Loaner unfortunately lost horse but now in tricky situation...

Cowpony said:
Actually you couldn't. This is from the Prudential (sorry, can't cut and paste it so this is a quote):
"The doctrine of insurable interest states, broadly speaking, that in order to have a valid policy of insurance/assurance the policyholder must:
(1) gain a benefit from the continued existence of the item being insured; or
(2) suffer a loss on its destruction
This concept applies to all forms of assurance and insurance, not just life assurance."

It goes on to quote the Life Assurance Act 1774, which says that it is not lawful to make an insurance policy without inserting the name or names of the person(s) interested in the life or event.
Click to expand...

I stand corrected.

I have heard of people insuring the lives of famous people though if they are, for example, a lookalike and it is their occupation.

In the case of the OP, then the conditions you quoted would apply, even though they are not the owner.
 
Wagtail said:
I stand corrected.

I have heard of people insuring the lives of famous people though if they are, for example, a lookalike and it is their occupation.

In the case of the OP, then the conditions you quoted would apply, even though they are not the owner.
Click to expand...

But then they have an interest, don't they, as their occupation relies on the life of that person...
 
Wagtail said:
I stand corrected.

I have heard of people insuring the lives of famous people though if they are, for example, a lookalike and it is their occupation.

In the case of the OP, then the conditions you quoted would apply, even though they are not the owner.
Click to expand...

Yes I think in the situation of lookalikes etc the person would have an insurable interest, because they gain a benefit from the continued existence of the celebrity. Similarly concert promoters etc can probably insure a singer in case they couldn't appear and the promoter lost out on all the expenses they had incurred, whilst having to return the ticket money to disappointed fans.

In the case of the OP her insurable interest is likely to be the risk that she has to reimburse the owner for the fact that the horse can't be returned. But as a lot of people have said, we don't have all the facts so we can't say anything for sure.
 
Also point to note, if insurance says will only pay death value to owner, and owner sends letter to insurance company saying pay all death value to loaner, I doubt the insurance company would do it.

In theory, although the owner is mentioned in the insurance contract, IMO the owner does not have privity of contract and therefore no rights to alter the terms of the contract
 
This thread has certainly made me think. We have had a loan horse for a couple of weeks,loan agreement in place etc, owner only wanted the horse insured third party. Today I have taken out death insurance (through accident, illness etc) through SEiB, it cost £106 and I know there are cheaper out there but reputation was more important to me than cost. I have the peace of mind that the owner will not be out of pocket if the horse should die.
 
ihatework said:
Have you actually tried taking out insurance on a loan horse? Because I have. And ALL 3 Insurance companies I have dealt with request to pay out to the owner irrespective of who pays the premiums. With the added Caveat that the insurance company is informed the horse is on loan.
Click to expand...

I have taken out insurance on three loan horses. Two with Aims and one with Petplan. I am not 100% sure on the Petplan insurance as I didn't read the small print, but certainly with the AIMS, it specified 'the policy holder' on all terms of payment. As it happened, the insurance was a condition of the loans, but I would have paid any death benefit to the owners as that was part of the reason they were insured IMO. However, the owner of the horse in the OP specifically put in writing that all payments would be for the OP to keep and therefore I think they should stand by their agreement.
 
When I had my current horse on loan (before I bought him) the payout if he died would have gone to his owner even though the policy was in my name and I paid the premiums. I didn't ever expect to be paid out on a horse that I didn't own - I feel that would be wrong.

He was only insured 3rd party before I got him and I chose to have him insured for vets fees and death/straying etc. It was more for my peace of mind for his then owner if anything happened to him. Obviously the vets fees cover was for my benefit.
 
Wagtail said:
I have taken out insurance on three loan horses. Two with Aims and one with Petplan. I am not 100% sure on the Petplan insurance as I didn't read the small print, but certainly with the AIMS, it specified 'the policy holder' on all terms of payment. As it happened, the insurance was a condition of the loans, but I would have paid any death benefit to the owners as that was part of the reason they were insured IMO. However, the owner of the horse in the OP specifically put in writing that all payments would be for the OP to keep and therefore I think they should stand by their agreement.
Click to expand...

I've done Petplan, KBIS and NFU - and although each policy refers to 'policyholder' in the small print (standard wording no doubt) - they each specifically mention the loan situation within the policy specifics.

It's a sorry situation for the OP because I'm sure they thought they were just doing the right thing. The owner is as much to blame.
 
Wagtail said:
I have taken out insurance on three loan horses. Two with Aims and one with Petplan. I am not 100% sure on the Petplan insurance as I didn't read the small print, but certainly with the AIMS, it specified 'the policy holder' on all terms of payment. As it happened, the insurance was a condition of the loans, but I would have paid any death benefit to the owners as that was part of the reason they were insured IMO. However, the owner of the horse in the OP specifically put in writing that all payments would be for the OP to keep and therefore I think they should stand by their agreement.
Click to expand...

Petplan:

"If your horse is on loan to you, we will not make any claim payment until we receive evidence of the horse’s legal ownership and a copy of the loan agreement, signed by both parties.
The claims settlement will be paid to you and not to the horse’s legal owner, regardless of any arrangements stated in the loan agreement."

So they will pay direct to the loaner, but only on seeing a loan agreement and proof of legal ownership. So in OP's case the owner could in theory stop the loaner receiving a payout by not cooperating...

This stresses the importance of a watertight loan contract.
 
What's coming out of this is if you send a horse on loan the best thing to do is insure the horse and then get the person taking the horse to pay you if the agreement you have made is that the person taking the horse is to pay the insurance costs.
 
khalswitz said:
Petplan:

"If your horse is on loan to you, we will not make any claim payment until we receive evidence of the horse’s legal ownership and a copy of the loan agreement, signed by both parties.
The claims settlement will be paid to you and not to the horse’s legal owner, regardless of any arrangements stated in the loan agreement."

So they will pay direct to the loaner, but only on seeing a loan agreement and proof of legal ownership. So in OP's case the owner could in theory stop the loaner receiving a payout by not cooperating...

This stresses the importance of a watertight loan contract.
Click to expand...

Thank you. On all three occasions where I have been loaning a horse and insuring it, the insurers have requested a copy of the loan agreement and passport BEFORE agreeing to the insurance. The OP states that there was no loan agreement, though reading through the lines, I wonder if the owner provided a letter confirming the loan for the purpose of the insurance?
 
I think this is a hard one, I can totally see both sides of the story. I would split the money!

I do feel I have to comment on the attacking posts directed towards the loaner - they are quite frankly disgusting IMO! Quite why she is labelled a 'bad' loaner, having her social media/beauty blogs/twitter accounts trawled through, being bad mouthed on social media and slated JUST FOR querying the details outlined in the agreement where the owner stating she could KEEP the payout is just unbelievable.

She does have a valid point in that she has paid the premiums and therefore has a legal right to the payout, as the owner has AGREED in writing. There is no argument on this legally surely?

I am totally on the fence on the morality side of things - I must say the last paragraph of the OP just doesn't sit right with me - the owner could have taken the horse back at any time before he died, leaving the OP with no payout and no money for another horse anyway so I am unsure how that is relevant?!

Therefore I think the OP should split the money with the owner, leave things amicably, and go their separate ways. A few months without a horse (livery and eventing costs) would soon tot up and you would have enough to buy one anyway.
 
Goldenstar said:
What's coming out of this is if you send a horse on loan the best thing to do is insure the horse and then get the person taking the horse to pay you if the agreement you have made is that the person taking the horse is to pay the insurance costs.
Click to expand...

Completely agree. It has been a useful thread, though obviously a very sad one too.

I can quite understand why a loaner would need money to replace the horse. There are not very many useful loan horses out there. I had one a few years ago. He was worth his weight in gold. If I were to replace him it would take me years to find one as safe, and suitable for my novice husband, as well as being able to go out and win at dressage. I am looking for another loan now as I could not afford to buy such a horse having just lost my mare (was PTS for and exception so no pay out) and bought my filly, but could give such a horse a 5 star home for life. It is not that easy to find a really good loan horse, and so I am prepared to wait years if necessary. The OP probably wants to get one much sooner and therefore buying would be the only realistic option.
 
I would just like to say thank you to all who have replied to this thread. I was a little overwhelmed by the amount of responses. I know for a lot of people it is a straight forward answer... One half obviously saying money should go back to owner and the rest understanding my position. The horse had been loaned most of its life to various people. The amount that will be payable ( if the full amount is awarded) is just a few hundred more than what we had paid on the premium. We would be looking at only £1500 to then get another horse and saddle if it was to be split. I had been burned before i got this loan horse and we lost money on a crazy thoroughbred with a split personality. The loan horse had previously been through a tough time and had become depressed where he was before which was definately not his nature. He was with us and had the BEST home we could have given him. He was loving life and the owners said they hoped they would get more years out of him which hurt us because he was at peak fitness at 16 doing BE eventing!

I hope this clears somethings up for people and they understand my view a little better. Again thank you for all your responses!
 
montanna said:
I think this is a hard one, I can totally see both sides of the story. I would split the money! I do feel I have to comment on the attacking posts directed towards the loaner - they are quite frankly disgusting IMO! Quite why she is labelled a 'bad' loaner, having her social media/beauty blogs/twitter accounts trawled through, being bad mouthed on social media and slated JUST FOR querying the details outlined in the agreement where the owner stating she could KEEP the payout is just unbelievable. She does have a valid point in that she has paid the premiums and therefore has a legal right to the payout, as the owner has AGREED in writing. There is no argument on this legally surely? I am totally on the fence on the morality side of things - I must say the last paragraph of the OP just doesn't sit right with me - the owner could have taken the horse back at any time before he died, leaving the OP with no payout and no money for another horse anyway so I am unsure how that is relevant?! Therefore I think the OP should split the money with the owner, leave things amicably, and go their separate ways. A few months without a horse (livery and eventing costs) would soon tot up and you would have enough to buy one anyway.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
I read some pretty awful comments which were aimed at the OP, at the end of the day its never nice losing a horse whether you loaned it or owned it.
The best was done for the horse by the loaner in the five years they had taken care of the animal, by paying insurance ensured this. The money in my opinion is completely irrelevant. I know recieving the cheque when I lost my horse was just upsetting, he had paid for himself 100 times over so although the cheque ended up paying for his cremation and left over vets bill maybe calling it quits and splitting the money would be for the best, even if just for an easy life.
 
Moral feelings aside - this highlights the importance of having very clear agreements in place.

A landlord letting a building would require the tenant to insure their contents in the same way an owner loaning a horse should require the loaner to insure against vets fees/public liability. The building insurance is the Landlord's responsibility, as the insurance of the horse for loss is the Owners.

I'm not sure what I would do in the OP's situation, I would feel a moral obligation to refund the monies paid to the owner as it was, after all, their property. I would perhaps feel begrudged I paid insurance premiums and give the insurance payout minus the premium back to the owner. But that is just me.
 
Trouble is I don't think you can have 2 lots of insurance for one horse like that RTE?
It has certainly highlighted things I didn't know on this thread, when we loaned the owner paid insurance so wasn't a problem.
 
RunToEarth said:
I would perhaps feel begrudged I paid insurance premiums and give the insurance payout minus the premium back to the owner. But that is just me.
Click to expand...

I'd probably do the same.. Or if the premium wasn't too high - i'd probably be inclined to hand it over altogether.
But I think what is important is that OP doesn't want to hand over the payout and from what we've been told, I don't think they are oblidged to hand it over. She has every right to keep it IMO.
 
Elsiecat said:
The owner CHOSE to take the financial risk of not insuring the horse. They CHOSE to risk losing out in terms of any future monies from selling the horse in case of LOU.
Why is everyone questioning OP's ethics and not the ethics of the owner who has gone back on her word and expects to benefit from someone elses payment of LOU insurance?
Click to expand...

I didn't question her; I said it's a grey area and I said what I would do. I also said legally, her policy, her money.

Clearly, the owner has not handled things correctly; there should have been an agreement, the horse should've been insured, and the owner made an agreement against their own interests. I'm not defending the owner at all.

But I wouldn't base my choices on what the owner has failed to do. I would do what I think is right, regardless of whether the other party has failed to adequately protect themselves. I'd like to think, that I would not choose personal gain over kindness.
 
This is all a very sad situation and I do feel every sympathy for the loaner.
But the horse wasn't theirs.

The owner would have expected the horse to be returned to them after the loan period ended (how ever long that may have been), any insurance should have been to enable the loaner to compensate the owner should this not be possible - as is the case.
The cost of the insurance is irrelevant to the owner, the horse belonged to them and they should be recompensed for their loss.

The loaner should give the owner what they are 'morally' owed and save up to buy themselves their own horse.

BBoutiqueBlog said:
The amount that will be payable ( if the full amount is awarded) is just a few hundred more than what we had paid on the premium. We would be looking at only £1500 to then get another horse and saddle if it was to be split. !
Click to expand...

This is the part that makes me lose sympathy with the OP! What If the owner wanted to replace their horse they loaned to the OP? They are out of pocket for the value of the horse.
 
I am not sure what the legality is but if legally the insurance should go to the owner , the ' agreement ' the owner made would void because you can't give up your rights in English law .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top