is there a legal definition of light hack??

H

hellywelly1

Well-Known Member
Joined
19 April 2010
Messages
221
Location
south yorks
Visit site
as above really as one of my horses is post op and not doing so well. he was insured as class one for schooling jumping ect with the hope to complete at local level in sj.
He was vetted and i asked him to be vetted for above and when speaking to them today re loss of use as wont ever jump again was total their records say he was vetted for 'hacking' which is rubbish.
the conversation was ''i will use him for hacking and schooling for a few weeks until i regain my confidence then start to jump and compete''.
he passed the vetting but she didnt state the use and apparently in her notes separate to the vetting which we dont have she put hack but not on the legal vetting cert.
how will we stand on insurance? they have the vetting and never questioned it. i am going to take it up with the practise but the vet who passed him has left and also left the country to norway and i now have a horse which will be a light hack at best
 
I'm not sure how it stands re the vetting, but I'd assume if he passed the vetting its just a case of checking your insurance documents to see what group you insured him for.
 
he was insured class 1 and was meant to be vetted for jumping ect. im just confused why the vet put hacking on her clinical notes and no use defined on vetting when clearly asked to be vetted for jumping
 
It is normally put on the vetting certificate the purpose you are buying it for, it is strange that the certificate was incomplete.
I would think that if it was a 5 stage, unless there are notes which say there were problems at the vetting, the insurance company would have made exclusions if there were, a vetting is a complete examination and if nothing was noted the horse should be fit for any purpose.(within reason)

Is the problem something that showed up not long after purchase?
 
Have a look to see what class 1 covers. Different insurance companies have different groupings, eg pet plans group 1 is I think just retired & horses at grass. If your insurance co has jumping in group 1, & have insured him on the basis of your vetting cert I can't imagine they can object.
 
10 mths after vetting so a little while but it came up in conversation today as the surgeon who works for the same practice was confused why we would want loss of use for jumping when he reaq on file was only vetted for hacking.
i was shocked by this and checked the original vetting form againthis evening and she didnt state a purpose for horses use but put on her separate notes for his file hacking.
why would i get a 5 stage vetting and spend 3.5k on a hack?? i wouldn't although some people would. my question is how would this work re insurance loss of use when there is conflict as to what he was vetted and purchased for
 
he is nfu which says class one is...(taken from policy book)

class 1 includes all activites except
advanced eventing
polo
team chase
ice tolt
stunt/film work
racing
 
In that case unless they've put an exclusion on the insurance they can't object to him being loss of use, regardless of what vets wrote on notes. If the vets had noticed he wasn't fit for jumping & informed the insurance co he was only fit to hack they would be sure to have stuck an exclusion on.
 
Your main issue here really is if you are going to try for a LOU claim you will need your vets on side, the insurance should be okay as he is insured for full competition purposes.
You need to explain this to your vet that there was nothing on the original certificate, an error by their employee, and get them to back up your claim on the grounds that what was in the notes was incorrect, if it had been on the certificate you would have been able to get it corrected before it went to the insurance company.
The chances are the insurance will not require any notes from the original vetting.
Most vets receptionists now ask for a lot of details when you book the vetting to avoid this type of confusion happening if you are not there on the day.
 
the vetting states he was fit for purpose but not a give purpose if that makes sense??:confused::confused:

it says....
the opinion on balance of probabilities the conditions set out above are/are not(are not is circled) likely to prejudice this animal for___________. which is black
 
be positive said:
Your main issue here really is if you are going to try for a LOU claim you will need your vets on side, the insurance should be okay as he is insured for full competition purposes.
You need to explain this to your vet that there was nothing on the original certificate, an error by their employee, and get them to back up your claim on the grounds that what was in the notes was incorrect, if it had been on the certificate you would have been able to get it corrected before it went to the insurance company.
The chances are the insurance will not require any notes from the original vetting.
Most vets receptionists now ask for a lot of details when you book the vetting to avoid this type of confusion happening if you are not there on the day.
Click to expand...

i will speak to the surgeon but we arent on great terms due to the treatment of said horse while in there care and a complaint being made. when i booked the vetting on the phone i requested for schooling hacking jumping
 
You may have a potential problem then as to claim LOU you will need a vet to state that it is no longer able to do the job it was purchased for, if they have the note stating hacking it may be their way of covering themselves.
They still have the fact that the certificate was incorrectly filled in to explain and should really back you up if there has been a problem with the treatment.
 
the surgery its self went fine, the complaint is i witnessed a member of staff hit my horse when he first arrived:eek:. she was trying to put a tag on him and he barged which to be fair some might say was acceptable :rolleyes:however i asked the nurse who hit him to leave him a while to settle in or id put tag on but she refused insisting she had to do it now and horse barged. doesnt sound like much to some people but i was fuming as had gone against my advice as his owner and he was hit and i had to leave him in their care.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top