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

Don't you think if the owner had been just after money they would have asked for the full value? They're asking for half, which sounds like a compromise to me. Its the OP who wants the full amount to themselves without compensating the owner at all for the loss of their horse, OP won't be able to buy a decent horse to event without the money - something they couldn't have done without the owner and the horse anyway. A pretty gross way to make money for a horse IMO.

If OP actually bothered to come back and comment on some of the many replies and expand it would be a lot easier to understand/forgive her. At the moment its not..
 
This thread really highlights the importance in having a water-tight agreement in place so that both sides are protected. Definitely an eyeopener to how situations can be interpreted differently from person to person.
 
Honey08 said:
If OP actually bothered to come back and comment on some of the many replies and expand it would be a lot easier to understand/forgive her. At the moment its not..
Click to expand...

Yes, it would be nice to have a response and further explanation however, reading some of the horrible replies on here based on assumptions and which are quite clearly ignoring the information in the original post, I wouldnt expect her back anytime soon. Lets just hope it works out for them both
 
I'm not surprised the op hasnt bothered coming back with folk possibly insinuating the horses death may have happened for gain. Making jips about what make up or products she spends her money on and questioning her lying over the agreement the owner gave.. Big surprise.

The owner chose to loan the horse, op clearly looked after and cared well for the horse or they wouldn't of had him for 5 years. Owners didn't take an insurance policy out, loaners did and paid premiums for it.. Owner agreed they didn't want the money from said insurance. So why is op the evil party, the money had clearly been discussed before and owner said they could keep it.
 
I don't think either op or owner deserve the payout. Owner obviously waived her rights to it with the signed letter, and OP I would be surprised if they can legally claim the payout due to not owning the horse (I'm sure this has to be insurance fraud if they do!) - and if they do I'm sure owner could take to court for financial gain over destruction of their loaned property. Since Neither deserve it legally, the sensible thing would be to split it half and half.
 
My little guy is insured. If I have read my policy correctly then in the worst case scenario I would receive an amount equal to the yearly premium, which is considerably less than his current market value, and also less than what I paid for him. It would not be enough to purchase another. I'm not sure what the amount that the OP is expecting to receive is, but I do wonder if it will be as much as they expect. Just a thought. I have no opinion on who is right.
 
Is there anyone on here who can reliably identify any horse which has been loaned out to one person for five whole years which has then been taken back by the owner and continued in full work with the owner??

What, exactly, did the owner lose in this case?????? As far as I can see they lost only a liability which might be returned to them at any time because it was to old or ill to continue to do what the person loaning it wanted it for.
 
khalswitz said:
I don't think either op or owner deserve the payout. Owner obviously waived her rights to it with the signed letter, and OP I would be surprised if they can legally claim the payout due to not owning the horse (I'm sure this has to be insurance fraud if they do!) - and if they do I'm sure owner could take to court for financial gain over destruction of their loaned property. Since Neither deserve it legally, the sensible thing would be to split it half and half.
Click to expand...


Would it be insurance fraud if your mother received a payment on your father's life insurance if he died?

Where exactly is there fraud? The money is required to provide a replacement. This is no different from insuring the life of someone you depend on, or insuring your own jewellery.
 
cptrayes said:
What, exactly, did the owner lose in this case?????? As far as I can see they lost only a liability which might be returned to them at any time because it was to old or ill to continue to do what the person loaning it wanted it for.
Click to expand...

The horse was competing BE so hardly likely...For a fit and well horse to suddenly die? A horse competing at BE80 is likely to come with a 4-5k price tag so hardly worthless
 
cptrayes said:
Is there anyone on here who can reliably identify any horse which has been loaned out to one person for five whole years which has then been taken back by the owner and continued in full work with the owner??

What, exactly, did the owner lose in this case?????? As far as I can see they lost only a liability which might be returned to them at any time because it was to old or ill to continue to do what the person loaning it wanted it for.
Click to expand...

I loaned mine for3 years, he has been back with owner and is happy and healthy so yes loads will be loaned go back and still be healthy. Bit of a strange statement depends on age of horse.

I'm with the thoughts of insurance always ask who owns the horse, if not the insured they ask for details of owner for the purpose of paying out On LOU or death, never heard fit any other way, wonder what OP said to this question? It's this question which will relate to fraud.
 
Last edited:
What a depressing thread. When you loan a horse out I'd expect the loaner to know it was on loan, tbh I'd never loan mine out, even more so after reading the attitudes of lots on here.
 
PollyP99 said:
I loaned mine for3 years, he has been back with owner and is happy and healthy so yes loads will be loaned go back and still be healthy. Bit of a strange statement depends on age of horse.

I'm with the thoughts of insurance always ask who owns the horse, if not the insured they ask for details of owner for the purpose of paying out On LOU or death, never heard fit any other way, wonder what OP said to this question?
Click to expand...

3 years is a university course, four might be. Now can you answer the question? Are you aware of any horse which has been loaned out to one person for five whole years and returned to the owner to stay in full work with the owner, still worth significant bucks????

I can't for the life of me see that the owner on this case has lost anything but a liability, money wise.
 
Fides said:
The horse was competing BE so hardly likely...For a fit and well horse to suddenly die? A horse competing at BE80 is likely to come with a 4-5k price tag so hardly worthless
Click to expand...

The horse has no monetary value to the owner unless they intended either to take it back after such a long time, or sell it.

I cannot see that the owner ever intended to sell this horse, or take it back to ride, and therefore need to finance a replacement.
 
cptrayes said:
Would it be insurance fraud if your mother received a payment on your father's life insurance if he died?

Where exactly is there fraud? The money is required to provide a replacement. This is no different from insuring the life of someone you depend on, or insuring your own jewellery.
Click to expand...

Different legal situation. Life insurance is to insure against lack of income to support the wife in the case of death - not for replacement of property not even owned.

The loaner never owned the horse, so there is no replacement to pay for.
 
Fides said:
The horse was competing BE so hardly likely...For a fit and well horse to suddenly die? A horse competing at BE80 is likely to come with a 4-5k price tag so hardly worthless
Click to expand...

It's worth no money to the owner unless they intended to take it back or sell it. If you don't think that a BE80 horse can break down and be sent back to its owner as a liability that eats vets fees, you haven't been around horses enough :)
 
I know of one that was leased, they paid an annual fee, insured it for £10k, also bought all of the tack and rugs when starting the lease, kept for 5 years then it went on to be leased by another family on similar terms, it was 9 at the start is 16 now, it is only 14 hands so not a horse but has done BE, PC champs etc. the owners chose to lease rather than sell to get the investment back, after 10 years of leasing it will have been "paid for" and will return home when it needs to retire if it does not die in the meantime, if it does the insurance money goes to the owners.
 
Having read the thread, I do understand both sides of the argument, however surely they're a bit invalid given that the OP said that the owner wrote them a letter saying that any money would be paid to them...

One thing, those of you who are saying that the insurers will ask for proof of ownership, could the OP not show the letter from the owner saying that any payment would go to them, or is this not valid proof?
 
khalswitz said:
Different legal situation. Life insurance is to insure against lack of income to support the wife in the case of death - not for replacement of property not even owned.

The loaner never owned the horse, so there is no replacement to pay for.
Click to expand...


Yes there is. The loaner now has no horse. A permanent loan of a BE80 horse will be very difficult to come by. She is entitled to insure for that loss, just as you are entitled to insure for the loss of a husband.

You do realise that employers can take a life insurance policy against any of their workers, no matter how insignificant they are to the organisation, do you?

Insurance is simply a gamble, no more, no less. If the other party will accept the gamble, you can insure ANYTHING.
 
cptrayes said:
Is there anyone on here who can reliably identify any horse which has been loaned out to one person for five whole years which has then been taken back by the owner and continued in full work with the owner??

What, exactly, did the owner lose in this case?????? As far as I can see they lost only a liability which might be returned to them at any time because it was to old or ill to continue to do what the person loaning it wanted it for.
Click to expand...

I have a 14.2 that has been loaned out for the past 12 years, admittedly not to the same family, he usually stays with a family about 2-3 years before the child out grows him. Lots of PC ponies are loaned out and when I first started loaning our pony he was worth £2-3000, but I wanted to be in control of his future and had I had any grandchildren they would be learning to ride on him now. I would be absolutely livid claimed compensation for his death no matter how much they had spent on him when they had a quality animal for no outlay and what ever the owner signed I could not keep the money. To assume that because an animal has been loaned for a long period of time the owner has no financial interest or responsibility is rubbish, you may be a breeder that are loaning out a mare that returns to be a brood mare
When you loan you are getting a good deal, if there a problem it goes back, if it's ill its not you long term responsibility. I had a pony die on loan, I paid for its removal. As to return of premiums, does the owner also have to refund the livery? The insurance was a running cost.
When you rent a horsebox or a car you pay insurance to cover damage and replacement, the vehicle remains the property of the rental company if there is a claim and its written off they get the money. I do wonder why the owner signed her rights away when it was obviously a good quality animal and when the poster didn't buy it if she had so much invested in it?
 
cptrayes said:
Would it be insurance fraud if your mother received a payment on your father's life insurance if he died?

Where exactly is there fraud? The money is required to provide a replacement. This is no different from insuring the life of someone you depend on, or insuring your own jewellery.
Click to expand...

my daughters first pony has been on loan for 4 yrs, if we had a young person in the family she would come back to us to be worked, she will never be sold so I can control her future homes if there is ever a need for her to be re-homed.
 
twiggy2 said:
my daughters first pony has been on loan for 4 yrs, if we had a young person in the family she would come back to us to be worked, she will never be sold so I can control her future homes if there is ever a need for her to be re-homed.
Click to expand...

And are you insured to replace her if she dies?
 
Once you loan a horse and the moment it is placed on transport to the loaner, it can die. Same as it could have died the night before it was due to be transported.

If you didn't insure your asset, don't expect your money back. Especially not when you waiver monetary insurance rights to it in the first place.
 
cptrayes said:
Yes there is. The loaner now has no horse. A permanent loan of a BE80 horse will be very difficult to come by. She is entitled to insure for that loss, just as you are entitled to insure for the loss of a husband.

You do realise that employers can take a life insurance policy against any of their workers, no matter how insignificant they are to the organisation, do you?

Insurance is simply a gamble, no more, no less. If the other party will accept the gamble, you can insure ANYTHING.
Click to expand...

Yes, that will be hard to come by. But so is an Olympic horse - doesn't mean that the rider of an Olympic horse would get the insurance money to replace it, the owner would!! They did not own the horse, and replacing a loan horse with another loan (like for like as insurance loves) costs nothing, so why should they receive a payout?

And life insurance is a whole different ball game - not really comparable. Rules and regs are totally different to insuring property.
 
Mm. I have loaned out my pony (10.3hh) because she is a perfect first pony who can bring small children a lot of happiness, but I wanted to know that she would have somewhere good to retire where I could be certain of her future. 15 years on she is back with me now :-) I presently loan a horse I am hoping to affiliate (BD) this year. In both cases full loan agreements are drawn up including the fact that the loanee must pay for insurance to cover loss of use and death and to what value - for the purpose of compensating the owner.

In this scenario I think the owner was foolish not to have an agreement and legally has no leg to stand on. Morally I'd give her the money the horse was worth when the loan started, translated to present amounts. This is why I agree a value at the time of the agreement - if this horse was very green, difficult, unschooled or had vices, and it's the 5 years of work which had brought him to the present state then it would be totally different to her loaning a horse who was ready to go, in terms of value at the start of the agreement.

Morally, I too would give the owners the money. It would be interesting to know more about the original case.
 
khalswitz said:
Yes, that will be hard to come by. But so is an Olympic horse - doesn't mean that the rider of an Olympic horse would get the insurance money to replace it, the owner would!! They did not own the horse, and replacing a loan horse with another loan (like for like as insurance loves) costs nothing, so why should they receive a payout?

And life insurance is a whole different ball game - not really comparable. Rules and regs are totally different to insuring property.
Click to expand...

I am pretty certain that the rider of an Olympic horse could find an insurance company willing to insure for the replacement value of the horse were it to die in competition, even though they do not own the horse. You do not have to own something, necessarily, to insure against losing the use of it.

Employers insure against losing staff, film makers insure against losing actors part way through a film, organisers of fetes insure against rain. It's just a bet you make with an insurance company. There are no 'rules' - you can insure whatever an insurance actuary will take your bet on.
 
Last edited:
cptrayes said:
And are you insured to replace her if she dies?
Click to expand...


no but my post was in response to the following...

cptrayes said:
The horse has no monetary value to the owner unless they intended either to take it back after such a long time, or sell it.

I cannot see that the owner ever intended to sell this horse, or take it back to ride, and therefore need to finance a replacement.
Click to expand...
 
Interestingly, teabiscuit, I find it more depressing that people would side with an owner who has gone back on her own word regarding an agreement. If the horse hadn't been insured she'd have got no money when it died. OP decided to ensure it. Owner decided to waive any rights to the premiums. Owner chose not to take out their own insurance policy.
Whether you agree with someone who didn't buy a horse getting the LOU payout for said horse is irrelevant. The OP insured against that risk. The owner didn't. If the OP had decided not to insure for loss of use had the owner not signed the rights to the premiums over to her, then there would be no payout anyway. It was an extra on behalf of the OP's expense that the owner agreed would be the OPs should a payout ever be made.
I find it very typical of HHO how people are posting things like "I'd never loan after reading the attitudes of some people on here". Yes, let's belittle everyone into having the same opinion mwahahaha. Very sad, but not surprising.
 
Find it as typical as you like Elsicat. I wouldn't loan a horse out again particularly after reading this thread, I wouldn't have liveries again after reading a lot of threads on here (and from my own experiences). The more I read on here, the more convinced I am that its best to keep yourself to yourself in the horse world and not get too involved with other people as they often are a huge let down. This whole thread has left me feeling quite down.
 
Deleted.
I've made my point and I hope OP and the owner can reach an agreement. RIP Horse.
 
Last edited:
Elsiecat said:
Interestingly, teabiscuit, I find it more depressing that people would side with an owner who has gone back on her own word regarding an agreement. If the horse hadn't been insured she'd have got no money when it died. OP decided to ensure it. Owner decided to waive any rights to the premiums. Owner chose not to take out their own insurance policy.
Whether you agree with someone who didn't buy a horse getting the LOU payout for said horse is irrelevant. The OP insured against that risk. The owner didn't. If the OP had decided not to insure for loss of use had the owner not signed the rights to the premiums over to her, then there would be no payout anyway. It was an extra on behalf of the OP's expense that the owner agreed would be the OPs should a payout ever be made.
I find it very typical of HHO how people are posting things like "I'd never loan after reading the attitudes of some people on here". Yes, let's belittle everyone into having the same opinion mwahahaha. Very sad, but not surprising.
Click to expand...

I agree with you.

Just wanted to say that LOU, or Loss Of Use relates to an injury, illness or condition that prevents the horse from being able to carry out the purpose it was originally insured for (meaning the horse is still alive).

LOA, or Loss Of Animal relates to a horse that is destroyed in relation to the policy agreement that fulfils the BEVA Guidelines, which also covers 'accidental death', as what happened with the horse the OP describes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top