Ridiculous Insurance Exclusion - You've got to Laugh!

[Mithras]

Sent off my 5 star vetting (which had barely any comments on it other than than that the horse dished in front) for my new 4 year old to the insurance company and it came back with the following exclusion:

"Excluding all losses arising directly or indirectly from or attributable to conditions associated with dishing on both forelimbs"

Knowing what some insurers can be like, I don't see much point in paying for this cover - the exclusion is so ambiguous, you could argue that any forelimb lameness might be slightly attributable to a defect of action from dishing. Or there again, it might not. I really don't fancy going down that route with an insurer.

Have written to them informing them I will be cancelling the policy and expecting a full refund if it is not removed!

 

[Daytona]

My 4 year old had signs of ring worm so it was noted on vetting, insurance have excluded anything arising from or including ring worm, that would have to be some amount of ringworm for you to make an insurance claim. They just go over board these days I think..! Madness.

 

[biggingerpony]

My claim that I sent off to my old insurers was about an injury of a check ligament so I got a letter back that I was no excluded from claiming on both forelimbs, teeth and gums! Because she had a slight overhang that was noted years and years ago!!

I rang them up to query it and even the lady on the phone that I spoke to said that it was ridiculous but there was nothing they could do!! They then refused my claim. Needless to say I moved insurers pronto! *ahem* e&l *ahem*

 

[galaxy]

At a guess... is it KBIS?

My friends exclusions read something like that!

 

[Suby2]

I bought my pony in the middle of summer. She is very tolerant of flies (even evil New Forest crab flies) and had bites on her stomach which the vet doing the vetting noted.

When her insurance policy came through she was excluded from any claims relating to insect bites!

Fortunately I was able to get it removed on the annual renewal.

 

[SamandMonty]

Think the best one i'v had was after my old man sliced his fetlock open. insurers were sent all reports on injury/treatment of said fetlock and when renewal came back they wanted to exclude his knees!! When queried they said that was were the in jury was... weel thankyou if anything flares up from fetlock injury i'll carry on claiming. They changed it sharpish :-(

 

[SpottedCat]

Let me guess, KBIS? They've gone completely demented with their exclusions recently!

Try AmTrust - they underwrite themselves and are really reasonable about exclusions - to the point of lifting them with vets letters.

 

[Mithras]

Its AmTrust! I am sure the vet will write a letter if necessary, its only a 4 year old!

Interesting so many people said KBIS - I gave up on them several years ago when they suddenly excluded my mare's entire foreleg on the basis of a throwaway comment on the initial vet's report several years prior which mentioned she was marginally tight on that leg when turning a circle, most likely due to a too small shoe!

 

[SpottedCat]

I am amazed it is AmTrust as they seem to actually know one end of a horse from the other!

AmTrust found the exclusion KBIS tried to stick on my horse hilarious - and their exclusion was far more reasonable.

 

[Mithras]

I was a bit surprised! What on earth does it mean? Its so ambiguous as to potentially, or arguably, include any form of foreleg lameness. Dishing is a defect of action, not a cause of lameness in itself. It really needs some form of clarification, at the very least!

 

[chestnut cob]

I'm with Amtrust, they're pretty reasonable to deal with. I'd ask them to review the exclusion, get your vet involved, and they might reword it.

 

[Spotsrock]

we had one policy that specifically excluded damage done to garden furniture as a result of the equine knocking or causing it to be knocked into a swimming pool or bathing area.

 

[fatpiggy]

When I had my mare vetted, it was noted that she had thickening of a hind leg (cannon area) although my vet assured me it was just due to lymphangitis scarring, not a tendon injury or anything else. Sixteen years later she still has a total exclusion on BOTH hind legs for tendons and ligaments but her epilepsy, which I made a claim for 15 years ago has now been removed despite the fact it is an on-going condition. Crazy!!

 

[4x4]

We claimed for a minor op on a pony (removal of non-bony cartilage type growth near stifle). Not malignant just appeared there. NFU excluded the whole hindquarter and leg!

 

[Mithras]

In the interests of fairness, am pleased to say AmTrust have removed the dishing exclusion without quibble.

 

[SpottedCat]

In the interests of fairness, am pleased to say AmTrust have removed the dishing exclusion without quibble.

I am sure it must have been an oversight in the first place as you are right, it's such a silly thing to exclude!

KBIS excluded my horse's entire digestive system and all colic after he'd had gastric ulcers. Now as we all know, the teeth are part of the digestive system. I swapped to AmTrust who much more reasonably excluded anything caused by ulcers/related to ulcers, but not all colic howsoever caused, and certainly not the entire digestive system. Said horse very unfortunately got kicked in the head in the field necessitating x-rays to jaw with possible tooth damage and suspected fractured jaw. Under the KBIS policy, that would not have been covered! Thank goodness I changed providers. AmTrust paid up without hesitation.

 

[highlandponygirl]

Well, i'v got alot to look forward to when I eventually by a horse in the next year or so . I get a bit baffled by some of the things re equine insurance claims that appear in NL. Equine insurance is something i'v never had to worry about while riding other peoples horses. I think i'v got alot of research to do.

 

[ReggiePerrin]

I'm having the same problem with KBIS at the moment. Vet was very thorough in the vetting and they've excluded everything however minor. The vet said he had a small discharge from his eye but nothing related to it. and now they're refusing to pay up for an ulcer on his eye which was caused by a foreign body getting caught under his third eye lid 2 weeks after I got him. What really annoyed me was that when I phoned to say what had happened and then phoned again to ask if it was ok for him to go to Liphook, they never once mentioned the exclusion and said it was all ok. Totally misleading in my opinion and assumed that you know how the system works. Being a first time owner I did not and am now faced with a £2,500 bill. Needless to say we're trying to fight it

 

[Pocket_Rocket]

I'm having the same problem with KBIS at the moment. Vet was very thorough in the vetting and they've excluded everything however minor. The vet said he had a small discharge from his eye but nothing related to it. and now they're refusing to pay up for an ulcer on his eye which was caused by a foreign body getting caught under his third eye lid 2 weeks after I got him. What really annoyed me was that when I phoned to say what had happened and then phoned again to ask if it was ok for him to go to Liphook, they never once mentioned the exclusion and said it was all ok. Totally misleading in my opinion and assumed that you know how the system works. Being a first time owner I did not and am now faced with a £2,500 bill. Needless to say we're trying to fight it

I'm also with KBIS and have exactly the same problem! Excluding ridiculous things. When my horse was vetted the vet put that he has wingles and an unusual pigmentation to his right retina. So my boy is excluded for anything relating indirectly or directly to wingles and and anything indirectly or directly to the pigmentation of his retina! It's purely the colour of his retina nothing wrong with it!

Then he was treated for ringworm in the summer though wasn't actually confirmed it was ringworm and he also managed to get a cut on the heel bulb so you can guess they've excluded anything indirectly or directly linked to ring worm and also to the heel bulb!

Now my delightful boy decided to hang himself in his stable (god knows how he didn't break his leg!!) and so i've had to claim for sedation, general anaesthetic plus x-rays. I rang to put the claim in and asked whether the leg would be excluded even though the x-ray has shown there is nothing wrong with it. And they said well we will review it at renewal. I told them if they exclude that leg then they know what they can do with their insurance!

I'll end up with nothing covered! Almost seems like its not worth bothering with insurance! I've paid £50 a month for 2 years with no claims and now on my 3rd year so they better pay this claim otherwise I am not going to be a happy bunny! The joys of insurance! Glad i'm not the only with the silly exclusions though!

 

[SpottedCat]

I don't know who underwrites KBIS these days, but they have gone massively downhill with their exclusions.

Amusingly, KBIS used to have a leaflet which said they'd never had any negative comments on HHO - guess they can't use that any more then!!

 

[ReggiePerrin]

I know. In the letter I wrote them I pointed out that there was no point me paying for insurance if they were going to claim exclusions even if the vet says catagorically that they're not connected. I went with them because I'd seen good things about them on here but will certainly be pointing out that I won't be so generous on HHO if they don't pay up.

 

[loopylucifer]

Most insurance companys will reveiw exclutions on a year to year basis with a letter from your vet to coinfirm that the horse has not suffered any other issues with that problem. Insurance companys just have to cover themselfs as not everyone is so honest. My horse had 9 exclutions and managed to reduce them down to 7 (she is very good at breaking!) with a letter from my vet. it was niether am trust or KBIS.
To us owners we think they are silly and OTT but insurance comapnys are just doing there job. they are all the same in that respect

 

[muffinmunsh]

My nag had a hindleg excluded after an injury. When they changed him over to veteran insurance they removed that specific exclusion and changed it to an "everything pre-existing" exclusion. This year he suffered a kick wound to said leg ... It would have been excluded under his old policy but is not a pre-existing condition so they paid up in full for this )))