Location
Staffordshire
Visit site
You wouldn't use an unqualified vet to treat your horse then try to claim off your insurance, so why would you use someone unqualified to do your horses feet? Same principle I would of thought.
 

Goldenstar

Well-Known Member
Joined
28 March 2011
Messages
46,020
Visit site
NFU are just looking for yet another way to save paying out on claims, of course.

But I completely agree with them restricting hoof care to qualified people. There are four organisations in this country offering good, extensive training. I believe at least one of these runs courses which are accredited for qualified farriers Continuing Professional Development points.

I look forward to a more enlightened time when they refuse to pay out for huge vets fees or humane slaughter before a horse with navicular spectrum lameness has been given a proper barefoot rehab.

I also look forward to a time when farriers training includes an in depth knowledge of how nutrition affects feet and requires a period in the training of a farrier who actually has hard-working barefoot horses on his books.


Exactly the organisations offering good comprehensive training to need now to push to get official status and set good clear professional guidelines . The vets should be helping to lead this forward but as far as I can see are not I think in my experiance some have been turned off considering barefoot by the evangelical attitude of some trimmers and perhaps the fact that it's not a great money spinner .
Farriers could be said to have a vested interest in discrediting barefoot and there governing body should be trying to get standards up within there industry.
 

cptrayes

Well-Known Member
Joined
4 March 2008
Messages
14,749
Visit site
Goldenstar there are clear professional guidelines in place but at the moment there is no independent organisation who can be found who will agree to police them.
 

Goldenstar

Well-Known Member
Joined
28 March 2011
Messages
46,020
Visit site
Goldenstar there are clear professional guidelines in place but at the moment there is no independent organisation who can be found who will agree to police them.

That's a real shame it holding things back particularly with the vets and that's the big break though trimmers need to make now.
My vet was mega anti barefoot with the one I am trying it with but she coming round a bit but we have had difficult conversations along the lines of you can condem this without ( barefoot) seeing how it goes but farrier x is doing awful work laming horses and that's somehow ok you just muddle along with them.
Vets is where the breakthrough to coming more into the mainstream will come for trimmers they will have to work hard to gain that respect but the problem is that one bad trimmer makes it very hard for the good ones as the vets just tend to write them all off.
 

Goldenstar

Well-Known Member
Joined
28 March 2011
Messages
46,020
Visit site
I'm not saying that all of them are not qualified, I'm saying why would you use one that isn't ?

Of course not but neither would I use a farrier that slaps on the shoes with no heel support lets the horse develop long toes with all the problems that brings or let's the feet get laterally imbalanced etc etc so many horses are having there lives blighted by this.
 
Top