31 replies to this topic

[Slide]

I am basing my opinion to NOT insure on the age of her horse. Not sure how many of you saw that he's 16. It is true that it will be hard to find a company that will even cover him. If she can find one that will cover major medical, then a minimal policy of $5000 to cover at least part of emergency colic surgery, for instance, would be a good idea. But I don't know of any companies that will insure at his age.

No one that I know of will do major medical. They probably won't take a new mortality policy on a horse that old, but she could try with her old company. Most companies start restricting coverage on horses that old to specific hazards.

[siiamese]

so the horse who shattered their should or the one that got laminitis - - the mortality insurance would have paid or the major medical would have paid their treatment bills - - or both? would it actually have changed the treatment you decided on for the horse? does the insurance dictate that you must have a certain amount of surgery/agressive treatment performed before you can euthanize?
I am thinking that I honestly do not know if either of the horse mentioned ( or one needing major colic surgery) would be something that I personally would put a horse through. definitely a personal decision but I tend to go for the "make sure the horse suffers the least" plan with any serious injury or illness ..... and whether the horse will be albe after that treatment to live a comfortable and productive life. that said, I am also cosidering the two young show horses that are trekking about this year - - both that actually are very valuable horses and both of whom at these young ages could easily hurt themselves and need treatments. perhaps a good time to consider insuring them at least for mortality.........

[Slide]

Thanks for the correction and explanation Slide!

No problem. It's really important that people understand that even if they get a free horse, a horse for a dollar, an adopted horse or whatever that they also have options for insuring their horse and getting major medical coverage.

so the horse who shattered their should or the one that got laminitis - - the mortality insurance would have paid or the major medical would have paid their treatment bills - - or both? would it actually have changed the treatment you decided on for the horse? does the insurance dictate that you must have a certain amount of surgery/agressive treatment performed before you can euthanize?
I am thinking that I honestly do not know if either of the horse mentioned ( or one needing major colic surgery) would be something that I personally would put a horse through. definitely a personal decision but I tend to go for the "make sure the horse suffers the least" plan with any serious injury or illness ..... and whether the horse will be albe after that treatment to live a comfortable and productive life. that said, I am also cosidering the two young show horses that are trekking about this year - - both that actually are very valuable horses and both of whom at these young ages could easily hurt themselves and need treatments. perhaps a good time to consider insuring them at least for mortality.........

It depends on the situation. Companies rely heavily on the veterinarian's opinion, so your relationship with your vet is important. Unless it's an extremely dire situation, you would want to contact your insurance company through your agent or claims adjuster before you make a major decision. You always have the first say and can do whatever you want, but the question is ... will they pay your claim? I can't imagine them arguing when the horse is suffering and the veterinarian insists. I could imagine them arguing if it was a grey area and you didn't contact them first.

Here's where having an admitted carrier is important, because you have recourse with your state's insurance commissioner to resolve disputes. You don't have that power with non-admited carriers.

So... I'm just here to give you guys a little bit of an overview and help clarify a few things. If you guys have specific quesions, you should find an insurance agent to talk to. In my opinion, find one that has a broad range of knowledge and access to multiple companies.

[windridge]

so the horse who shattered their should or the one that got laminitis - - the mortality insurance would have paid or the major medical would have paid their treatment bills - - or both? would it actually have changed the treatment you decided on for the horse? does the insurance dictate that you must have a certain amount of surgery/agressive treatment performed before you can euthanize?
I am thinking that I honestly do not know if either of the horse mentioned ( or one needing major colic surgery) would be something that I personally would put a horse through. definitely a personal decision but I tend to go for the "make sure the horse suffers the least" plan with any serious injury or illness ..... and whether the horse will be albe after that treatment to live a comfortable and productive life. that said, I am also cosidering the two young show horses that are trekking about this year - - both that actually are very valuable horses and both of whom at these young ages could easily hurt themselves and need treatments. perhaps a good time to consider insuring them at least for mortality.........

I think each case needs to be looked at individually. In my case the yearling that we did do surgery on was young, otherwise very healthy and the vet felt that his odds of a full recovery were pretty good. The second was a 5 year old mare and once at the clinic and a full work up they were not so optomistic about her prognosis so the decision was made not to proceed. While from an economic perspective surgery was probably not the best option for the first horse he had no problems recovering and has not had any problems since, he is 10 this year.

[miriggs]

so the horse who shattered their should or the one that got laminitis - - the mortality insurance would have paid or the major medical would have paid their treatment bills - - or both? would it actually have changed the treatment you decided on for the horse? does the insurance dictate that you must have a certain amount of surgery/agressive treatment performed before you can euthanize?
I am thinking that I honestly do not know if either of the horse mentioned ( or one needing major colic surgery) would be something that I personally would put a horse through. definitely a personal decision but I tend to go for the "make sure the horse suffers the least" plan with any serious injury or illness ..... and whether the horse will be albe after that treatment to live a comfortable and productive life. that said, I am also cosidering the two young show horses that are trekking about this year - - both that actually are very valuable horses and both of whom at these young ages could easily hurt themselves and need treatments. perhaps a good time to consider insuring them at least for mortality.........

I was not very clear in my posting. My policy had a small "loss" re-imbursement amount. Which was death of horse. The "aftercare" was after death. I had a specialized hauler (gentle - dignified removal), then she was cremated, ashes spread at sea with a small amount sent back to me in a custom hand crafted urn which looks like a treasure box.
sorry back to topic.

[Jada]

I would say insure at least for mortality. It wouldn't be much extra if you insure both horses on the same policy.

[Slide]

I would say insure at least for mortality. It wouldn't be much extra if you insure both horses on the same policy.

There are herd policies, but I haven't dealt with them. In my experience, each horse gets its own policy unless it's a liability policy. Liability policies usually include a number of horses before the premiums start going up.

Just for everyone's information... If you are insuring older horses for mortality, the policies usually cover "named perils" i.e. lightning is a peril and the policy might cover death by lightning strike but not death from medical conditions.

[siiamese]

so - after reading all of this - and having two special young show horses that seem to be destined to do a lot of traveling - I decided to insure the pair for mortality and loss of use. not really very expensive at all; I spent about $750 total. somehow I have a sense of relief now that I have done this. so thanks for bringing up & discussing such a good topic

[Jada]

There are herd policies, but I haven't dealt with them. In my experience, each horse gets its own policy unless it's a liability policy. Liability policies usually include a number of horses before the premiums start going up.

Just for everyone's information... If you are insuring older horses for mortality, the policies usually cover "named perils" i.e. lightning is a peril and the policy might cover death by lightning strike but not death from medical conditions.

The companies I checked with, Markel for one, can't remember the other ones at this minute.....insures multiple horses per policy. Once the minimum policy premium is met it really doesn't cost much to insure additional horses for mortality. It would be well worth at least insuring for lets say $1500 or so to cover the cost of all the final expenses.

[Slide]

I used to sell equine insurance -not long ago. Markel wasn't competitive with what we sold. Without seeing policies, I can't really can't comment on the specifics other than you get what you pay for.