Stupid (probably) question about insurance

[bonnysmum]

How do you know when it's worth claiming? This applies to me at the moment for both my pony and my dog, but let's take the pony as this is a horse forum. By the time I've deducted the excess the figure I'd be claiming isn't much over £100 so I'm wondering if it's even worth it? But then if the condition worsens and I haven't claimed at this point I figure it wouldn't be covered in future. But would any further incidences of this condition be covered in future anyway, or is it one chance to claim and then it's excluded?

I've been insured up to the hilt for everything all my life but never tried to make a claim, so I'm a bit clueless!

 

[milliepops]

one chance to claim. so as soon as you go over the excess it's worth claiming IMO.

 

[bonnysmum]

one chance to claim. so as soon as you go over the excess it's worth claiming IMO.

My fear is always that my insurance payments will then go up by more than I ended up claiming. Or doesn't it work that way when they go onto exclude the condition anyway?

 

[milliepops]

The condition would be excluded going forward, as you have to submit full vet records on claiming these days. I am not an insurance professional but have made my fair share of claims and have found the policy price is more affected by the type/value/class of use of the horse than anything else, i've had £££££ paid out and my premiums have hardly changed.

 

[bonnysmum]

OK thanks. So... say this treatment doesn't work and she needs more investigations and it turns out to be more serious. Would they not be paying out because they already paid for the treatment for what was thought to be (and hopefully is!) a hay allergy? Sorry if this all sounds really stupid, but insurance does my head in because it all feels like one big gamble.

 

[milliepops]

when you open a claim it's usually for a condition rather than a particular treatment, so you could use up to your £ limit on multiple different treatments for the same thing (with vet support obv), up to the max per incident and the maximum timespan on your policy. if you don't open a claim straight away, it may become complicated because they will backdate the onset of the problem to when it was first noticed, not when you first wanted to claim the money.

So if you notice a problem on 1st april, but do conservative treatment for 6 months and then want to do something more involved in like, october, your claim would be backdated to start on 1st april. I think there have also been instances where insurers have wanted to be notified about an issue pretty promptly, but have no direct experience of that, i've always started a claim immediately.

 

[Leandy]

OK thanks. So... say this treatment doesn't work and she needs more investigations and it turns out to be more serious. Would they not be paying out because they already paid for the treatment for what was thought to be (and hopefully is!) a hay allergy? Sorry if this all sounds really stupid, but insurance does my head in because it all feels like one big gamble.

They should keep paying out for a condition or things leading from it until either you hit the max allowed amount or, having settled the previous claim, they then exclude it at next renewal. So for ongoing/intermittent things you really only get a year's worth of claims. This is the main reason it always seems to me that much of the benefit of insurance is illusory save for one off catastrophic issues.

 

[bonnysmum]

They should keep paying out for a condition or things leading from it until either you hit the max allowed amount or, having settled the previous claim, they then exclude it at next renewal. So for ongoing/intermittent things you really only get a year's worth of claims. This is the main reason it always seems to me that much of the benefit of insurance is illusory save for one off catastrophic issues.

Exactly that Leandy. It's the fear of the one-off catastrophic issue that keeps me paying for insurance, but the only times I've ever considered claiming in the past the particular incident I'd need to claim for has been excluded anyway. :-(

 

[SEL]

OK thanks. So... say this treatment doesn't work and she needs more investigations and it turns out to be more serious. Would they not be paying out because they already paid for the treatment for what was thought to be (and hopefully is!) a hay allergy? Sorry if this all sounds really stupid, but insurance does my head in because it all feels like one big gamble.

Sounds like one of my ponies whose breathing issues ended up in surgery.

We spent most of the summer treating her for a pollen allergy and I paid the vets direct. When it became apparent the breathing problem was more serious we had to collate all of the stuff that had been done back to July (surgery was Nov) & put the claim in for the whole lot. Fortunately the start of her insurance year is May so we were in one claim year.

 

[Carrottom]

Even if you don't claim you are bound by the duty of utmost good faith to disclose anything which has involved the vet, so you may as well claim.

 

[Red-1]

Even if you don't claim you are bound by the duty of utmost good faith to disclose anything which has involved the vet, so you may as well claim.

The vet will declare it all anyway, when a claim goes in.

You may as well claim for anything that is worth doing paperwork for. For me, that is anything over £100 over the excess. But I l know that it will likely mean exclusions, weather or not I claim.

Heck, a simple conversation about something I was concerned about, but never had examined, was mentioned on a later claim, and meant an exclusion. painful as the 'thing' wasn't a problem (mud fever) but got the whole skin excluded on a horse!!!

 

[bonnysmum]

@SEL that's exactly the kind of scenario I had in mind, but I hope it doesn't happen to us!

Thanks all, I've contacted the insurers and they've put my mind at rest somewhat by patiently explaining to me how it works

 

[criso]

Last few years my insurers have asked for the ver records for the last year on renewal so this will be excluded.

I had an allergy issue a few years back with another horse, ended up having to do skin testing to get to the bottom of it so it ended up a fairly substantial claim in the end.