| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| gem@oakmeister |
Posted - 27 Jun 2009 : 9:46:26 PM
been following threads on all your backing stories and was just having a browse on project horses when came across something that really amazed me. some one is selling a horse (not arab)because they are having problems. in a nutshell they started backing the 3 yr old all was going well then started bucking rearing and generally being difficult,thought saddle problem and looked into that, but, and here's the bit that worried me,she says that the horse was insured and they had vet to check back and any other probs but when she contacted ins co they said insurance was void because she had not informed them that she had begun to back the animal. has any one ever heard anything like it! do any of you let your insurers know when you begin backing, i certainly never have, should we?. i'm on the phone to mine first thing monday morning. sally |
| 11 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| angelarab |
Posted - 28 Jun 2009 : 10:48:20 PM
Baz is insured as a young horse and showing, they do mention the word rearing...not in the way! so i will check that backing and riding on is covered, Thanks for the tip! |
| Karon |
Posted - 28 Jun 2009 : 6:46:05 PM
I thought you had to declare everything you might be using the horse for and let the insurers know any changes - so if you didn't declare one of the uses to be starting or schooling, then I wouldn't be surprised for an insurance company to refuse to pay out. |
| Nicki |
Posted - 28 Jun 2009 : 5:26:01 PM
Yes, have to agree with Renee on this one. I recently had a big meeting with the NFU because they came over to do some work on farm insurance and I have just moved all the horse policies over to them (on the advise of my vet who was able to confirm that they do actually pay out on claims, unlike some other companies). Whilst going through all the horses they explained that you have to specify use and on the policy it states what the horse is used for. They explained that unbacked and being shown is one thing, but then moving to being a mare in foal is entirely different insurance. In the same way that racing is different from insurance. Young stock is a different policy that doesnt include riding and it changes from foal insurance to young stock etc etc.
Would suggest you check your policies and confirm what you are actually insured for and compare to what you are using your horses for. Special items like Loss of Use etc is not on most normal policies and you have to ask for it.
Last word - many companies dont insure all your tack if you have more than a certain number of horses. Incredulous as they have the insurance for all the horses and can clearly see how many you have, but in my case once I got above 5 horses in one location they told me tack for more than 5 horses was not included in the normal premium and I had to take out special top up premiums for the tack. Again, with NFU I insured this seperately to avoid any problems.
Hope this helps some of you. Keeping horses is costly enough without the shock of discovering something (especially extorniate vet hospital bills) are not covered due to the small print. Nicki |
| Renee |
Posted - 28 Jun 2009 : 1:01:07 PM
This is no surprise to me - when you insure a horse you are asked what you'll be using it for. If you don't say 'riding' at the time of insuring (e.g. if it's a youngster and hasn't been backed yet) then you would have to inform the insurance company if you started backing the horse, and if you didn't then it wouldn't be insured for a different use, so your insurance could be void, if you know what I mean. I'm only aware of this because I can't stand insurance companies having been ripped off horribly by one a few years ago and now I am totally nit-picking about what I sign up to. I only insure what I have to, given that I know they will try to wriggle out of anything they can. Generally insurance companies are not in the business of paying out, but in the business of collecting premiums. Renee |
| gem@oakmeister |
Posted - 28 Jun 2009 : 11:31:43 AM
i did point out i don't know which company it is. i simply commented on the fact that the person selling this horse had been told she couldn't claim. you can all see as much as i did on project horse site where the lady in question has her phone number, dont know if she would tell anyone who her insurers are but i wasn't sure if i could post advert details to make finding it easier as it is after all a for sale ad even if thats not the bit we are interested in. |
| Rui |
Posted - 28 Jun 2009 : 10:36:23 AM
Hi,
If there is certainty about the insurance company involved, I don't really see a problem in naming it. If not, then I don't really see the point of guessing it. Seems quite inadequate to blame a company for something negative if someone is just wild guessing the company's name. |
| Annie Oakley |
Posted - 28 Jun 2009 : 09:54:31 AM
Hi All.
If the insurance company is the one that we all think it is then surely it would be ok to name them?? We can share experiences on many other issues and I don't see why this company cannot be named as to a negative point in it's terms and conditions that 99% of people would not even be aware of!!
I would be most interested in admin's comments on this point???
On the internet you can get reviews on almost everything from a car to a toothbrush!! Why not Horse Insurance Companies??
Cheers
Annie |
| gem@oakmeister |
Posted - 28 Jun 2009 : 12:06:24 AM
ashquar,have pm'd you with more details. |
| gem@oakmeister |
Posted - 27 Jun 2009 : 11:38:10 PM
she didn't say who her insurers were, but yes i could have a good guess too. |
| ashquar |
Posted - 27 Jun 2009 : 11:14:15 PM
I bet I can guess who the insurance company is. I will be surprised if it is not them. Please PM me with the details. |
| trinity |
Posted - 27 Jun 2009 : 9:48:24 PM
Ooh. Never heard of that before, but will be on the phone to ours on Monday morning. |
