HayleyUK
Well-Known Member
Has anyone ever done this and been successful?
Long story short- I'm in the midst of a month long battle with my insurers to get an exclusion removed and feel like all I'm getting is contradictory advice. Wondering if its worth perusing further with them or just letting it go.
Little mare went to Leahurst on 29th April 2013 as usual vets unable to confirm cause of unusual lameness in LF. Pony trotted up 2/10 lame LF as expected, but threw a curve ball in that she trotted up lame on the straight line on the RH. She was kept in for a week and had various procedures carried out - all claimed for on insurance.
No further RH lameness whilst she was there, and it was the first time we'd seen it so vets decided not to investigate - final diagnosis was DDFT injury in LF, Kissing spines and the RH lamness was chalked up to a compensatory lameness.
Renewal has come through and exclusions are as expected - but with the RH excluded.
I'm disputing this however, underwriters won't accept compensatory as a diagnosis. Lots of back and forth between vets, myself and insurers (1hr upwards on the phone every single day for 2 weeks) and a shed load of contradictions and confusing responses later I'm no further on.
Initially I was told that if the vets would say the lamness was a 'direct cause' of the DDFT injury or KS that the exclusion would be removed. Vets have done this. Exclusion not removed. I'm literally jumping through hoops and then the goalposts are being changed each and every time I deliver what they ask for.
My other option is to wait a a month, and have it reviewed under the 12months clear guidelines however, no one can be clear as to what the vets need to advise she has been clear off. One adviser says DDFT LF injury - others say RH lameness. I've pointed out that to accept LF lameness under the 12m clear rule as a diagnosis is a contradiction of what they've said about accepting it under the review criteria to which they've agreed but still none the bloody wiser as to what they want in order to have the exclusion removed.
Wondering if its actually worth pushing or if its just best left alone and chalked up to experience.
Long story short- I'm in the midst of a month long battle with my insurers to get an exclusion removed and feel like all I'm getting is contradictory advice. Wondering if its worth perusing further with them or just letting it go.
Little mare went to Leahurst on 29th April 2013 as usual vets unable to confirm cause of unusual lameness in LF. Pony trotted up 2/10 lame LF as expected, but threw a curve ball in that she trotted up lame on the straight line on the RH. She was kept in for a week and had various procedures carried out - all claimed for on insurance.
No further RH lameness whilst she was there, and it was the first time we'd seen it so vets decided not to investigate - final diagnosis was DDFT injury in LF, Kissing spines and the RH lamness was chalked up to a compensatory lameness.
Renewal has come through and exclusions are as expected - but with the RH excluded.
I'm disputing this however, underwriters won't accept compensatory as a diagnosis. Lots of back and forth between vets, myself and insurers (1hr upwards on the phone every single day for 2 weeks) and a shed load of contradictions and confusing responses later I'm no further on.
Initially I was told that if the vets would say the lamness was a 'direct cause' of the DDFT injury or KS that the exclusion would be removed. Vets have done this. Exclusion not removed. I'm literally jumping through hoops and then the goalposts are being changed each and every time I deliver what they ask for.
My other option is to wait a a month, and have it reviewed under the 12months clear guidelines however, no one can be clear as to what the vets need to advise she has been clear off. One adviser says DDFT LF injury - others say RH lameness. I've pointed out that to accept LF lameness under the 12m clear rule as a diagnosis is a contradiction of what they've said about accepting it under the review criteria to which they've agreed but still none the bloody wiser as to what they want in order to have the exclusion removed.
Wondering if its actually worth pushing or if its just best left alone and chalked up to experience.