Undervaluing for insurance purposes

L

littlen

Well-Known Member
Joined
17 August 2006
Messages
830
Visit site
So I have one horse and am thinking about another.
I have been paying insurance from petplan for my original horse for 4 years without a claim. I also have my dog insured with them and have not claimed.
I am paying £40 for horse and £20 for dog.

New horse will be worth around 4k. However I am not interested in Lou rtc I only want co
 
Ver for vets fees.

Has anyone ever insured for say 100 just to fill the box just to.get vet fee cover

will this bring premiums down??
 
You can insure your horse for less than his market value no problem. The problem arises when people want to either insure for more than they paid for the horse or want to up it's value for example a youngster which will increase in value.
Most insurers expect a vetting to insure horses over a certain value.
 
I would like 5k vets fees but nothing else! I already have 3rd party elsewhere. Death and disposal and tack I dont need. I was just worried thay say the horse is worth 4k and ive insured for 500 this gives an excuse to wiggle out of paying somehow?
 
You shouldn't intentionally undervalue an asset for insurance purposes as this can indeed allow insurers to wriggle out of claims. You should simply ask for vet fees only cover. The value of the horse will be of minor importance if you don't have cover for death or theft etc. By all means be conservative with your valuation but be prepared to back it up as a reasonable valuation.
 
I would disagree about insuring for less that you paid for the horse. I wanted to do this, I bought a three year old for just over £6K and two years later wanted to insure him for £4K as prices had gone down and he had done very little therefore in my eyes was worth less but the insurance company refused this. Not happy as I then had to pay for a five stage vetting on a horse I knew and did not think was worth its value.

The stupid thing is that if I made a claim then I am sure they would say he is not worth £6K for the reasons I already know.
 
A difficult one, we insured our cob for what we paid (which in hindsight was an absolute song) and didnt increase as she improved, sadly she died recently and we got what we paid for back - but now in the difficult position of trying to find something even vaguely comparable.
 
littlen said:
I was just worried thay say the horse is worth 4k and ive insured for 500 this gives an excuse to wiggle out of paying somehow?
Click to expand...

No how would they? They will only ever pay out £500 tops if you insure for that. You would come unstuck if the horse was insured for £3,000 but it's current market value was only £500 as they only pay out the lesser value.
 
I've undevalued mine drastically. This only effects a loss of use claim. I can see how LOU is useful for top competition horses, but for Riding Club level, and hacking horses I don't think it's worth having, as the chances of a younger horse having something go wrong meaning he couldn't eventually become a light hack again is quite remote I think. If he died unexpecedly, I'd be too distraught to worry about replacing him anyway I think.

I've got my KWPN valued at just £500, and I don't have him covered for LOU. I have vets fees cover for him, for up to £5000 per 'item'., which is much more important to have IMO.
 
littlen said:
Ver for vets fees.

Has anyone ever insured for say 100 just to fill the box just to.get vet fee cover

will this bring premiums down??
Click to expand...

My mare's premiums are only £13 a month and that covers me for £5k in vets fees. I have her valued at only £500 as she is retired through injury though, so she is only worth 'meat money'.
 
You can insure for less than you paid for the horse. My insurance company specifies that you can insure for 50% of the value you paid for the horse - no less. That's what I've done as I'm only insuring for vets bills and public liability really.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top