Is loss of use worth it?

C

Carobean

Member
Joined
21 May 2022
Messages
11
Visit site
I'm going to be buying a horse in the next couple of days and wondering whether loss of use is worth it? I know it's very difficult to get insurers to pay out!

Horse, 4 yo gelding, is valued at £10k. Will be produced for low level/grassroots eventing.

I'd have x-rays done as part of the vetting anyway, but I read somewhere that the horses shoes have to be removed for the insurance-compliant x-rays? Seems a bit of a hassle for the seller to arrange!
 
I currently have loss of use insurance on my mare - not sure how long that will continue, but she was a relatively expensive purchase for me and I decided to get the cover for at least the first couple of years. The shoe issue came up when I had her vetted, but the agent (NFU) contacted the underwriters and they were happy that the shoes did not need to be removed, even though it said it was a requirement on their website. I would make sure you get that in writing though. Good luck with the vetting!
 
No, not worth it IMHO. It increases premiums very significantly, even in the event you can sustain a claim it is very unlikely they will pay out anything like the full insured value and you lose control over treatment, retirement and PTS options if you want a pay out.
 
Forgot to add that it also does not cover the upkeep of a retired horse you cannot ride which is a very significant cost and likely, over its lifetime, much more than its purchase price in any event.
 
Having owned quite a few over the years, I have only once had loss of use, on the first pony I owned, rather than loaned. That pony was stamped on by a highland, which broke her fetlock, and ringbone developed. LOU paid out. (I kept the mare, and still have her daughter and grandson) With the payout I bought another pony, but decided lightening wouldn't strike twice and never got it again on the next dozen or so - and have never since been in a position to need it. It was definitely worth it at the time.
 
I have claimed successfully years ago, but it was for an advanced event horse with a significant check ligament injury, so fairly clear he wouldn’t do that job again. It’s harder to show that a youngster is unable to do a low level job. That said, it’s probably worth just seeing what the price difference of the premiums is. If it’s relatively little, it might be worth getting it as you are vetting anyway, just in case the horse is one of those (relatively rare) youngsters that can’t stand up to proper work.
 
It will add a lot on your premiums because it is easier to claim for LOU than make a successful mortality claim that meets the insurers requirements.
However they wouldn’t pay out on potential, say you got him home and he’s hacking, working nicely enough in the school as a4yo might, then has a field accident and can only hack/light school. LOU isn’t going to pay out masses cause that’s what the horse was already doing to a certain extent. Once the work increases and they start doing more and have a ‘use’ as it were then it’s more worthwhile. (Not that hacking and schooling aren’t ‘uses’ but in the context of the OP where the horse has been bought to event in the future I was trying to show the comparison)
 
I've had a payout for loss of use. You need to make sure the vet puts exact things down for the use of the horse. E.g. if you put hacking and dressage and the horse is sound enough to hack then even if you can't go in the school they won't pay out. You need to put dressage up to elementary (or similar). Mine was a 5yo with suspensory issues and as I had put dressage (to medium) and eventing (to be90) and it was clear her suspensories would never stand up to that they paid out, even though she had only done prelim tests/clear rounds to that point. I kept her and she went to be a recipient mare as she was sound in a straight line but too spooky for a happy hacker.

Personally at 10k I would have it for at least the first year and then reassess.
 
I should perhaps clarify that I have had a (partial) pay out for loss of use in the distant past. Suffice to say that the aggregate of vets fees claimed plus the LOU payment only equalled the premiums paid so I broke even. As such it was not worth it. The other point I forgot to mention is that you will need to be relatively quick to claim LOU before the relevant issue is excluded from cover on your next renewal. So a slow deterioration over a couple of years or more will likely mean the relevant thing has been excluded before you actually get into LOU territory at all. As such it has always seemed to me that LOU cover is somewhat illusory. As there is no reduction in premiums when exclusions are added you will end up paying full wack for less than full cover in that scenario.
 
Loss of use is always a very expensive add on.

It’s also something that doesn’t pay out willy nilly. It doesn’t always pay out 100% (ie if horse isn’t a total write off you might only get a %).

In general I’d say, only spend on a horse what you are happy (within) reason to burn.

If you are pushing yourself out of this comfort zone then what I would say is that if you have bought/been sold a dud, you generally start to get an inkling something is wrong in the first year. So I would say there is merit in insuring for LOU in the first year if you are a bit nervous.

I’ve only insured LOU once. At the time I was spending all my disposable on a horse and I just had a minor gut niggle, even though the horse was lovely and flew through a vet. My gut was right, he was a dud. I got a 75% pay out hassle free from KBIS.
 
The NFU used to be very generous in its interpretation of Loss of Use, that was 20 odd years when I first insured my horse. I paid it for a while, and then as he became older I dropped it as I realised that that no insurance company would pay out as he really wasn't competing at a high enough level.

I think for a very expensive horse that you buy specifically for a competition life then it might be worth it, but in general probably not.
 
I did and used it. I had a horse I valued at £15k, he never needed x-rays though but that was about 10 years ago. He did his DDFT pretty majorly so they paid £5k for his vet fees then paid out £14,500 loss of use in the end (£500 for meat money I guess). It helped fund my next horse and also helped cover my horse who has been a field ornament since!
 
I used it when I could afford the premiums and had 2 successful claims. Both covered the excess on the vet's fees that were run up and formed the loss of use case. So it didn't pay for a new horse but left me without a debt.

For clarity now I have 3, I only insure for vets fees due to external injury.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top