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

I learned at college that you could not insure something in which you did not have a legal "interest" i.e. own it. However, it seems that with horse insurance it is different!

When I loaned out my mare (with a loan agreement, of course) I telephoned the insurance company to ask for their advice and was very surprised to learn that they would accept insurance from the loanee. In the end we agreed that I would pay the insurance in full, but that they would give me a cheque for half the premium.

I am afraid that I can't give an opinion on the OP's dilema - I really can't sort this one out!
 
Sorry - the owner OWNs the horse whether you have it on loan for 6 mths or 6 years, it is still ON LOAN. Normally on a proposal form when you apply for horse insurance it will ask you if you own the horse and, if not you supply the details of the owner. Therefore, should the horse die the settlement goes to the owner as ultimately they are the ones who have lost out financially as in they are the ones who paid 'x' for said horse originally or who could have sold said horse for 'x' amount.

Same applies if horse needed an operation under GA. Generally the insurance company would ensure the owner wished for the procedure to go ahead as they have an insurable interest in the horse irrespective if they pay for all or part of the insurance premium.

General vets fees, liability, personal accident cover, tack etc are usually paid to the loanee as they are the ones responsible for the horse.

Death cover is usually obligatory and actually makes up very little of an insurance premium anyway. It is usually part of the 'package' offered by Insurance companies along with liability cover. Vets fees are the expensive part of insurance.
 
Meandtheboys said:
Not sure who you are insured with but I always though 'Proof of Ownership' receipt etc. was required as part of a claim for death.
Click to expand...

that is true actually, I had to provide one for Petplan last year.


I think loaners get a bad deal most times tbh and have little in the way of rights. But claiming the value of a horse that you did not pay for doesn't sit right with me.

It is more difficult without a formal agreement when the owner has seemingly given up all interest in the animal. I have one long term loan pony that the owner didn't want back last year (telling me to shoot him and wanting me to pick up the tab for it-he's completely healthy, I didn't) only for said owner to ring up 8months later saying she could have him back if I still wanted to !? I still have him and still insure but he's worth nothing monetarily. She refuses to sell him to me or sign him over.
 
honetpot said:
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.
Click to expand...

The sum paid and the value of the animal do not necessarily equate in Equine Insurance. Which does not have to be accounted for.

Unless with a LOA or LOU claim where the sum insured far exceeds the original value of the horse at the time the policy was taken out, this is when Equine Valuers are used by Insurance companies.

Sorry to hear of your loss and wonderful you donated the money. :)
 
Last edited:
IMO I thinks some of you are being a tad harsh on the OP bearing in mind the loaner paid the insurance premiums that the owner could not be bothered to pay why should she not get the benefit of what she has paid for? Would you be prepared to pay the insurance for my horse and then give me any pay out from it? I think not. I would love someone else to pay my insurance premiums but they don't so I do it myself. If the owner was that bothered about getting anything back for the horse when the unthinkable happened then they would have insured it themselves. they also signed to say they didn't expect anything back from the insurance as well, again another opportunity for them to decide to pay if themselves. If the horse had stayed with the owner, they would have got nothing as not insured, how is the loaner keeping the insurance money any different?
And as for the tack as far as I read it the loaner has been maintaining the tack, and naturally replaced the saddle for whatever reason and has very kindly given that back to the owner of the horse, which they were not entitled to do as they had paid for it.
 
If the owner had cared that much for the horse, they would have put a decent contract in place. As Pidgeon says, if the horse had died in their care, they would be looking at zilch anyway.
 
millikins said:
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.
Click to expand...

If the flat gets destroyed by lightening/flood/act of God, you'd pay the Landlord for his loss then?
 
If I rent a flat I can't get buildings insurance... only contents :p though sometimes accidental damage to landlords fixtures and fittings so if a horse is one of them :p but obv I would be paying that to the landlord..
 
Illusion100 said:
If the flat gets destroyed by lightening/flood/act of God, you'd pay the Landlord for his loss then?
Click to expand...

Yes - from the insurance...

So basically the OP has paid insurance over the past five years not to replace the horse that they have been lucky enough to borrow, but to make money from it to buy another when it dies in their care??

I've loaned horses out in the past (fortunately a few decades ago and to people that had morals) and have never paid insurance for them, the loaner has, as they have taken over all costs involved in keeping the horse. I've had horses on loan, and insured them purely to be able to give the owner the money to replace their horse if I should not be able to give it them back because it died. It wouldn't have EVER crossed my mind to take the money myself.

Some shocking morals on here.
 
Maybe then this shows that there is something wrong with how horses on loan are insured? If that horse had still been with its owners when it died the owners would have got nothing, because they hadn't had it insured. Yet the OP has insured said horse for five years and paid everything, so if then the horse died why shouldn't she get the money. Ok it maybe morally a bit low and she could offer something, but as stated the owners wouldn't be getting anything if the horse died in their care. Maybe the answer is that if the loaner of any horse insures the horse, then the owner should contribute a percentage of the fee and if the horses dies they get the money? The insurance companies should be clearer on who can and should pay for what when insuring a loan horse. Personally if I loaned a horse to someone I would still want to be paying the insurance.
 
Honey08 said:
Yes - from the insurance...

So basically the OP has paid insurance over the past five years not to replace the horse that they have been lucky enough to borrow, but to make money from it to buy another when it dies in their care??

I've loaned horses out in the past (fortunately a few decades ago and to people that had morals) and have never paid insurance for them, the loaner has, as they have taken over all costs involved in keeping the horse. I've had horses on loan, and insured them purely to be able to give the owner the money to replace their horse if I should not be able to give it them back because it died. It wouldn't have EVER crossed my mind to take the money myself.

Some shocking morals on here.
Click to expand...

Your home has been destroyed along with your possessions, you claim off the only insurance taken out (which you solely instigated and paid for) and hand it over to someone who didn't want to protect their loss regarding their own property???! Laughable!

To state people are 'lucky' to loan a horse that the owner does not support financially or otherwise is quite far off. The horse is the lucky one to find a home where it is cared for in every respect, including paying for insurance that it's owner never bothered about.

And 'dies in their care' is quite callous.
 
Last edited:
I'm shocked at the amount of people who would keep the money! Many have said that if they put a horse on loan they pay the premiums and get the loaner to pay them back - so what is the difference? As for the owner choosing not to insure that is her own prerogative, perhaps she self insures... either way she is the one who spent the initial outlay to buy the horse and she is the one who should receive the money, minus vet/disposal costs which should go to the OP.
The saddle was paid for by the owner and she rightfully took it back.
 
There's a lot of talk about 'the owners wouldn't have had the horse insured anyway' - maybe they would? I have (well had) 3 horses and only one of them is insured LOU, one (who has recently died) not insured LOU as 'retired' and worth less than £1000, other unbroken so of little monetary value so not insured LOU, 3rd is my mare who I had put on loan last year - she is insured LOU as she is rideable and had monetary value. Last year she was on loan with the agreement that rider was to insure themselves for 3rd party etc and I would insure the horse. This year mare is insured for vets bills and LOU and boy isn't as just putting money away 'just in case'. However when he is backed fully this will change.

Stating that the owner wouldn't have insured the horse anyway is a mute point because as you can see from my horses - maybe they would have, who knows the reason for them not insuring their others...
 
The OP paid the premiums and therefore is the person entitled to the money.

I'm not sure insurance companies should be accepting premiums for death cover from someone who didn't pay for the horse, and I'm not sure why the loanee would want to pay them when they didn't pay for the horse in the first place, but that's not the issue here.

the OP insured the horse. The owner chose not to. There is a pay out, and it goes to the person paying for the insurance premiums.
 
Illusion100 said:
To state people are 'lucky' to loan a horse that the owner does not support financially or otherwise is quite far off. The horse is the lucky one to find a home where it is cared for in every respect, including paying for insurance that it's owner never bothered about.
Click to expand...

That's the whole point of loaning a horse - you don't own it and you are lucky enough to borrow one to take on. In this case OP has had five years of eventing and fun with someone else's horse - something she couldn't have done without them, she even states she won't be able to get another good horse now unless she takes this money.. Just because the owner didn't insure her horses doesn't mean they can't pay vets bills or replace the horse, lots of people don't insure their own horses. You insure something you loan so that you can pay to replace it when you break it, which, in black and white, is what OP had done..
 
Illusion100 said:
Your home has been destroyed along with your possessions, you claim off the only insurance taken out (which you solely instigated and paid for) and hand it over to someone who didn't want to protect their loss regarding their own property???! Laughable!.
Click to expand...

You can't insure insure for buildings if you rent so this is a mute point you raise... You would get the money from the insurance for the contents, the owner would get the money for the property.

Unforunatley with horses (as far as I am aware) You can't split the insurance like this. Though the owner can insist that it is mentioned in the policy that they have the financial interest in the horse and payout is to them.
 
The premiums for horse mortality on a policy is peanuts per annum. It is the vet fees that take up the majority of cost on premiums. Many policies basically give you mortality added into the policy. So the OP may well have been paying insurance premiums for the horse for 5 years and this has no doubt saved her money on vet fees over the years.

In normal situations the payout would go to the owner, the loan person benefits from other parts of the policy. However in this case where there is some form of contract, then I'd say the OP may well be able to have the payout, but as others have said, yes that would be morally wrong to benefit from something you did not buy in the first place.
 
There are an awful lot of assumptions on this thread, which the OP has left with no further comments to clarify the true story or their side of it.

The owner obviously did not care for the horse, she sent it on loan 5 years ago so had no interest, she may have loved it and wanted to keep control hence loaning rather than selling. She may for all we know have kept an interest, visited regularly gone to see it compete, may have even been there when it died.

She does not insure so again does not care, plenty of people do not insure it does not mean they do not care, that she doesn't insure her others has no bearing on this case.

The horse may not have died if it was with it's owner, it died at an event possibly due to exertion, if it was doing nothing in a field it may have lived for many years.

It was of no value to the owner, we have no idea what it was worth, no idea what age it was, whether it had gone up or down in value since going on loan, it may have been a mare with breeding potential.

The loaner may have paid the premiums but most of the charges are for vets cover not death, that is a small%, I do think the owner was mistaken to sign something stating that the insurance would go to the loaner and am rather surprised that she did that but did not have a proper agreement in place, the owner has made mistakes, not least by trusting a horse into the care of someone without looking into all aspects before doing so, the people I know who loaned a pony had everything written down in a detailed contract and they paid the insurance which would have been given to the owner if the pony had died, a loan is exactly that the title is with the owner not the loaner.
 
Honey08 said:
That's the whole point of loaning a horse - you don't own it and you are lucky enough to borrow one to take on. In this case OP has had five years of eventing and fun with someone else's horse - something she couldn't have done without them, she even states she won't be able to get another good horse now unless she takes this money.. Just because the owner didn't insure her horses doesn't mean they can't pay vets bills or replace the horse, lots of people don't insure their own horses. You insure something you loan so that you can pay to replace it when you break it, which, in black and white, is what OP had done..
Click to expand...

If you wish to loan a horse (as the owner) you should have moral ethics, involving a clearly stated contract/agreement.

Different rights are given to those who pay to loan a horse and instances where the horse is loaned FOC. In either case, again, a defined contract should be signed and witnessed regarding both parties.

I 'loaned' horses to ride today, if they had died, say via a heart attack, do I have to pay owner for the cost of the horse??? Or do I have to 'break it' as you state, implying deliberate harm???

If you don't insure your own assets then blame yourself. Why would others have to pay for your irresponsibility?
 
The more I read about loans on here, the less inclined I would ever be to loan one of mine! I am horrified that the loaner is intending to keep the money, surely the loaner should either return the horse, or pay the owner the market value. If the insurance payout is more than the market value, then surely that is a fraudulent claim?
 
Yes I agree with you Be Positive. How people can assume the horse is not loved by the owner based on her not paying for the insurance is, to say the least, a bizarre thought. There are many reasons for people to loan out their horses, however the usual reason for someone loaning a horse is because they don't have the funds to buy a horse of the calibre that they would like.
 
Illusion100 said:
If you don't insure your own assets then blame yourself. Why would others have to pay for your irresponsibility?
Click to expand...

I own around 26 horses and none of them are insured (well they are as farm stock; 3rd party and some mortality). Occasionally friends ask to borrow my horses and that's fine they are welcome to borrow them, however they do know that if they break them, they pay for them. I own these horses and if something were to happen to them whilst in the care of someone else then I expect to be fully refunded for the loss of my property.
 
Illusion100 said:
If you wish to loan a horse (as the owner) you should have moral ethics, involving a clearly stated contract/agreement.

Different rights are given to those who pay to loan a horse and instances where the horse is loaned FOC. In either case, again, a defined contract should be signed and witnessed regarding both parties.

I 'loaned' horses to ride today, if they had died, say via a heart attack, do I have to pay owner for the cost of the horse??? Or do I have to 'break it' as you state, implying deliberate harm???

If you don't insure your own assets then blame yourself. Why would others have to pay for your irresponsibility?
Click to expand...


Because they're borrowing your property and aren't returning it??? It doesn't matter how the horse died, its not being returned and anyone with half an ounce of decency would recognise that not profit from it. And you could say the owner was naïve in thinking people would do the decent thing not irresponsible. You are basically saying that anyone who has a horse on loan and insures it is only doing it so that they make money.
 
Just reading through everyone's replies. I fully agree that you have insured the horse to pay for its vet fees etc, the death benefit, in my eyes, is to be used to cover the cost of the value of the horse should you be unable to return it in the condition you were given it.

I do disagree that the cost of the premiums should be taken out of the value of the horse. If you were to rent a car (purchase insurance in the retinal cost) should the car be lost/stolen etc, the rental company would not return you the insurance cost.

As a few people have stated the OP has gone pretty quiet, the thing with the internet is we have no idea of the OP's age, she could be a teenager whose parents have paid for the upkeep of the horse. The value of the insurance would be seen differently in the eyes of a child. Imagine not being in the position to purchase your dream horse and now due to unfortunate events you are able too?

Personally the OP decided to loan and not purchase their own, so they need to understand that they need to return the loaned asset either as itself or its value.
 
Fides said:
You can't insure insure for buildings if you rent so this is a mute point you raise... You would get the money from the insurance for the contents, the owner would get the money for the property.

Unforunatley with horses (as far as I am aware) You can't split the insurance like this. Though the owner can insist that it is mentioned in the policy that they have the financial interest in the horse and payout is to them.
Click to expand...

No, you're right, you can't. Was just trying to make a point. Insurance Policies can have added clauses. The owner did not bother. Their problem.

BTW, think you meant Moot, not mute!
 
YorksG said:
The more I read about loans on here, the less inclined I would ever be to loan one of mine! I am horrified that the loaner is intending to keep the money, surely the loaner should either return the horse, or pay the owner the market value. If the insurance payout is more than the market value, then surely that is a fraudulent claim?
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly, if the horse is insured for a high value the insurance co will start to ask questions, want to see proof of purchase or have a valuation done to get the market value, I expect it will be less than £5k as over that they want a vets cert usually, it may be that the owner has discovered that the payout is potentially high and feels aggrieved that they signed away their rights so it could be about the money as the OP suggests, you never expect a horse to die suddenly and most insurance is to cover vets fees, they may have thought that is what they were signing over not the value if it died.
 
For those of you saying the money should go to the owner, would you expect the loaner to pay the market value to the owner if they didn't have insurance? I'm just curious - there seem to be two slightly separate issues here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top