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

jrp204

Well-Known Member
Joined
3 July 2007
Messages
4,340
Location
cornwall
Visit site
" 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."

OK, the owner gets back their tack it appears,doesn't say the loaner bought the saddle. OP you actually say no amount of money will bring the horse back so deduct your premiums and since you are unable to return a horse that died on loan to you, give the owner it's value when it came to you.
(Horses don't always increase in value on loan)
 

zaminda

Well-Known Member
Joined
26 August 2008
Messages
2,333
Location
Somerset
Visit site
To my mind the owner should get all the money. If you have a horse on loan you insure it to cover the asset, it doesn't mean you have any right over the actual asset. I would be absolutely furious if a horse I had loaned out died and they kept the money.
The think with loaning is you are borrowing a horse, I dare say they expected to get the horse back at some point, unless it was on permanent loan.
As the loaner, you would not have been allowed to sell the horse to get the monetary value, so why should you have any right over the lump sum at its death? (Of course barring any costs for disposal)
 

SO1

Well-Known Member
Joined
29 January 2008
Messages
6,686
Visit site
In this scenario I would deduct the costs of any insurance premiums that you have paid for over the years and then give the rest of the money back to the owner.

You have had use of the horse without having the associated costs of buying the horse in the first place so this would be the morally correct thing to do.
 

Patterdale

Well-Known Member
Joined
28 December 2009
Messages
7,110
Location
Wherever I lay my hat.
Visit site
Morally I think it is very wrong to financially benefit from a horse you didn't pay for.

As do I.

But as it seems that this is what OP wants to do, the owner really doesn't have a leg to stand on.
She didn't take out her own insurance, AND then signed away her right to the money.

One of the many reasons I will NEVER loan again.....
 

Honey08

Waffled a lot!
Joined
7 June 2010
Messages
19,009
Location
north west
Visit site
No I wouldn't loan a horse out again either, more so from reading this. It sounds like the OP has had five years of fun on someone else's horse and now expects to cash in on it's death, leaving the owner, who provided them with their horse to have fun on, high and dry. Truly shockingly bad behaviour. Their name will be mud!
 

Dunlin

Well-Known Member
Joined
8 January 2011
Messages
941
Location
Dorset
Visit site
So sorry for the loss of the horse, it must have been a terrible shock. Legally the money will come back to you and you are entitled to keep it as you took the policy out, morally I would be offering the money to the horses owner, it's a hard lesson to learn for the owner, they should have had their own policy. Although you have paid for the horses upkeep when in your hands you did not purchase the horse to begin with. If you borrowed a friends car and wrote it off would you expect to keep all the money from the insurance payout?
 

Shutterbug

Well-Known Member
Joined
29 May 2007
Messages
2,603
Visit site
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.

If she agreed to this in writing, and if she did she was fully aware that you had insured the animal for vet bills and death, then you are entitled to keep the money. Morally correct aside

Yes, the owner has paid out for the intial cost of the horse so the owner insures the animal for death when it is on loan in order to recoup the initial outlay, but it sounds like you and the owner had a different agreement from what you say.
 

Copperpot

Well-Known Member
Joined
27 February 2010
Messages
3,187
Location
Bedfordshire
Visit site
When I had a horse on loan the owner stipulated I insured it for death. If it had of died I would have had to give the value insured for back to the owner. How could I keep it?

I didn't spend X amount buying the horse and therefore was not entitled to keep the money.
 

MagicMelon

Well-Known Member
Joined
6 November 2004
Messages
16,174
Location
North East Scotland
Visit site
" 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."

Which who paid for, the owner? If the owner paid for the tack then of course they should get it back. If the loanee sold the original saddle (owned by the owner) in order to buy a new one then IMO they should get the tack back still if its of equal value (or give back the difference). Otherwise the owners loses out on the cost of their tack as well as the initial cost of the horse. The loanee is effectively getting a horse for free (and has the option of just handing it back when they dont want it anymore) so IMO paying out for insurance is still a perfectly good deal. Vets fees of course the loanee should get back as they paid for them, but they did not buy the horse originally therefore owner should get loss of horse money. I'm surprised she's only asking for half the money now Ive thought about it.
 
Last edited:

Bearsmum

Well-Known Member
Joined
9 June 2009
Messages
1,132
Visit site
I sadly lost a horse I loaned, well she was kept at the owners home, but I was her only rider. I insured her, owner wanted me to have third party cover, so no come back on him if anyone or their property was injured/damaged, and got a riders policy which covered the loss of the horse as well as the cover the owner wanted.
When she died the policy paid out (eventually E&L) and I paid every penny to the owner, yes I'd lost a horse I loved, but he'd paid to buy her in the first place, I didn't think that morally the money was mine.
 

Illusion100

Well-Known Member
Joined
17 January 2014
Messages
3,625
Location
Probably on my way to A&E
Visit site
From years of experience working in Equine Insurance, many horses die or require euthanasia everyday. Horse owners know that horses die or are PTS through injury, illness, disease, or can require extensive veterinary fees, it's not a rare and shocking phenomenon...... this is why Insurance exists.

To prevent loosing out on cashing in on your horses death, illness/injury etc, you insure it. Something this horses owner failed to do.

This owner happily loaned out a horse for 5 years, very happy that Vets Fees, farriery, worming, livery, feeding etc weren't their problem to pay for and carried on their life with their other uninsured horses.

Plus, as they have NOT financially contributed towards the horse for 5 YEARS, (unless this horses value was CONSIDERABLE), the owner has already been remunerated for the value of the horse by not having to put their hand in their pocket for this horse whatsoever for the last half decade.

The loaner was morally and financially responsible and insured the horse. With some insurance policies LOA (Loss of Animal) is compulsory. The loaner paid the Premiums, the money is hers.

Now the owner wants money for the horse???? The owner now wants money for the horse they loaned to someone else to pay for, for 5 years, that they didn't even bother to insure themselves? IMO, THIS is morally wrong.

The Owner fobbed off responsibility for this horse for years and now wants a pay off because the Loaner paid for Insurance. MORALLY WRONG!

I am sorry to hear you lost this horse OP.
 

Roasted Chestnuts

Well-Known Member
Joined
7 July 2008
Messages
7,940
Location
Scotland
Visit site
If I had kept a horse as mines for five years, paid out on everything, cared for that horse like it was mine,and insured it like it was mine and the owner had written a letter stating I could keep the money then that' exactly what I would be doing.

How is this person making a profit when premiums alone are probably more than the horse death payout? I loaned out my boy and he was insured by me for the loaners, they paid any excess for vets treatment but if he died then the payment went to me as i paid the insurance. Small price to pay for my peace of mind was the £21 a month.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Horseycrazy

Member
Joined
10 September 2012
Messages
29
Visit site
To the OP you have done nothing wrong, the owner should have insured the horse if it was an issue. Well done for having the common sense to insure the horse.
 

jrp204

Well-Known Member
Joined
3 July 2007
Messages
4,340
Location
cornwall
Visit site
So, I lived in a house that belonged to my father, he paid no maintenance for it for 20 years, we insured it. If it fell down he would have the insurance money as it is HIS house. We were grateful for the opportunity.
This horse was loaned, it is irrelevant what the owner paid for or even if they insured it, it was up to the OP to loan the horse, they could have put their hands in their pockets and BOUGHT one but they chose to loan off someone else. 1 yr, 5 yrs, 20 yrs, it is still a loan and the horse is not theirs. They have nothing to return to the owner except the value of the horse when it came to them less the premium.
 

Doublethyme

Well-Known Member
Joined
7 July 2005
Messages
1,033
Visit site
From years of experience working in Equine Insurance, many horses die or require euthanasia everyday. Horse owners know that horses die or are PTS through injury, illness, disease, or can require extensive veterinary fees, it's not a rare and shocking phenomenon...... this is why Insurance exists.

To prevent loosing out on cashing in on your horses death, illness/injury etc, you insure it. Something this horses owner failed to do.

This owner happily loaned out a horse for 5 years, very happy that Vets Fees, farriery, worming, livery, feeding etc weren't their problem to pay for and carried on their life with their other uninsured horses.

Plus, as they have NOT financially contributed towards the horse for 5 YEARS, (unless this horses value was CONSIDERABLE), the owner has already been remunerated for the value of the horse by not having to put their hand in their pocket for this horse whatsoever for the last half decade.

The loaner was morally and financially responsible and insured the horse. With some insurance policies LOA (Loss of Animal) is compulsory. The loaner paid the Premiums, the money is hers.

Now the owner wants money for the horse???? The owner now wants money for the horse they loaned to someone else to pay for, for 5 years, that they didn't even bother to insure themselves? IMO, THIS is morally wrong.

The Owner fobbed off responsibility for this horse for years and now wants a pay off because the Loaner paid for Insurance. MORALLY WRONG!

I am sorry to hear you lost this horse OP.

This. I'm really surprised how many people think differently. Any owner doesn't automatically have death insurance on their 'asset'. It's personal choice and insurance doesn't belong to anyone but the person paying the premiums. If the owner was that bothered they would have insured themselves and if required put a clause in the loan making the loaner responsible for paying them the premiums. They didn't and they don't insure any of their other stock, so who is morally wrong and cashing in??? The owner in my view, as it sounds like if horse had died with them it would not have been insured anyway.

You paid the premiums, you keep the money.
 

ester

Not slacking multitasking
Joined
31 December 2008
Messages
60,198
Location
Cambridge
Visit site
I would still be surprised that insurance would pay out on a horse you didn't own, hence asking ages ago whether they know horse was on loan or not - as yet unanswered. Until the OP has a cheque in her hand it could all become a moot point!
 

Evie91

Well-Known Member
Joined
12 May 2012
Messages
2,172
Location
Warwickshire
Visit site
Wow I'm amazed how many people think owners should cover the insurance for a horse that is out on loan.
I was a loaner and happily paid the premiums - it was in my contract that the horse should have been insured. I was happy with this as it meant vet bills were covered. The owner stipulated the amount the horse should be insured for.
Loaning means you don't have to find the money for a horse upfront - no way on earth would I have thought I could keep the money if anything had happened to the horse, despite paying the premiums as I never paid for horse (the horse is on loan not owned).Yes, I would have paid out for many years and had years of enjoyment during this time. Why should the loaner profit when the animal dies.
Perhaps the owner signed an agreement to say the loaner could keep the money, but perhaps the owner was not thinking clearly at this time.
Loaner is no worse off than when she started loan. Owner has lost money she paid out. The money should all go to the owner. I'm amazed others are suggesting otherwise. Whether owner chooses to insure her other horses or not is entirely her business and nothing to do with case in point. It may well be a condition of loan that horse is insured.
 

honetpot

Well-Known Member
Joined
27 July 2010
Messages
9,058
Location
Cambridgeshire
Visit site
From years of experience working in Equine Insurance, many horses die or require euthanasia everyday. Horse owners know that horses die or are PTS through injury, illness, disease, or can require extensive veterinary fees, it's not a rare and shocking phenomenon...... this is why Insurance exists.

To prevent loosing out on cashing in on your horses death, illness/injury etc, you insure it. Something this horses owner failed to do.

This owner happily loaned out a horse for 5 years, very happy that Vets Fees, farriery, worming, livery, feeding etc weren't their problem to pay for and carried on their life with their other uninsured horses.

Plus, as they have NOT financially contributed towards the horse for 5 YEARS, (unless this horses value was CONSIDERABLE), the owner has already been remunerated for the value of the horse by not having to put their hand in their pocket for this horse whatsoever for the last half decade.

The loaner was morally and financially responsible and insured the horse. With some insurance policies LOA (Loss of Animal) is compulsory. The loaner paid the Premiums, the money is hers.

Now the owner wants money for the horse???? The owner now wants money for the horse they loaned to someone else to pay for, for 5 years, that they didn't even bother to insure themselves? IMO, THIS is morally wrong.

The Owner fobbed off responsibility for this horse for years and now wants a pay off because the Loaner paid for Insurance. MORALLY WRONG!

I am sorry to hear you lost this horse OP.

I have loaned my ponies out for a number of years and on numerous occasions, I do not insure them as I am prepared to take the loss even though in their time they have been quite valuable. If I decided to insure them depending on their use I would expect the loaner to pay the premiums and it would be part of the contract. No matter how long a loaner has an animal and how much they spend its still not their horse, that's why its called a loan. Whether I horse is on loan for 5 minutes or five years I would be absolutely hopping if I found out the loaner had claimed loss of use and pocketed the money, it leaves it open to abuse as why look after an animal if you get recompensed for its loss for something you never paid for.
Insurance is supposed to leave you in a situation where you would be before the claim, in this case the loaner would be better off, the amount of money paid in premiums should have no baring its an insurance policy not a savings account.
 

Illusion100

Well-Known Member
Joined
17 January 2014
Messages
3,625
Location
Probably on my way to A&E
Visit site
This. I'm really surprised how many people think differently. Any owner doesn't automatically have death insurance on their 'asset'. It's personal choice and insurance doesn't belong to anyone but the person paying the premiums. If the owner was that bothered they would have insured themselves and if required put a clause in the loan making the loaner responsible for paying them the premiums. They didn't and they don't insure any of their other stock, so who is morally wrong and cashing in??? The owner in my view, as it sounds like if horse had died with them it would not have been insured anyway.

You paid the premiums, you keep the money.

Couldn't agree more. The OP was the one who has just lost the horse they have loved, cared and paid for, for many years....now the Owner wants paid off????!!! The owner didn't pay for Insurance but feels entitled to benefit from the loss of an animal they haven't bothered with for years???

I'm on the OP's side on this one.
 

Tobiano

Well-Known Member
Joined
1 August 2010
Messages
4,233
Location
Norfolk
Visit site
Sorry OP for the loss of your loan horse - very sad.

I do agree that the OP should not have to pay the owners because nothing was said in the agreement. I loaned out my horse for 4 years (have now gifted him to his loaner) and asked for her to arrange and pay for the insurance but stipulated in the loan agreement that in the event of the death of the horse the insurance claim would come to me. The main reason for this was if there was any veterinary treatment needed, and the fact that with the loaner dealing with all the insurance she would be able to speak directly to the insurance company rather than having to go through me all the time. Fortunately in our case it did not come to that but I would have kept the money had there been a claim, as that was the agreement.

In this case as there was no agreement I think it entirely reasonable that the OP keeps the money and hope she will be able to buy another horse with it.
 

Illusion100

Well-Known Member
Joined
17 January 2014
Messages
3,625
Location
Probably on my way to A&E
Visit site
I have loaned my ponies out for a number of years and on numerous occasions, I do not insure them as I am prepared to take the loss even though in their time they have been quite valuable. If I decided to insure them depending on their use I would expect the loaner to pay the premiums and it would be part of the contract. No matter how long a loaner has an animal and how much they spend its still not their horse, that's why its called a loan. Whether I horse is on loan for 5 minutes or five years I would be absolutely hopping if I found out the loaner had claimed loss of use and pocketed the money, it leaves it open to abuse as why look after an animal if you get recompensed for its loss for something you never paid for.
Insurance is supposed to leave you in a situation where you would be before the claim, in this case the loaner would be better off, the amount of money paid in premiums should have no baring its an insurance policy not a savings account.

Nobody is debating as to whom this horse belonged to. No contract for paying premiums/pay outs to either parties described. The owner did not state that the loaner must insure horse for LOA and pay out must go to them.

So if horse not insured by loaner, this situation would not have arisen.
 

Angelbones

Well-Known Member
Joined
6 April 2008
Messages
2,295
Location
East Sussex
Visit site
OP - if you had insured the horse and after 4 months it had died, would you then feel you should benefit from the payout?

I think some of the feeling that the OP is due the money is that the loan went on for 5 years, and has therefore paid substantially over time to insure the horse. If the horse had died in month 3 and a payout of, say, £4k had been made then I think it would have been a different story. If the OP can think of the term of the loan in individual parts, eg if the notice period is one month then the term of the loan is one month renewing, and each month is insured, but if no claim is made then that month's money is lost, then to benefit substantially on the fatal month's insurance seems very wrong. Presumably at the start of the loan it wasn't known how long the loan would go on for - the OP could have paid out for one year and then the horse could have gone back. As it was the loan lasted much longer and the insurance premiums have totalled a healthy sum which starts to feel like an investment in the horse, but just paying out for a horse obviously doesn't mean you are any more entitled than the owner and no part of the ownership title has passed to you. Yes the owner should have insured for loss, and the loanee for vet fees, but even with the note from the owner passing up the payout, I still feel the loanee should pay the owner the half they are asking for - they are lucky not to be paying it all back to the owner.

OP - the question is, taking on board that you have done nothing wrong by insuring the horse, and that the owner signed away some of their claim, how comfortable do you really feel about keeping all the money and ending the relationship with the owner? If you have no qualms over it, keep the money. If you have an ounce of doubt that it is fair or just or right, share it.

If the shoe was on the other foot and the owner had insured for loss, and the horse died resulting in a pay out, would the OP approach the owner expecting some/half/all of the money? And if the owner offered the loanee some of the money, would we all think that was wrong, or lovely, or fair? Would we be telling the OP to turn it down? Would we tell the OP to ask for money from the pay out as they had been looking after the horse for 5 years?

This whole thing has made me question a loan agreement I have in place at the mo - the loanee is insuring my horse, and this type of aspect hasn't been nailed down properly, I can see that now.
 
Last edited:

smellsofhorse

Well-Known Member
Joined
24 April 2007
Messages
5,309
Location
New Forest
Visit site
They are trying it on.
They signed to say you could have the money.
You looked after the horse.
Just ignore them.
Hopefully the insurance will pay out with no issues.
Sometimes they will only pay to owner.

This another example of why an agreement is needed, even after so long, things can go wrong.
 

HaffiesRock

Well-Known Member
Joined
26 August 2011
Messages
4,390
Visit site
I have not read all the replies here, but as both an owner and a full loaner, I can give my point of view. For my share pony I have taken out insurance. The pony is question is low value, but if anything were to happen to her, I wouldn't for a second consider keeping the pay out on death. It is not my pony, therefore not my money, regardless of how long I had loaned her for, how much I had paid into her etc. The insurance is to cover vet fees and public liability.

If I was to loan my own boy out, I would fully insure him myself so I knew he was covered for vet fee's etc. Again, he is not a high value animal, and no amount of money could ever replace him, but the long and short of it is, if I own a horse, any payout on death belongs to me, regardless of whether myself or the loaner insure.
 
Last edited:

AmieeT

Well-Known Member
Joined
16 December 2013
Messages
4,325
Location
Over the rainbow 🌈
Visit site
In this situation I would keep the money.

Owner has signed to say she accepted this as so, it's there in black and white. So she paid for the horse- loaner has also paid 5 years worth of maintenance which would have been a small fortune the owner saved.

I loan, and I pay for all except insurance. To be perfectly honest, even if i did, I wouldn't give a damn about the money, he means more to me than that- as he does to the owner.

Ax
 

honetpot

Well-Known Member
Joined
27 July 2010
Messages
9,058
Location
Cambridgeshire
Visit site
Nobody is debating as to whom this horse belonged to. No contract for paying premiums/pay outs to either parties described. The owner did not state that the loaner must insure horse for LOA and pay out must go to them.

So if horse not insured by loaner, this situation would not have arisen.

She will still be better off as she has not purchased the animal, in your insurance disclosure it asks for the sum paid and any value over that has to be accounted for. I also hate the this idea that if you loan an animal for a long period that somehow you are taking advantage of the loaner and the owner doesn't care. I have been on both sides of this as a loaner and a owner, I had a loan horse PTS and at the time got money for the carcass and I gave it to charity, it was not my money even through I had looked after him for ten years.
 

millikins

Well-Known Member
Joined
7 March 2011
Messages
3,895
Visit site
I find it very strange that many people consider that paying the keep of a horse for several years somehow equates to a sort of informal hire purchase agreement. If I rent a flat for 5 years it doesn't mean I own any part of it at the end.
 

HashRouge

Well-Known Member
Joined
16 February 2009
Messages
9,254
Location
Manchester
Visit site
I really, really don't understand why there is any debate over this. It is not a question of who owned the animal, but a question of who payed the insurance premiums. You don't automatically get money upon the death of your horse and, in this case, the owner does not have any of their other animals insured and left the question of insurance in the hands of the loaner. If they wanted some payout on the death of the horse then they should either have paid the insurance themselves OR simply paid the portion relating to the loss of the animal.
Morally a lot of people might feel inclined to split the money with the owner, but as far as I can see the owner doesn't have any actual right to a penny.
 
Top