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

This is one of the most thought provoking threads I have ever read on here. I really can sympathise with both sides of the argument. It does seem odd that a loaner who is loaning because they cannot afford to buy a horse themselves, can actually benefit financially so that they are able to buy their own horse, from the death of a loan horse. That does not seem right. On the other hand, the owner signed to say they would not want the money should a death payment be made if the horse died, and the OP has been the one shelling out for the insurance premiums. For me, it would make a difference what the owner normally did regarding their horses' insurance. As if they do not normally insure, why should they benefit from an insurance premium that someone else is paying? They have loaned the horse out for 5 years. Why is that? Presumably they do not wish to keep the horse themselves but also don't want to sell it. So they have found a home where all the expenses and care of the horse are met by someone else.

It would also depend, for me, on the cause of death of the horse. Was it being over exerted? Had it had regular health checks? That kind of thing.

For the record, I have insured 2 loan horses and the money for the death of the horse would have been paid to me. I would then have passed it on to the owners. In both cases, the owners normally insured the horse. I think the difference here is that the owner agreed that in the event of the horse's death, the pay out should go to the OP. I think that therefore they should honour that agreement.
 
Not read all the replies here, so sorry if this has already been said ... but maybe the owner signed the letter saying the loaner could keep the insurance payouts, never thinking that the horse might actually die whilst with on loan. If they only did that thinking that any insurance would recompense the loaner for any vets fees incurred if the horse were injured or ill, then the loaner would only be getting back from the insurance what they'd had to pay out in costs, which is totally fair enough.

The owner chose not to insure the horse, and so they would have been left with nothing when the animal died, wherever it was living at the time. As it was the loaner (OP) who paid for insurance cover during a long loan period, I think a fair solution for both parties would be for the loaner to offer to halve any payout resulting from the claim, but deduct from the owner's share of that, the total cost of the insurance premiums paid out over the 5 year period. After all, it was the very fact that the insurance was in place which has resulted in there being any money to argue over at all. Had it not been for OP taking out the insurance, both parties would have a deceased horse and nothing more.

(Sorry if that sounds heartless OP ... I'm truly sorry you've lost your horse and for the mess you now find yourself in, but you need to resolve this and move on asap. If this means you need to find additional funds to replace this horse with another one, then so be it ... or look for another loan from elsewhere.)
 
Here's a thought. If the horse hadn't been insured (and the owner was happy with that), when the horse died would you expect the loaner to pay the owner the equivalent of the insurance payout? ( out of their own pocket)
 
It's not hard. I have previous loaned horses out, kept the insurance in my name, made sure the loaners details are with the insurance company so they can deal with them for Vets fees. I have then sent a copy of the insurance to the loaner and charged them the premiums as a condition of loan.

As for the payout, I can't see how it could be paid to anyone but the owner. You can't insure anything you don't have a financial interest in.
 
Yes, I would. IMO you break it you fix or replacing e it whether its a horse/car/laptop etc. You hear stories of loaner breaking horses then sending them back, I would think that the owners in such cases would be able to successfully take them to court but many don't bother.
As for those who pay the insurance premiums but then claim back from the loaner, I ask again what is the difference between that and the loaner taking out the policy themselves, either way the loaner is still paying...
I also reiterate that the letter may have been to give permission for the insurance company to pay out to the loaner as the policy was in her name, not the owners as many have said that they would not otherwise. Whether the owner insures or not is irrelevant, her money/asset and her choice. Who knows, if this was an event horse she may well have insured him as he is/was valuable, the other horses may be young or retired and not worth insuring in the owners view, but we don't know this so cannot say for certain. What we do know is she wouldn't be benefiting from the payout, she would be recouping her losses for the initial, original outlay for the horse. The only way i would say the loaner is entitled to some of the money is if she added significant value of the horse whilst she had it on loan.
 
Capriole said:
Never in all my days have I heard of (or read of, insured or otherwise) a loaner paying the purchase price of a loan horse back to the owner on it's death for whatever reason. So it's interesting to read these posts saying that owners should get the value of the horse from the loaner. Genuinely didn't know that was expected.

Likewise I've heard of, and read of on here or anywhere else, many broken horses being returned to their owner with never a mention of the person who was in control of the horse a the time of it's injury making up the shortfall in value between healthy horse and broken horse.

Moral of the story for me is, if you loan out your horse, insure it yourself.
Click to expand...

This!

Both times that I have loaned my horses out, I have continued to pay the vets fee and LOA insurance. The NFU were quite happy to remove the third party element of the insurance, and it was part of the loan agreement that the loaner would cover this and accept liability for the tack.

It is my horse, my loss if anything goes wrong, why would I not continue to protect my property?
 
Fides said:
OP doesn't feel she should have to an says the owners are trying to make money out of her??



OH is a solicitor and says that unless there is a clause in the insurance (which you can do) stating the the financial interest is in the owner not loaner, there is nothing the owner can do to claim off the insurance. He has also said that if the insurance ask for a bill of receipt and loaner cannot provide one the insurance will not pay out TO EITHER PARTY. Both lose out. OP it is in your best interests to speak with the owner as you may get nothing!

Further he has said that if the horse had not been insured and had died there would be no route of recompense to the owner BUT as the loaner has profited from the death, the owner is within rights to take the loaner to the small claims court for the full value of the horse (not the payout less excess).

OP think very carefully before you try and swindle the owner! You are morally wrong and you may find yourself out of pocket with legal bills to pay too...

Plus who on earth is going to loan you a horse now with this thread online? Good luck in finding another loan - I don't think anyone on here would loan you theirs, I certainly wouldn't!
Click to expand...

Why are more people not discussing the points made by Fides' solicitor OH?

The point about expecting recompense for a horse if no insurance was involved would only be enforceable really with a clause in the loan contract. However because the OP is profiting from the death (profiting because they never purchased the horse in the first place) then the owner could take them to small claims - loaner would be left worse off due to legal fees etc.

That's if the insurance even pays up without proof of ownership.
 
If this was originally intended to benefit the OP by giving publicity to her blog, I think it may have backfired, let's face it no one will loan to her again if they read this!
 
Having looked at her blog it's no wonder she can't afford to buy a horse if she is buying over £100 worth of beauty creams! Problem is that now, anyone who has looked at her blog will know her name, location and even occupation, this is a far reaching forum and she may struggle to get another loan now...
 
Broke_But_Happy said:
Having looked at her blog it's no wonder she can't afford to buy a horse if she is buying over £100 worth of beauty creams! Problem is that now, anyone who has looked at her blog will know her name, location and even occupation, this is a far reaching forum and she may struggle to get another loan now...
Click to expand...

She's not far from me so I have already warned my friends on Facebook not to loan to her...
 
khalswitz said:
Why are more people not discussing the points made by Fides' solicitor OH?

The point about expecting recompense for a horse if no insurance was involved would only be enforceable really with a clause in the loan contract. However because the OP is profiting from the death (profiting because they never purchased the horse in the first place) then the owner could take them to small claims - loaner would be left worse off due to legal fees etc.

That's if the insurance even pays up without proof of ownership.
Click to expand...

Because there are issues with his advice. If the insurance company asked me for a bill of sale for any of my horses I wouldn't be able to give them (have no idea where they are) but I do have passports.

The point of insurance is the mitigation of risk; if x happens you get paid y. In this case the loaner has insured the horse and has/will be paid out.

The contract that she had with the owner was to loan the horse for a period and them return it. She is now unable to return the horse so should pay the owner the value of the horse (how that is assessed is a different issue).

I have drafted a number of loan agreements and mainly the obligation to insure the horse falls to the loaner but we set out what happens on career ending injury / death etc including any insurance payouts. Where the horse has been valuable (over £100k) the owner has insured (need special insurance).
 
CBAnglo said:
Because there are issues with his advice. If the insurance company asked me for a bill of sale for any of my horses I wouldn't be able to give them (have no idea where they are) but I do have passports.

The point of insurance is the mitigation of risk; if x happens you get paid y. In this case the loaner has insured the horse and has/will be paid out.

The contract that she had with the owner was to loan the horse for a period and them return it. She is now unable to return the horse so should pay the owner the value of the horse (how that is assessed is a different issue).

I have drafted a number of loan agreements and mainly the obligation to insure the horse falls to the loaner but we set out what happens on career ending injury / death etc including any insurance payouts. Where the horse has been valuable (over £100k) the owner has insured (need special insurance).
Click to expand...

But your name in the passport will be a kind of proof of ownership without bill of sale though surely? Whereas the loaner would have to actively commit fraud and claim to falsely be the owner to receive the payout??

May have been grabbing the wrong end of the stick with your reply so bear with me, I'm no legal eagle.
 
little_critter said:
Here's a thought. If the horse hadn't been insured (and the owner was happy with that), when the horse died would you expect the loaner to pay the owner the equivalent of the insurance payout? ( out of their own pocket)
Click to expand...

Personally, no, its the issue of the loaner making a profit out of the horse's death and going off to buy themselves a swanky new horse with the proceeds rather than offering to replace the lovely horse that someone was kind enough to loan them. The OP seems to only think about themselves. Shame they've not come back on here to answer a few questions.

I would never borrow anything from anyone without replacing it if I broke it, and when I loaned a pony a few years back, I had much more insurance cover for that pony than any of my own animals, just so that I would be able to replace it if anything happened. Seems that only about 50% of people on here think that other people's property is worth anything, and that if they'd looked after a horse well for five years it somehow means that they should get the proceeds as the owner obviously doesn't care.
 
In terms of an uninsured loan horse, I'd say with human nature being what it is, it's highly unlikely that an owner would 'come after' a loaner for money when the horse had died, if the owner was quite 'happy' (for want of a better word) with the circumstances of death. In most cases I know of, it's not an emergency situation and the owner has been fully involved in any decision making anyway. But if the owner wasn't happy with the circumstances, I can see that things could get icky and want reimbursing for the horse.

All the more reason to thrash out all the eventualities in a formal contract before the loan starts.
 
So another thought. The horse is uninsured, horse dies or has to be PTS, who deals with cremation/disposal costs? By all your reckonings the carcass belongs to the owner, so owner would have to pay for removal/cremation etc as loaners commitment ended when the horse hit the floor by the reasoning that some people have put above.

How many of you stating payments/carcass has to be returned once horse is dead believe the above is the responsibility of the loaner??

If you loan out a horse long term and you dont have it insured under your name then why the hell should you be paid out upon death of a horse that you havent had anything to do with for five years? You havent been paying monthly keep, you have basically had the right to say 'thats my horse' in all honesty. I put my horse on loan and I paid his insurance for my peace of mind, I didnt have to claim on it thank god but it was there.
 
Personally I would total up the insurance premiums paid out by yourself over the period of loan and if this amounts to the same or less than the payout for death of the horse I would not feel guilty. As someone has said yes the owner lost a horse, but equally you have paid for and looked after the horse for a long period, so the loss will have hit you just as much.
 
Black Beastie said:
So another thought. The horse is uninsured, horse dies or has to be PTS, who deals with cremation/disposal costs? By all your reckonings the carcass belongs to the owner, so owner would have to pay for removal/cremation etc as loaners commitment ended when the horse hit the floor by the reasoning that some people have put above.

How many of you stating payments/carcass has to be returned once horse is dead believe the above is the responsibility of the loaner??

If you loan out a horse long term and you dont have it insured under your name then why the hell should you be paid out upon death of a horse that you havent had anything to do with for five years? You havent been paying monthly keep, you have basically had the right to say 'thats my horse' in all honesty. I put my horse on loan and I paid his insurance for my peace of mind, I didnt have to claim on it thank god but it was there.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter how long the loaner has been paying for it - it's still the owners horse.

I have this argument regularly with my sister - her borrowing items of my clothing whilst I was away at uni, despite her looking after them and cleaning them and me not noticing they've disappeared for four years until I her wearing them does NOT make them hers, and if she ruins them I expect a replacement.
 
You know legally one can take life insurance out on anyone. You don't have to be married or dependant on that person, you just pay the premiums and you take the benefit if the person dies - simples. The loan agreement should be specific in the type of cover the loanee is to take. When I loaned out in the past - I insisted on the loanee taking veterinary cover, if the loanee benefitted from the death of one of mine that would not have been an issue to me. Presumably any excess for insurance claims made has been paid for by the OP and loaner and not the owner.
 
Black Beastie said:
So another thought. The horse is uninsured, horse dies or has to be PTS, who deals with cremation/disposal costs? By all your reckonings the carcass belongs to the owner, so owner would have to pay for removal/cremation etc as loaners commitment ended when the horse hit the floor by the reasoning that some people have put above.

How many of you stating payments/carcass has to be returned once horse is dead believe the above is the responsibility of the loaner??

If you loan out a horse long term and you dont have it insured under your name then why the hell should you be paid out upon death of a horse that you havent had anything to do with for five years? You havent been paying monthly keep, you have basically had the right to say 'thats my horse' in all honesty. I put my horse on loan and I paid his insurance for my peace of mind, I didnt have to claim on it thank god but it was there.
Click to expand...

The owner may have not had much to do with the horse for 5 years but the loaners had the use of a horse without the initial purchase price, which was paid by the owner, the fact that they kept it for 5 years and paid expenses does not mean they get compensation if it dies, the insurance in the main will have covered vets fees not mortality which is only a small % of the premium and meant that the loaners were not in a difficult position if something had gone wrong requiring a lot of expensive treatment.
The assumption that the owner did not care or failed the horse by loaning and not insuring amazes me, they loaned rather than sold which implies they did have the horses interests at heart, the only real fail was to have a proper contract in place, although it is likely we will never here the rest of the story from the OP or the owners side.
 
khalswitz said:
Doesn't matter how long the loaner has been paying for it - it's still the owners horse.

I have this argument regularly with my sister - her borrowing items of my clothing whilst I was away at uni, despite her looking after them and cleaning them and me not noticing they've disappeared for four years until I her wearing them does NOT make them hers, and if she ruins them I expect a replacement.
Click to expand...

Has your sister been paying monthly costs of over 200 quid to wear your clothes?? Poor example to use im afraid and certainly not relevant in the slightest to the above.
 
be positive said:
The owner may have not had much to do with the horse for 5 years but the loaners had the use of a horse without the initial purchase price, which was paid by the owner, the fact that they kept it for 5 years and paid expenses does not mean they get compensation if it dies, the insurance in the main will have covered vets fees not mortality which is only a small % of the premium and meant that the loaners were not in a difficult position if something had gone wrong requiring a lot of expensive treatment.
The assumption that the owner did not care or failed the horse by loaning and not insuring amazes me, they loaned rather than sold which implies they did have the horses interests at heart, the only real fail was to have a proper contract in place, although it is likely we will never here the rest of the story from the OP or the owners side.
Click to expand...

If I'd had a horse out on loan for five years, not insured him/her and he died, no way would I be chasing the loaner for money. They had cared for and loved the horse more than I had, covered costs that I hadnt etc, also if my horse who is just back from loan had died in his loaners care and wasnt insured would I HELL be chasing them for his worth, Honestly talk about money grabbing.

Nobody who has said they would be chasing for the money has commented on my lack of insurance carcass ownership scenario??? Interested to see what people think about that, carcass/horse belongs to owner so is owners responsibility to dispose of IMV.
 
Black Beastie said:
Has your sister been paying monthly costs of over 200 quid to wear your clothes?? Poor example to use im afraid and certainly not relevant in the slightest to the above.
Click to expand...

I disagree. My sister has incurred dry cleaning costs that are part of the day-to-day of wearing clothes in the same manner that the loaner incurs day-to-day costs of keeping a horse. Doesn't affect ownership in either case, whether a horse costs more or not.
 
khalswitz said:
I disagree. My sister has incurred dry cleaning costs that are part of the day-to-day of wearing clothes in the same manner that the loaner incurs day-to-day costs of keeping a horse. Doesn't affect ownership in either case, whether a horse costs more or not.
Click to expand...

Pahahahahaha ok then its totally the same based on a box of soap powder great example :D

anyway Im done as nobody seems willing to contemplate the example above, most are happy just to cry on behalf of an owner who has had her horse looked after and paid for for all these years.

For the price of some very expensive dry cleaning might it add :D
 
Black Beastie said:
Pahahahahaha ok then its totally the same based on a box of soap powder great example :D
Click to expand...

Legally it is. It's the care of property. You don't take ownership because you are paying for care and upkeep of borrowed property. Same principle in both cases. Just one involves more money (which if the loaner isn't prepared for they shouldn't be loaning...)

Also dry cleaning costs on nice pieces of clothing are MUCH more than a box of washing powder... as my sister often tells me...
 
Not read the whole thread.
What if it were a car you'd loaned? You'd still need to put petrol etc in it.
Doesn't make it your car.
 
Black Beastie said:
Nobody who has said they would be chasing for the money has commented on my lack of insurance carcass ownership scenario??? Interested to see what people think about that, carcass/horse belongs to owner so is owners responsibility to dispose of IMV.
Click to expand...

Disposal is (usually) covered by the insurance...

I have just had to pay disposal costs due to not checking a policy. Situation was that the horse was gifted to me but as the previous owner had insured for a full year she said I could finish the terms of the insurance. Unfortunately the policy excluded removal so I had to pay £350 to have his body removed. With hindsight I should have checked the smallprint...
 
Black Beastie said:
If I'd had a horse out on loan for five years, not insured him/her and he died, no way would I be chasing the loaner for money. They had cared for and loved the horse more than I had, covered costs that I hadnt etc, also if my horse who is just back from loan had died in his loaners care and wasnt insured would I HELL be chasing them for his worth, Honestly talk about money grabbing.

Nobody who has said they would be chasing for the money has commented on my lack of insurance carcass ownership scenario??? Interested to see what people think about that, carcass/horse belongs to owner so is owners responsibility to dispose of IMV.
Click to expand...

I agree with this.

Owners signed a letter to say they were happy for this to go ahead money wise too. Was hardly done without consent and sneakyness.
 
Last edited:
They owned the horse therefore purchased it. You paid the premiums presumably to cover the vet bills. To me the death benefit goes to the owner not you. It wasn't your horse and you never invested the money in buying it. I think the owner is being rather generous in saying half!

If I lease a car I have to insure it, if I crash it and write it off who gets the money, not me!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top