30 July 2010
HORSE Website
- HORSE news
- Meet the team
- About HORSE
- Q and A
- Reader Rant
- Features
- Horse Care
- Stabletalk
- Advertise
- Trailblazers
- Competitions
FORUM
Your vote
HORSE Magazine
Reader Rant : READER RANT: is colic exclusion unfair?
Thursday 4 February 2010
I have a rant about one particular issue within the horse insurance field, which I expect would be shared by many owners.
On all of the equestrian insurance companies websites I have checked out, the small print states that exclusions apply for 'pre-existing conditions'.
This would appear to be fair enough, except in the case of colic, which can strike any horse at any time, for no apparent reason, despite all precautions that horse owners may take.
My absolute worst nightmare would be if my horse had a particularly nasty attack of colic, required hospitalisation and/or surgery that cost thousands of pounds, and my insurance would not cover this.
Because of the 'random' nature of the illness, it would not appear to be entirely fair that it is automatically excluded from policies. I suggest that if insurers would consider doing one or more of the following instead, the system could be made fairer for all concerned:
- Provide cover for colic, but set a limit on the number of colic incidents per year that they would pay vet's fees for.
- They could specify they would not pay for on-site veterinary visits and treatment for colic, but that they would pay for hospitalisation and surgery, if deemed necessary (again, the number of incidents per year could be limited).
- They could apply a small surcharge to premiums for policyholders who wished
Julia Helmstedt
Do you agree with Julia's views? Click here to vote.
Subscribe
