Who needs to pay for vet fee?

Pearlsasinger said:
I only have BHS insurance but know that I can pay any vet bills that we are likely to incur.
Click to expand...

Exactly. If you know you can afford it then its different. But I more talking about those that dont insure and cant afford to pay for a big claim (there is one of those at my yard currently and i find it irresponsible)
 
Dusty85 said:
Exactly. If you know you can afford it then its different. But I more talking about those that dont insure and cant afford to pay for a big claim (there is one of those at my yard currently and i find it irresponsible)
Click to expand...

If they can't afford to pay for treatment then the only option would be to PTS. Many people don't insure their horses, I have over 20 of them and I don't have vet fee insurance. If they injure themselves I pay the vet bills, if they were to injure themselves drastically and the vet fees were going to be extortionate or the horse had little chance of recovery then I might consider the PTS option. Many people prefer to pay the vet directly without going through insurance, it's a sight cheaper too! Anyhow I digress.

OP the owner of the horse who was kicked is responsible for picking up the tab on the vet bill.
 
Haha yes we are digressing!

I suppose the insure Vs not insure decision is very much an individual one. I have always said to myself that I would never want lack of money to decide if an animal of mine had a treatment it needed or not. That is why I insure them.

However, I only have one horse. I understand those who have a few that dont insure, but i personally wouldnt want to risk it, and instead I would just have less horses but ones that were insured for vets bills!
 
A recent court case demonstrated that it was essential that every horse owner ensured that they had third party public libility insurance in place to no less than £10,000,000 (Ten Million Pounds). It is the owner of the horse that is responsible for any damage that it causes.
As regards another horse kicking ones own horse it is sensible to have veterinary insurance cover in place if one is unlikely to be unable to afford to pay for veterinary treatment.
One could of course make a claim against the owner of the other horse but the legal fees alone would probably come to £1000's of pounds which in most cases would be uneconomic.
 
I wouldn't dream of asking somebody else to pay my horses vets bill if their horse injured mine. Conversely, I wouldn't be paying somebody else's bill if my horse booted theirs!
 
OrangePepper said:
A recent court case demonstrated that it was essential that every horse owner ensured that they had third party public libility insurance in place to no less than £10,000,000 (Ten Million Pounds). It is the owner of the horse that is responsible for any damage that it causes.
As regards another horse kicking ones own horse it is sensible to have veterinary insurance cover in place if one is unlikely to be unable to afford to pay for veterinary treatment.
One could of course make a claim against the owner of the other horse but the legal fees alone would probably come to £1000's of pounds which in most cases would be uneconomic.
Click to expand...

I think the case you're talking about was about injury to a man it was found that the owner of the horses insurers where liable for the compensation needed to pay for the ongoing care the unfortunate man needed even though the owner of the horses had not been negligent in any way but it was not as simple a ruling as any horse damages any property and the horses owners liable.
 
Dusty85 said:
Haha yes we are digressing!

I suppose the insure Vs not insure decision is very much an individual one. I have always said to myself that I would never want lack of money to decide if an animal of mine had a treatment it needed or not. That is why I insure them.
Click to expand...
I don't have to decide whether mine get treated or not for lack of money. They get treated IF prognosis is good, nothing to do with cost. I don't insure because it's not worth it and vet bills are about half of what they would be with insurance so I prefer to pay my vets directly.

However, I only have one horse. I understand those who have a few that dont insure, but i personally wouldnt want to risk it, and instead I would just have less horses but ones that were insured for vets bills!
Click to expand...
I don't think you do understand. I don't risk anything. My horses are treated if I want them to be treated. End of story really. From the way you are writing it is your horse who is at risk because you have to have insurance to pay the vet bills. Sorry if that's not the case, but it does sound like it. If your horse were to be excluded from any further vet fees on a particular issue, then what would you do?

I don't insure my horses as I see it as money down the drain. Quite simple really. I'd prefer to just pay as I go.
 
Dusty85 said:
Haha yes we are digressing!

I suppose the insure Vs not insure decision is very much an individual one. I have always said to myself that I would never want lack of money to decide if an animal of mine had a treatment it needed or not. That is why I insure them.

However, I only have one horse. I understand those who have a few that dont insure, but i personally wouldnt want to risk it, and instead I would just have less horses but ones that were insured for vets bills!
Click to expand...

And I don't insure because I feel it often leads to poor desision making there's a tendency to rush to treat issues that might have responded to rest turn out and shoes off because you have a years window to treat .
It can lead to delays in PTS when its in the horse best interest to be PTS as people try to ensure they can make a claim ( I saw sad cases of this when I was working)
It's nothing to do with money I could afford to ensure as many horses as I wanted and pay any bill but I choose not .
When my horse is sick it's down to me to decide no one esle has a hand in the desision it's my call and mine alone that's how I like it.
 
Goldenstar - It was the Mahwinny case but what was important was that even if it was not the owners fault any accident caused by ones horse could result in a claim against the owner of the horse. This particular case related to a road accident caused by a horse that had escaped from a well fenced field.

I was trying to demonstrate how important it is to have third party public liability cover for ones horses.
 
I agree with Goldenstar - Mine get better care than they would if insured, they get what they need as and when they need it - no faffying about getting approval, worrying about exclusions, rushing to get claims in the year etc. Vets see my horse not the £ signs when I call them!
 
OMG i ask a question and look at all this!!! Dusty in my original post there is no "I" mentioned once. Don't assume please as its not right, and you just end up adding 2+2=100 (which is what you have done). I asked a question and the majority of people have given me their opinion which is of course what we do on here. BTW i totally agree with the injured horses owner should pay the bill. I also agree totally about the necessity of having public liability insurance. To all the others thank you for your answers. :)
 
My horse kicked another in the field & I phoned my insurance company to ask if I could claim on the 3rd party/public liability to get my insurance to pay the other owner's vet bill. They replied that they wouldn't, because "Horses are wild animals & if you turn them out together you accept the risk that they might kick". I was disappointed by this. Do all insurance companies take the same view? (The two horses are usually the best of friends, and neither are normally aggressive animals).
 
jarvisbrook said:
My horse kicked another in the field & I phoned my insurance company to ask if I could claim on the 3rd party/public liability to get my insurance to pay the other owner's vet bill. They replied that they wouldn't, because "Horses are wild animals & if you turn them out together yPou accept the risk that they might kick". I was disappointed by this. Do all insurance companies take the same view? (The two horses are usually the best of friends, and neither are normally aggressive animals).
Click to expand...

Of course they do.
 
Rider's fault for being too close ...

However I was involved in a similar case where another rider got kicked. It did go to court and the injured rider did win compensation (she was badly hurt) from the kicker's insurance.
 
OP- youre right; I did assume, you have my apologies. I seem to be on a livery yard when certain individuals think they can put their head in the sand and hope it will be alright when it comes to getting the vet to an uninsured horse.

Spring feather- I have a very good job and can afford to pay for anything that my horse needs- BUT when a claim potentially runs into thousands of pounds (for dignostics such as MRI/treatment/stays over at newmarket) then I don't particularly want to have to use savings to pay that out- my insurance premiums do not amount to that much; so my preference is simply to pay the insurance and then make a claim.
If they claim was small fry then I wouldnt claim and i would pay myself (as long as it wouldnt affect further insurance cover anyway)
And as for exclusions then i would pay for these myself. Just because I am insured it doesnt also mean that I would investigate/treat my horse when it wasnt really needed- I would listen to the advice of those around me and my previous experience/knowledge to decide what was the best action.

I am not up for an argument with anyone- these are my views and no one will change my mind on them. Lets just all agree that we are all different and look after our horses differently!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top