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

I have never insured my horses .
I believe it leads to over treatment and decisions that are not always in the interest of the horse .
The only horse I insured was the one we had on loan .
I am not irresponsible and I care for my horses deeply .
When one of mine went on loan ( to my vet ) she insured it him if he had died I would expected her to give me the money .
She hunted him and did competitions on him , I could have left him in a field until I needed him I increased my risk by having him worked the insurance meant I was covered .
In the end she bought him from me .
 
For those saying the loaner never paid for horse so should not benefit from its death please explain why the owner who never paid for the insurance should benefit from it?
 
Pidgeon said:
For those saying the loaner never paid for horse so should not benefit from its death please explain why the owner who never paid for the insurance should benefit from it?
Click to expand...

The owner paid out presumably thousands of pounds to purchase this horse. Over a 5 year period the premium purely for mortality might have been a few pounds, probably not even one hundred pounds. So it's okay for someone to get thousands of pounds for an item they did not pay for in the first place, purely based on the fact they may have paid 70 or 80 pounds over a 5 year period?
 
Yeah, good luck to the loaner getting paid out for the horses death - if her name isn't on the passport as the owner it wont get paid - you can't claim for something you don't own unless there is a legal contract (bits of paper with a signature don't count).
 
HashRouge said:
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.
Click to expand...

Regandal said:
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.
Click to expand...

What they said ^^

I loaned a horse many years ago, NFU knew I was loaning but the owner didn't want to insure him, so I did, thank god. Saved her and me £5000 vet's fees with a dead horse at the end of it. The cheque for his market value was sent to me. I could have kept the lot, legally and morally, IMO because the insurance was mine, I had paid out for it plus all of his costs since I'd had him on loan. As it happened, I paid her everything that was left after the insurance excess was paid, plus a bouquet for the fabulous lady who transported him to the RVC for us. I had made a sensible valuation, shame it was about a third of what she paid for him, she unfortunately was duped by a rather nasty dealer type when she bought him.
 
Theocat said:
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.
Click to expand...

If I ever loaned one out I would expect it to be insured, not for the monetary value but so that it would have veterinary care if required with no restrictions, I do not usually insure mine but I can make that choice, if it was fatally injured I would expect the insurance payout to come to me, if it had a bad injury that required expensive treatment and time off I would expect the treatment to be paid for but the horse could come back to me to recover or retire if needed and the loan could end so the loaner would be free to find another horse.
If they did not take out cover they would be in breech of contract so in theory could be sued for market value and any expenses such as disposal or vets fees.
 
Pidgeon said:
For those saying the loaner never paid for horse so should not benefit from its death please explain why the owner who never paid for the insurance should benefit from it?
Click to expand...
Because the horse belonged to the owner. If I lend my friend my pearls and the string breaks and she looses the pearls, should she replace them, or should I stand the loss? I know what I would expect and what I would do if I was the person who borrowed something which I could not replace.
 
Honey08 said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, that is not what I'm saying at all!

The OP is NOT deliberately profiting from the poor horses death but may receive a return for the Policy Premiums THEY solely have paid for.

The owner appears to have NOT put a contract in place regarding the immediate, short-term or long-term welfare of this horse. Unacceptable!

If I loaned a horse to a home where it's needs were catered to, insured and loved for numerous years, without putting a contract in place, not financially helping, I would feel like scum asking for money back if the horse died through accident/illness/injury.
 
I can't comment on the actual subject of the thread because I'm utterly 'head spinned' by it. However, as an owner, all I can say is I will be approaching any loan situation I may experience in the future from a completely different view point after this, and paying for insurance myself.
 
So if the loaner had not insured the horse would you expect them to have paid the owner for the loss of the horse then?
 
be positive said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, proof of purchase isn't vital, same as vet cert (assume you mean 5 stage vetting?, not 2 stage?)
 
Pidgeon said:
So if the loaner had not insured the horse would you expect them to have paid the owner for the loss of the horse then?[/QUO
Given that the OP was eventing the horse at the time of its death, I presume it is fairly high value animal and yes she should pay if she is asked to, as she can no longer return it to the owner.
Click to expand...
 
Pidgeon said:
So if the loaner had not insured the horse would you expect them to have paid the owner for the loss of the horse then?
Click to expand...
Fair question, and this is exactly why there should be a robust loan agreement in place from the off. Both parties should know exactly where they stand.

The BHS have a good loan template which covers most eventualities, and which you can fine tune to individual requirements. So why on earth don't people use it??
 
I have loaned horses out in the past, but certainly wouldn't after this thread!

And Illusion100 its strange that you would feel like scum asking for insurance money to replace a horse yet wouldn't feel like scum walking away with a good few thousand because a horse you were loaning died. Just because you've looked after it well and insured it doesn't make it yours and it doesn't mean that the owner hasn't looked after it well previously to the horse being loaned out.

The owner in this case has only asked for half, and that was probably prompted by watching the rotters who had loaned it walking off with a good few thousand when they'd left her with nothing!

Anyway, am bowing out of this now, glad to see there are a few others brought up to respect other people's property around.
 
Tiddlypom said:
Fair question, and this is exactly why there should be a robust loan agreement in place from the off. Both parties should know exactly where they stand.

The BHS have a good loan template which covers most eventualities, and which you can fine tune to individual requirements. So why on earth don't people use it??
Click to expand...

Exactly
 
Pidgeon said:
So if the loaner had not insured the horse would you expect them to have paid the owner for the loss of the horse then?
Click to expand...

Yes I would if it were my horse they were borrowing, because as I said previously I'm all for people borrowing my belongings but if they break them then they pay for them, as I paid for them in the first place. Now if the horse were in my sole care and possession and the person riding the horse had an accident whilst on my property then that would be different and I would swallow the cost of the lost horse. But if a horse of mine is taken to live somewhere else, in someone else's care (even if only for a week) then they are fully responsible for that horse and if they break it they need to either pay to have it fixed or refund the value of the horse if they totally break it and it dies.
 
Sorry I just wanted to add, saying that the OP has but 5 years of hard work into the horse, potentially increasing the horses value. Whilst the horse was in a saleable condition the owner could have sold the horse and the OP would have ended up with receiving none of the horses value.
It would be easier for the OP and the owner to discuss this matter with a solicitor, as we are only assuming what has been said and agreed.
As a previous poster stated their OH is a solicitor and the OP could be taken to court by the owner to reclaim the cost of her assets.
OP think extremely carefully before you keep any money, you could find it costs you more in the long run. Also if the money was used to purchase a horse, could this be seen as using the proceeds of crime and be sized? I'm not a solicitor but it would make the situation even worse!
 
Honey08 said:
I have loaned horses out in the past, but certainly wouldn't after this thread!

And Illusion100 its strange that you would feel like scum asking for insurance money to replace a horse yet wouldn't feel like scum walking away with a good few thousand because a horse you were loaning died. Just because you've looked after it well and insured it doesn't make it yours and it doesn't mean that the owner hasn't looked after it well previously to the horse being loaned out.

The owner in this case has only asked for half, and that was probably prompted by watching the rotters who had loaned it walking off with a good few thousand when they'd left her with nothing!

Anyway, am bowing out of this now, glad to see there are a few others brought up to respect other people's property around.
Click to expand...

Agree to disagree then, nothing wrong with that! :)
 
Pidgeon said:
For those saying the loaner never paid for horse so should not benefit from its death please explain why the owner who never paid for the insurance should benefit from it?
Click to expand...

Because that's the deal I made when I allowed the horse to go on loan .
And what I agreed with the owner of the horse I loaned for my OH .
 
Cowpony said:
So Illusion100 can I borrow your horse? I'll take it eventing, which is a high risk sport, but if anything happens I'll just shrug and walk away, OK?
Click to expand...

How did you know I Event?! Very perceptive of you!! If I chose to loan my horse, I'd have a detailed contract in place, that ok with you? It's just I wouldn't want to sign a document stating one thing, then changing my mind when money is involved!
 
Illusion100 said:
How did you know I Event?! Very perceptive of you!! If I chose to loan my horse, I'd have a detailed contract in place, that ok with you? It's just I wouldn't want to sign a document stating one thing, then changing my mind when money is involved!
Click to expand...

Exactly! You, like most of us I suspect, would want something to say that if the loaner couldn't return the horse for any reason you would be compensated. Unfortunately that wasn't the case here, and we only have the OPs word for it that the owner said she could keep the insurance money. That is a bizarre thing to agree to and is contradicted by the owner's subsequent request for half the money, which suggests that she didn't actually agree to the OP keeping the money. Regardless of what was or wasn't agreed the OP has sustained no financial loss and what she was insuring was not the loss of the horse, which wasn't hers to insure, but her liability to compensate the owner if she couldn't return the horse.
 
Could it be that letter was for the OP to forward on the insurance company in order for them to pay out for the loss of the horse, as the OP is not the owner?
 
Very interesting thread.

Essentially there are two elements, the insurance claim and the loan.

The OP chose to pay for insurance that included payment on death. If the insurance company are happy to pay despite the OP not being the owner, great. OP gets some money.

However, OP had the horse on loan ie the owner *lent* OP the horse. Let's call the horse '£5000' for example. The OP therefore owes the owner '£5000', yes? If the 'loan' cannot be repaid in the original form, then monetary compensation should be due, surely?
 
JenJ said:
Very interesting thread.

Essentially there are two elements, the insurance claim and the loan.

The OP chose to pay for insurance that included payment on death. If the insurance company are happy to pay despite the OP not being the owner, great. OP gets some money.

However, OP had the horse on loan ie the owner *lent* OP the horse. Let's call the horse '£5000' for example. The OP therefore owes the owner '£5000', yes? If the 'loan' cannot be repaid in the original form, then monetary compensation should be due, surely?
Click to expand...

Yes!
 
The owner didnt insure the horse, the loaner did so imo the money belongs to the loaner. When i took the horse i had on loan, i insisted the owner pay insurance and topped up to LOU as i wanted to xc with the horse, as it is he's mine now as ive bought him but id anything had happened when i was competing him id have been gutted, if the then owner had lost her horse with nowt to show for him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top