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

[BBoutiqueBlog]

Hi new to here but felt that I needed to get some advice from like minded people...

I have recently lost my horse that I had been loaning for 5 years at an event due to a fatal heart attack. As said, me and my Mum had loaned the horse for 5 years and had paid for everything (vet fees, livery, tack etc) and had taken out an insurance policy in case of injury/loss to rider and horse. Therefore the premium has been paid by us and so we made the claim when said horse passed away. No loan agreement was set out at the beginning of the loan...

The tricky thing is now the owner wants half of the money from the insurance even though they signed a letter saying that they were happy for the full amount that would be paid out by insurers to come to us. The owner has four other horses, 2 rising 4 and two other horses which are all not insured. The owner is getting back tack which they paid for (including a saddle worth at least £900 after only just having it changed). We feel now that this is just becoming a money making scheme and know that in no way will any amount of money ever bring the horse back that I loved. If the money has to be split we then are left with only a small amount of money to buy a horse and tack...

I would like to know peoples views on this... Thanks for your time!

 

[vickyb]

If you have paid the premiums and have the letter you mention, I wouldn't have thought that they have a leg to stand on re getting half the money.

 

[webble]

I would take all paperwork to a solicitor and see what they say. Good luck and sorry for your loss

 

[Penny Less]

Sorry to hear of your loss. I would think that if the owners had signed a letter saying you could have the insurance, then they don't have a case

 

[Fides]

This is why as an owner I would always pay the insurance myself when loaning. The owner has no comeback unfortunately it is a horrible situation the owner is the one that has lost the financial side of the horse but the loaner gets the money you legally get to keep the money but morally, I think it is wrong

 

[Patterdale]

The owner has no comeback, they should have taken out their own insurance.
Plus you have the letter.

It's cut and dried, I would just tell them that they won't be having a penny from YOUR insurance claim and then stop answering the phone to them.

Yes they've lost out, but they knew the risk they were taking when they didn't take out insurance.

 

[cappucino]

wrong thread!

 

[Jnhuk]

If you paid the premiums then you should get the payout or you could ask the owner that if they wish 50% of the insurance payout, that they need to pay you 50% of the insurance premiums that you have paid over the course of the loan.

Let me guess which will be more.

What I can't understand if you bought all the tack, why is the £900 saddle being returned or have I misunderstood.

 

[el_Snowflakes]

Sorry to hear about your horse and the situation you have found yourself in.

The owner signed an agreement to say that money would go to you so she doesn't have a leg to stand on. If you think it might make her back off you could try having your solicitor send a letter stating the above. However, it would be better to try to solve this amicably if possible.

 

[EffyCorsten]

Sorry for your loss, but I think I would be splitting the money between us. if it's not about the money then it wouldn't be a problem for you to split it. I don't know how much you're pay out is but Usually you always have to pay out more to get another horse it's just the way it is I'm afraid.

The owner has lost out financially too they have lost an asset but they must also be feeling pretty upset that the horse has passed away. the last thing anyone needs is to fall out over money as you must have some sort of relationship with them after 5 years.

Hope it all gets sorted for you all

 

[Toby_Zaphod]

This is difficult one. You don't own the horse but by insuring the horse you also prevent the owners insuring it as a horse or indeed any item cannot have two policies running on them. Really the owner should have insured the horse against death & you should have insured for vet bills.

If you loaned someone a car & they insured it & they crashed it writing it off then who would the money go to? I suggest that you would have the money as it is your car & your loss. The fact that it is a horse makes no difference.

The fact that the owners are getting tack back that they paid for has nothing to do with the claim. The fact they have other horses that are not insured again is nothing to do with the matter in hand.

If you have it in writing from them that you are to keep the insurance money then possibly you may be able to. To be sure you need to seek professional advice from a solicitor. You don't need an equine solicitor for this, any solicitor should do.

This is a messy situation & I hope it gets resolved to everyone's satisfaction however I doubt it.

 

[Doormouse]

This is why as an owner I would always pay the insurance myself when loaning. The owner has no comeback unfortunately it is a horrible situation the owner is the one that has lost the financial side of the horse but the loaner gets the money you legally get to keep the money but morally, I think it is wrong

Why? The owner choose not to pay insurance premiums and the loaner did, simples.

Sorry but I cannot see why the owner having choosen not to pay insurance should be in anyway entitled to the pay out. If she still had the horse with her and the accident had happened while she was in charge then she still wouldn't have any money because she chooses not to insure any of her horses.

 

[khalswitz]

This is difficult one. You don't own the horse but by insuring the horse you also prevent the owners insuring it as a horse or indeed any item cannot have two policies running on them. Really the owner should have insured the horse against death & you should have insured for vet bills.

If you loaned someone a car & they insured it & they crashed it writing it off then who would the money go to? I suggest that you would have the money as it is your car & your loss. The fact that it is a horse makes no difference.

The fact that the owners are getting tack back that they paid for has nothing to do with the claim. The fact they have other horses that are not insured again is nothing to do with the matter in hand.

If you have it in writing from them that you are to keep the insurance money then possibly you may be able to. To be sure you need to seek professional advice from a solicitor. You don't need an equine solicitor for this, any solicitor should do.

This is a messy situation & I hope it gets resolved to everyone's satisfaction however I doubt it.

This.

Perosnally, I think it's mad that you've insured for death - it;s not your horse. You haven't bought it, and therefore it's not your financial loss. Vets bills I do understand, but not death. So I see why the owner would be upset.

If you have a signed letter, then they don't have a leg to stand on, but you've managed to make money out of their loss so I do feel for them a bit.

I do agree that they shouldn't just get free insurance pay out, but I think morally what you've done is a bit off... and I can see why they;ve said what they have. Tack etc irrelevant as presumably it was theirs anyway (as was the horse!!)

 

[Fides]

If you loaned someone a car & they insured it & they crashed it writing it off then who would the money go to? I suggest that you would have the money as it is your car & your loss. The fact that it is a horse makes no difference.

actually it does the owner will get nothing - legally it is right that the owner gets the money but morally it is wrong it's like life insurance - you don't have to be the spouse to insure someone and make a claim...

 

[Chunkie]

Sorry for your loss - it's hard enough to deal with as it is, without this added complication.

The insurance company will only pay out to the person who's paid the premiums. What you do with the money is up to you, but IMO, if the owner chose not to pay the premiums, then she chose to accept the financial loss.

Hope it gets sorted soon.

 

[WelshD]

This.

Perosnally, I think it's mad that you've insured for death - it;s not your horse. You haven't bought it, and therefore it's not your financial loss. Vets bills I do understand, but not death. So I see why the owner would be upset.

If you have a signed letter, then they don't have a leg to stand on, but you've managed to make money out of their loss so I do feel for them a bit.

I do agree that they shouldn't just get free insurance pay out, but I think morally what you've done is a bit off... and I can see why they;ve said what they have. Tack etc irrelevant as presumably it was theirs anyway (as was the horse!!)

This. Absolutely.

I can see why the loaner should be getting vets fees back but am astonished that they should feel a lump sum on value for death is their rightful money.

You wouldnt sell a loan horse so why expect its value after an accident? In fact im amazed that the insurance company would pay out a lump sum value to someone who wasnt the owner as so many scams could be done that way

The fact that the owner agreed to the loaner keeping the payout has effectively shot them in the foot but as a loaner my concience wouldnt let me keep the money full stop.

 

[Patterdale]

I once loaned out an incredibly valuable horse to good friends who promised to insure it. I didn't check. The horse died. They hasn't insured it.
I lost out to the tune of tens of thousands.

It was crap but it was my fault.

The owner here will learn their lesson. They choose not to insure their other horses too so they obviously know of and accept the risk.

 

[Pinkvboots]

This is why as an owner I would always pay the insurance myself when loaning. The owner has no comeback unfortunately it is a horrible situation the owner is the one that has lost the financial side of the horse but the loaner gets the money you legally get to keep the money but morally, I think it is wrong

How is it wrong these people have paid all the premiums they should get the money, if the owner wanted the money they should have paid the insurance so I dont think its morally wrong, the owner does not even insure the horses they have now so why should the loaner even offer them any.

I also agree that the loaner shouldnt have had the horse insured for death with it not being there horse but its done now.

 

[ester]

I'm amazed that insurance will pay out for death of a horse that is not owned by you and can't imagine it happening with any type of insurance -are they aware that you do not own the animal?- and hypothetically what would stop people insuring a horse that they haven't paid for and a few months down the line ensuring a fatal accident and claiming the insurance money??

 

[khalswitz]

How is it wrong these people have paid all the premiums they should get the money, if the owner wanted the money they should have paid the insurance so I dont think its morally wrong, the owner does not even insure the horses they have now so why should the loaner even offer them any.

I also agree that the loaner shouldnt have had the horse insured for death with it not being there horse but its done now.

Because they are making money on the value of a horse that has never belonged to them, and they did not have any ownership rights over, whilst the owner loses the value of their property? I agree owner legally isn't entitled to a penny here, but I think morally this scenario is appalling.

I maybe see this differently as I paid insurance when loaning a horse, on the understanding my paying the premiums was part of the package, but any payout relating to value of the animal or tack belonged to the owner. It was in our loan agreement that I was responsible for market value of the animal on death - so insurance was necessary.

 

[DEEDEE83]

Morally I think its shocking that someone who has no claim or financial imput or loss to an animal/car/item can get paid out on death/loss/theft. Personally what I would do is deduct what I had paid in insurance premiums and pay owner whatever was left but even that is possibly unfair on owner. This shows a loophole in the system and possibly something to be written in to contracts between owners/loaners. Slightly different I work in car insurance and we cover private car policies when the vehicle does not belong to the proposer and pay out if the vehicle is written off to the policyholder not owner.

I just cannot understand how OP can justify her being at a financial loss due to her loan horses death and ultimately thats what insurance is for.

As 2 policies for one animal/object/vehicle cannot be insured at the same time the owner wouldnt of been able to insure herself anyway. Let this be a lesson to anyone thinking of loaning out their horse.

 

[Shay]

What a sad situation - my condolences to both sides.

I'm with the more recent posters. The loanee should really not have insured for death and should not profit from it. The horse was the property of the owner and it is the owner who should have compensation for its loss. I am slightly surprised that an insurance company would pay out for loss to someone who did not in fact own the asset lost. That would open up a whole scam of insuring for the loss of something you didn't actually own then profiting from its loss - whether it is a horse or some other valuable item. It may well be that this will backfire if the insurance company now deny the claim. Alternatively the owner may opt to sue for recovery of the asset or equivalent monetary value which it seems to me they are probably entitled to do.

OP - perhaps splitting it between you both would be both the pragmatic and the moral thing to do?

 

[khalswitz]

Slightly different I work in car insurance and we cover private car policies when the vehicle does not belong to the proposer and pay out if the vehicle is written off to the policyholder not owner.

In that scenario though, the policy pays out value to the policyholder not the owner - but would the owner not be within the rights to sue for damages to their property? Just out of interest.

 

[Gloi]

I always thought that a loaner paid the insurance so that if anything happened to the animal whilst in their care they could recompense the owner.

 

[Goldenstar]

I always thought that a loaner paid the insurance so that if anything happened to the animal whilst in their care they could recompense the owner.

That's certainly what I expected to happen if anything had gone wrong when I had a horse for MrGS on loan.

 

[DEEDEE83]

Sorry unable to quote on phone but with regards to owner suing policyholder for their loss I guess it depends on their contract or relationship. If vehicle is loaned through a company or on HP this will always be written in to the lease and the insurance company aware and will payout to the company direct if it is a personal or informal arrangement we as their insurers dont get involved and just payout to the policyholder. Most insurers we work with require a copy of the contract or HP agreement for this very reason.

 

[Cowpony]

I can see both sides here as the OP paid the premiums, but surely the payout is for the loaner to give to the owner, as she can no longer return the horse when required to do so? The horse was on loan, so the owner's and loaner`s expectations would have been that when the arrangement came to an end either the horse would be returned to the owner or the loaner would pay the owner the value of the horse if she wanted to keep it. So the insurance would have been to cover the loaner`s risk that something might happen to the horse and she would have to pay the owner the value. That seems like a very legitimate risk to insure for, but the point is that the money now belongs to the owner as she can no longer ask for the return of the horse.

The loaner has lost nothing financially (although I appreciate the huge emotional loss). She didn't own the horse, hadn't paid for it, and could go out tomorrow and loan another, also at no cost. I would favour the idea somebody suggested above, deduct the premiums from the amount paid out by the insurance company and give the rest to the owner.

 

[*hic*]

Loaner has to be in a position to return the horse. Loaner therefore insures horse so that in the event of the loss of the horse, and thus their no longer being able to return it, they can return the value of the horse. It's quite easy! Loaner insures for vets fees because as a loaner they are responsible for vets fees and they want to have any unexpected bills covered, completely different issue.

Owner, according to OP, paid for the £900 saddle which is going back to them as, of course, it should - they paid for it!

 

[el_Snowflakes]

Just to add: normally yes, I would say the owner should get the payout but they signed an agreement expressly saying that the money would go to you.

If I was loaning out a horse id be taking out my own insurance so any payout was paid to me, the owner. It seems a strange agreement but they were presumably happy with it when they signed it.

 

[Honey08]

I think its absolutely morally wrong.

When you hire a car you also pay to insure it and if it was stolen the money would go to the car hire company..

When we have had horses on loan we have always paid to insure the horse and have arranged with the insurers that any vets bills pay outs would go to us (who have paid the vets bills) and any death of horse payments should go to the owner (who paid for the horse).

In this case it sounds as though legally the money can be kept by the loaners, however I feel sorry for the poor, poor owner, who loaned their horse out to someone else for them to enjoy the benefits of for five years, and who now gets to keep the value of the horse as well. Very very bad morals.

Edited to add, on re reading the OP's post I am even more disgusted - you think its a money making scheme by the horse's owner!!! You won't have any money to buy another horse unless you have this money (which has been made from the death of someone else's horse!!!). Selfishness in the extreme. Another reason not to loan a horse out IMO.