Loss of use claim - an impossible decision...

R

rsteljes

New User
Joined
6 September 2009
Messages
5
Visit site
I wanted to see what other peoples thoughts were on this and whether i was alone in thinking that i have been left in a horrible situation.
I am currently going through a loss of use claim of a home produced event horse which developed 'Wobblers' syndrome and is no longer able to be ridden. This is a horse i have owned for quite a while now and am devastated about this. He showed all the signs of being a top horse but i guess it wasnt to be. My insurance company have agreed the 75% loss of use but i received a letter from them saying i need to show them proof that i have had the horse destroyed to get my 75% - this being a beautiful animal who is in no pain at all and has settled down very well into retirement living out in the field. If i choose to keep the horse in retirement i will no longer get the 75% and get 65% instead. Im sure most people in horses can appreciate that i need every penny i can get to replace him but how could i ever forgive myself for inhumanly having him destroyed as the insurance company are suggesting - Im hoping im not the only one who thinks this is a very unfair decision the insurance company have left me......
 
All you can do is refer to the T&C's in your policy I'm afraid. That is the contract between you and your insurers.

No one can advise you whether to take 75% and PTS or take 65% and keep, that is a very personal decision.

I'm about to begin the LOU process on one of mine soon although my situation is slightly different as my horse is still rideable and so I fully expect to only get a % of his insured value.
 
rsteljes said:
I wanted to see what other peoples thoughts were on this and whether i was alone in thinking that i have been left in a horrible situation.
I am currently going through a loss of use claim of a home produced event horse which developed 'Wobblers' syndrome and is no longer able to be ridden. This is a horse i have owned for quite a while now and am devastated about this. He showed all the signs of being a top horse but i guess it wasnt to be. My insurance company have agreed the 75% loss of use but i received a letter from them saying i need to show them proof that i have had the horse destroyed to get my 75% - this being a beautiful animal who is in no pain at all and has settled down very well into retirement living out in the field. If i choose to keep the horse in retirement i will no longer get the 75% and get 65% instead. Im sure most people in horses can appreciate that i need every penny i can get to replace him but how could i ever forgive myself for inhumanly having him destroyed as the insurance company are suggesting - Im hoping im not the only one who thinks this is a very unfair decision the insurance company have left me......
Click to expand...
Really sorry to hear about your horse. I have just gone through this and cannot advise on your situation as the decision is ultimately a very personal one. I chose to keep mine, but do bear in mind that if you do go down this route, the insurance company will require the horse to be freezemarked with an L in a circle before they will pay out. I based my decision on whether I believed the horse would be able to have a happy and pain free life if I kept him in retirement, and also an assessment on what I believed that quality of life to be for him. Some horses just don't settle in retirement and need work to keep their minds stimulated, others do very well on it.

I agree that it is a very difficult decision to make, however the insurance company (at least mine, who I cannot praise highly enough) don't push you into making a decision too quickly, I had plenty of time to weigh up the options before arriving at a decision. Good luck OP
 
I think they are messing around as if they expect the horse to be put down they should be paying out market value for destruction on humane grounds which is what I would have pushed for with a wobbler anyhow! If its a developing situation the horse may not be around much longer anyhow(from a safety view). LOU should just be a standard payout usually 75% as you have insured against you not being able to achieve something.What use do they expect a wobbler to have!
Does the insurance company have an E and a L in their name!
 
So sorry for your situation. I have been there with my WB - I got LOU for him 6 months after a 5 stage vetting and purchase.
That's an odd one. I got LOU on my horse and had he been pts and I am sure the vet would have seconded such a decision I would have got 100% of his insured value.

As I opted for the LOU I got 80% of his sum insured and he has been on Dr Green/rehab for 2 years since.

I know there is an upper % limit for LOU which sounds like it maybe 75% in your case? I know insurance companies adjust the sum awarded up to the full limit depending on whether the horse can ridden/bred from. My horse had veterinary back up that it was highly unlikely he would be ridden ever again and being a gelding that meant I got the full upper limit. All I would advise is to read your t & cs. An insurance loss expert called me to discuss my horse's value as he was high-end, but on hearing his breeding there was no contention over the sum insured being fair and correct.

If you opted for pts (and I guess the vet would second with BEVA guidelines) then the insurance will have to pay 100% and also the euthanse and usually something toward the cremation.
 
Last edited:
I think theyre messing with you as well, i paid premiums for 100% loss of use, they offered me 75% , saying i could breed from her :confused: like theres not enough unwanted horses going to slaughter !! Dont take it, check t&c it isually states they can retain 10% , i went of like a 2 bob rocket at them and she immediatly upped it, bit still not to my full amount, i told them i was sending all my info to the ombudsmen they immedialtly got back to me with a 90% offer as long as she was freezemarked LOU, i also provided a letter from my vet saying unsuitable as broodmare, i also told them that the info stating keeping 10% is buried in small print and if i had time id be taking them to the ombudsman for that, every day, insurance companies are being exposed for just such underhand tactics, they shouldnt advertise levels of LOU then bury retention fees in small print. Do t give up be firm and if you need to, take it further
 
Last edited:
I think you need to go back to your insurance company. Or possibly get your vet to talk to your insurers?

If he had to be PTS I would expect to recieve 100% value for Loss of Horse. Loss of use should never involve the horse having to be PTS.

Who are you insured with?
 
That's not really fair. I can understand them keeping a % if he could be used for anything. But he can't. You have nothing to lose by querying it with them. I would ask them exactly what the % is for
Good luck
 
Cheiro1 said:
I think you need to go back to your insurance company. Or possibly get your vet to talk to your insurers?

If he had to be PTS I would expect to recieve 100% value for Loss of Horse. Loss of use should never involve the horse having to be PTS.

Who are you insured with?
Click to expand...

That's not strictly true - you only get the death cover if the horse meets the very strict BEVA guidelines for immediate euthanasia. If the horse has, for example, something degenerative but is not a case for immediate PTS, then you would claim LoU, and you might also decide that it is in the horse's best interests to PTS immediately even though it may currently not meet the guidelines. When I claimed LoU they asked if I wanted the freezebrand or to PTS - my choice.
 
Agree with Spotted cat. This is what happened with my last horse. I had him pts as condition was degenerative but didn't meet beva guidelines, so claimed 100% LOU
 
Agree with SpottedCat, to claim mortality having horse PTS (ie, 100% sum insured) BEVA criteria will need to be fulfilled. If horse is settled out at grass & you are happy with his quality of life he would not meet BEVA criteria.
Lots of companies will offer LOU at a percentage of the horses sum insured, this may be 60%, 75%, 100% etc, it will depend on the company.
Dependant on your claim & who the company is they will either pay the full % LOU you have chosen (ie, £1000 sum insured with 75% LOU, you get back £750) or they may deduct a residual value (ie, horse was worth £10,000 as showjumper, had 100% LOU cover, is now 'worth' £1500 as a hack so they pay you £8500. As to whether the horse is suitable just as a hacking horse is usually ir-relevant but if your vet & a suitably qualified person such as a trainer will write supporting the fact horse not suitable for hacking & only a companion then the insurance co may re-consider) The reason they may deduce a residual value is because theorhetically you can sell the horse for this value which on top of your LOU payout would mean you are 'making' more money.
Hope that makes sense, you really are best off reading the t&c section of your policy re: LOU or talking to the company themselves if unsure.
 
But surely that is your choice to have your horse PTS as you feel it is in their best interest. You insurance company was not specifying you had to have your horse PTS to claim the LOU?

SpottedCat could have just had her horse freezebranded, it was her choice to PTS?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top