|
Post by cre8tivekid on Aug 28, 2014 9:10:09 GMT
Is it me or it this getting more general all the time. A few years back, well maybe 10, I had a horse with a suspensory ligament issue and after treatment the insurance company excluded suspensory ligament desmitis, in the fore legs. Fair enough they had paid out for it and that is the terms.
However recently have a pony with the same issue, renewal documents come through and the exclusion is for the hind limb - now that is a big percentage of the pony.
They have already excluded all four feet as the vet report said he needed shoeing when I purchased him, as well as all respiratory issues as once 5 years ago he had a cough that lasted over a week (and didn't even need any treatment).
He has also been diagnosed with kissing spine which they are operating on, so they have excluded the whole back spine and pelvis.
That means that it is only his front legs, head and gut that is now actually insured.
Thinking of appealing to see if they will make the exclusions more specific, not sure how successful that will be as I think that I am not exactly their favourite customer at the moment given how much this pony has cost them so far...
|
|
|
Post by Toaster on Aug 28, 2014 18:43:24 GMT
I think they will always try their luck
My pony has sweet itch which I declared when insuring him, the documents came through excluding all skin conditions and surface wounds! I complained and got it reworded to only exclude sweet itch
|
|
|
Post by oldschooler on Aug 30, 2014 15:53:28 GMT
Is it me or it this getting more general all the time. A few years back, well maybe 10, I had a horse with a suspensory ligament issue and after treatment the insurance company excluded suspensory ligament desmitis, in the fore legs. Fair enough they had paid out for it and that is the terms. However recently have a pony with the same issue, renewal documents come through and the exclusion is for the hind limb - now that is a big percentage of the pony. They have already excluded all four feet as the vet report said he needed shoeing when I purchased him, as well as all respiratory issues as once 5 years ago he had a cough that lasted over a week (and didn't even need any treatment). He has also been diagnosed with kissing spine which they are operating on, so they have excluded the whole back spine and pelvis. That means that it is only his front legs, head and gut that is now actually insured. Thinking of appealing to see if they will make the exclusions more specific, not sure how successful that will be as I think that I am not exactly their favourite customer at the moment given how much this pony has cost them so far... My gripe was one with an exclusion for colic. Had to notify them as I had the vet. It was crab apples!!! Correct me if wrong but I was always told colic was a symptom.
|
|
|
Post by 5874julie on Aug 30, 2014 16:10:21 GMT
i had a mare vetted a few years ago, she had a couple of tiny patches of bare skin on her neck, the vet report specifically said they were not sarcoids, the insurers immediately excluded her for sarcoids!
|
|
|
Post by cre8tivekid on Aug 30, 2014 17:48:36 GMT
At least I don't feel victimised any more sounds like I will have to negotiate with them on this one.
|
|
|
Post by sjw87 on Aug 30, 2014 18:00:53 GMT
I don't think it helps that so many people either claim for insignificant things (eg. a bill only £50 more than their excess) or don't insure, then think the horse has an issue, insure it and then get the vet to it immediately after the 14day accident only period is up.
I choose not to insure for vets fees as with the number of horses I have, it would cost £2k a year and instead have a credit card with large limit should I need it.
Sent from my GT-I9195 using proboards
|
|