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

jemima*askin said:
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!
Click to expand...


I think this approach makes most sense - of course the idea of a loan is that horse can be returned at theoretically any point - so the insurance payout for the sad loss of the horse should in theory act as the 'return'.
 
The owner made the decision not to insure the horse and had no agreement in place with regards to the OP making any payment in the case of the loss of the animal. That was their decision.

If the OP had not insured the horse either and the owner was now demanding payment for the horse, I suspect most people would side with the OP.
 
Another idea after noticing you have loaned the horse for 5 years and not knowing the amount of work you have put in to it. Give back to the owner what the horse was worth the day the loan started if it was just a baby with minimal value and hadnt done much. That way they are getting back what they lost and you are getting back what you put in. Although to be honest you are saying it seems to be becoming a money making scheme but that seems to be your angle too although I admit there is minimal additional info to go on.
 
The horse, which had a value was loaned, not gifted. Ownership of the horse has not changed hands and the OP is now unable to return the horse to the owner. OP being unable to buy another horse is irrelevant, they didn't buy this horse and are now depriving the owners of an asset. OP insured the horse, I would expect the value of the horse minus premiums paid to be handed over to the owners, and frankly it is totally immoral to keep the insurance money. If I was the horses owner in this instance I would be sending a bill for the value of the horse at the start if the loan. The letter stating the OP can keep the insurance money is fine, it still doesn't stop the owner sending a bill, how the OP pays it is up to them.
 
As someone above said, OP I wouldn't worry too much about who's getting the money, if the insurance company get even a sniff of the fact you don't own the horse they won't pay out anyway. I'm supprised they didn't ask you whether you owned him or not when you took out the policy.

The loaner can't insure something for loss that they don't own as they can't loose it

To make a claim the insurance co will want receipt etc which you won't have.
Even if they do pay out and then find out later they'll probably come after you for the money - so think long and hard before claiming at all.

Just think, how would it be different to me insuring all the horses in the national today and being pretty sure I'd be able to make a death claim on one of them - probably a cheaper way of generating money than betting on the winner.

All loanees should insure their horses themselves and get the loaner to make a contribution to cover vets fees insurance.

The difference with vets fees is that the loaner is incurring the cost (it's almost always the person who calls the vet who has to pay the bill - unless you've expressly agreed other wise in writing) so the loaner is insuring their risk
 
Oh what a predicament, and yet another example as to why loaning is such a mine field.
I'd give half the money to the owner as a good will gesture if nothing else. If I put a horse out on loan I would (and have) insure it myself. However most loans seem to so sour so I'd be very reluctant to do it again.
 
Lastchancer - likely as not it would be fraud by false representation - the OP would be claiming loss of a item that didn't belong to her.
She can't loose it as it isn't hers.
 
Polos Mum said:
Lastchancer - likely as not it would be fraud by false representation - the OP would be claiming loss of a item that didn't belong to her.
She can't loose it as it isn't hers.
Click to expand...

When I insured the horse we loaned the NFU had full knowledge of the situation and that the horse insured was not mine and that I was insuring the horse so I was covered for the cost of the horse if it died/ was damaged so I could pay the owner .
It's no different to when a owner loans a art gallery a painting the gallery insures it so they can pay the owner if disaster occurs .
 
Polos Mum said:
Lastchancer - likely as not it would be fraud by false representation - the OP would be claiming loss of a item that didn't belong to her.
She can't loose it as it isn't hers.
Click to expand...

This would be my gut feeling. Certainly when I've insured loan horses, there have been exclusions on this basis. I've got a feeling neither of you will end up with the money :(
 
Goldenstar said:
When I insured the horse we loaned the NFU had full knowledge of the situation and that the horse insured was not mine and that I was insuring the horse so I was covered for the cost of the horse if it died/ was damaged so I could pay the owner .
It's no different to when a owner loans a art gallery a painting the gallery insures it so they can pay the owner if disaster occurs .
Click to expand...

Absolutely GS but probably technically what you're insuring isn't actually the horse (or painting) it's the risk that you have to give a large cheque to the owner of the horse/ painting in event you can't return the actual item to them - this very much is your risk and hence you are absolutely fine (and sensible) to insure against it
 
I agree that the owner of the horse should have insured it herself. However, wanting a portion of the money would not be any sort of 'scheme' in my opinion, but rather something she is entitled to. OP can not return the horse, so it is only right to return the value of the horse. If the insurance company pays this sum out to you, it is not rightfully your money as it was not your horse. I agree that if there is money back from premiums, then fine, but the money paid out on the value of the animal is for the owner of the animal, and that, OP, is not you. The owner should not have signed any letter stating that you could keep any payout, and to be honest I can not see any owner doing that to begin with. Who draws up a letter and has the owner sign it, stating that they have taken out insurance on the death of the horse, and the owner is perfectly happy to not get a penny of it? As the owner of any horse on loan, there is absolutely no way I would sign any such thing. That said, I'd have insured it myself, but that is something else entirely. Premiums, keep; value of the horse, do the right thing and return it to the owner, who has really lost here. If you want another horse, find another loan, or do it the right way; save it up yourself and don't use the money kept from an animal that was never yours to begin with. Is it truly fair that the owner loses out entirely, no horse and no money for his value, and you get to go out and buy a new one?
 
Last edited:
Hi all, I sadly lost a horse I had on loan for 4 years. The insurance had death cover as mandatory so as I insured for vets fees this cover came along with it. The insurance company took the legal owners details and would only pay the death claim direct to the owner. This was because the owners name was on the receipt of sale/passport etc which had to be provided for the claim. They confirmed they would not have paid to me as they were aware the horse was on loan. Vets fees were paid direct to the vet, disposal cost to myself and death cover benefit to the owner.
 
Honey08 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sums it up completely for me.
 
Polos Mum said:
As someone above said, OP I wouldn't worry too much about who's getting the money, if the insurance company get even a sniff of the fact you don't own the horse they won't pay out anyway. I'm supprised they didn't ask you whether you owned him or not when you took out the policy.

The loaner can't insure something for loss that they don't own as they can't loose it

To make a claim the insurance co will want receipt etc which you won't have.
Even if they do pay out and then find out later they'll probably come after you for the money - so think long and hard before claiming at all.
Click to expand...
This is not true.

I have just taken an elderly mare on loan. I have insured her for accidental injury and death with SEIB, who are fully aware that she is a loan horse. The owner's details are recorded on the policy, and SEIB have a copy of the loan agreement, which is based on the BHS template.

In the event of her accidental death, the insured value of the mare is payable to me, and I am to pass it on to the owner. I am to keep any payout for vets fees (as I am responsible for them) and I pay the excess. If she dies from illness, which she is not insured for, then I do not have to pay the owner any recompense. I pay all vets fees for illness up to an agreed value, then I split them 50:50 with the owner if they exceed this value.

I can only impress on anyone who is involved in a loan, how important it is to have a written, formal agreement.
 
Shay said:
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?
Click to expand...

OP doesn't feel she should have to an says the owners are trying to make money out of her??

lastchancer said:
Are there any legal types on here? Just wondering what the courts would say?
Click to expand...

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!
 
We had a horse on loan that sadly had to be pts. He was insured by me through NFU who were fully aware of the situation. There was no pay out for death as it didn't fulfil BEVA guidelines but if they had paid out I wouldn't have dreamed of keeping the money. Any pay out would have been for the loss of their horse, not mine. Yes you paid for his keep for the last 5 years but you had the use of a horse that someone else had bought for that time.
 
Tiddlypom - as I said above you have a binding commitment to return either the horse or a cheque, you are insuring the risk that you don't have the horse to return to the owner and hence you're insuring the risk you have to write a big cheque. Which is your risk and hence you can insure against it.

If the OP calls the insurance company and explains that she wasn't the owner of the horse but would like to claim for it's death and keep the money as she has no commitment to pass any of the money on to the owner - it'll take all the debate out of the question, I suspect.
 
This situation exemplifies why it is very important to have well drafted insurance provisions in any loan contract.

I would always recommend the owner holds the policy in their own name and is contractually entitled to recover premiums from the loaner. The loaner should be entitled to request a copy of the insurance certificate.

This is how insurance clauses are set up for commercial property leases.
 
When I had Finn (he was owned by redwings) we insured him with NFU and I can't really remember the ins and outs but it was cheaper to insure him for everything rather than just tack and vets bills. They said if he was to die we should use it to make a donation to redwings
 
I guess whoever paid the insurance will get the money. I would take enough to cover the premiums you've paid over the years and give the rest to the owner.
 
I always thought that you could not insure what you did not own, to prevent fraud. When you take out car insurance they ask who the legal owner is. In any case you are insuring to cover the owners losses, if you didn't own the horse as the loaner you would have no loss. I think your morals are skewed.
I think its far more straightforward for the owner to insure and claim the premiums back from the loaner then there is no doubt as to who and what is covered.
 
Money should go to who ever paid the insurance premiums. If the owner hasn't paid for insurance then they can't expect to get a pay out!
 
Geminismum said:
Money should go to who ever paid the insurance premiums. If the owner hasn't paid for insurance then they can't expect to get a pay out!
Click to expand...

but the loaner didn't have the initial cost of the horse to begin with. So the loaner should get vets fees IMO but the rest should go to the owner. I don't see how someone can claim the purchase price (or value) of an animal they've never purchased but they should get the money back that they've spent treating said animal.
 
I am afraid the owner should have insured the horse if they wanted money in the event of death, would they have paid excess on insurance, or even routine vet bills.
I never really understand why loaning is so popular, if you own a horse why give it to someone else other than the fact you can get it back if the welfare is compromised.,
 
honetpot said:
I always thought that you could not insure what you did not own, to prevent fraud. When you take out car insurance they ask who the legal owner is. In any case you are insuring to cover the owners losses, if you didn't own the horse as the loaner you would have no loss. I think your morals are skewed.
I think its far more straightforward for the owner to insure and claim the premiums back from the loaner then there is no doubt as to who and what is covered.
Click to expand...
Loaners have have made this agreement only to be told that the premium has not been paid and vet bills are not covered. So it works both ways.
One can insure anything if one "has an interest", so not a neighbour's horse, but yes one you have on loan.
 
Maybe I misunderstood but the OP mentioned the owner had a saddle back which the OP had recently changed to the tune of £900? If that's the case the owner potentially has a saddle worth more than they loaned. After 5 years the value of a horse could increase dramatically - and 5 years of premium could also add up to over £1000 the owner could have at any point paid the insurance but it seems they are not interested in protecting their assets so the way I see it if it was a natural death caused through no fault of the loaner that, could it still have happened in the owners care then the owner has no right to the money as they would have lost everything if they had the horse at home with them.
 
Polos Mum said:
Tiddlypom - as I said above you have a binding commitment to return either the horse or a cheque, you are insuring the risk that you don't have the horse to return to the owner and hence you're insuring the risk you have to write a big cheque. Which is your risk and hence you can insure against it.

If the OP calls the insurance company and explains that she wasn't the owner of the horse but would like to claim for it's death and keep the money as she has no commitment to pass any of the money on to the owner - it'll take all the debate out of the question, I suspect.
Click to expand...
The OP owns the insurance policy and therefore any legitimate claims made - we insure the chancel repair of a local church, morally it is so if anything goes wrong we have reduced our repair liability (glebe land) but on the face of it we can claim and do what we want with it - we had the forethought to insure it.

Morally I think it is very wrong to financially benefit from a horse you didn't pay for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top