Pet Insurance guide discussion area

mikeyboy wrote: »

Hi,

This is probably a really stupid questions to ask...

We have a five year old Shi Tzu and he is insured with More Than. The excess is £75.

Max went to the vets about three weeks ago due to a skin rash and was prescribed some steroids and antibiotics, these cleared the condition up. The cost of the consultation and pills came to £68.00

Fast forward to today and the rash started to appear again, back to vets and another £30 on pills.

My question is.... Should I have claimed for the first visit and second visit? My thinking was that initially it wasn't worth it as the first visit was under the excess I would have been required to pay.

Should you always claim on insurance, even if the treatment is less than the excess or else the insurance company could say it is a pre existing condition if I need to claim agin for the same conditioning future?

It may be that different companies do things differently, but I've recently had a conversation with John Lewis along similar lines. I asked: if my dog was treated for something and it came to, say, £20 above my excess and I decided it wasn't worth claiming, then a bit further down the line I had to take her back because it reoccurred, would I be able to claim after the second time bearing in mind I hadn't claimed the first time. The answer was: as long as I have continuous insurance, or it's within the same insurance period, then I could claim for all the treatment from the first and second (and subsequent) visits at any time.

In your case on your first visit they wouldn't have paid out anything because it was below the level of your excess. The cost of your second visit added to the cost of your first visit, if it's taken it above your excess then you could claim and they should pay out providing your vet confirms that it is the same ongoing condition. It would only be classed as a pre-existing condition if it was something that was on your vet's records before you took out your policy with More Than.

Obviously you would need More Than to confirm this is how they would look at it, and you'd need your vet to confirm that it is the same condition. You can't claim anything if the cost is less than your excess but it may be that More Than might want to be informed of anything that you see your vet for that requires treatment so that they have it on file, something that you might want to clarify with them.

Also, bear in mind whether you think it's worth claiming. If it's a relatively small amount then is it worth risking your premium being hiked upon renewal. I say that because this has happened to me with John Lewis. I had a claim for £300 for a one-off occurrence with my dog. My renewal has come through with an increase of 120%. I've spent almost a month in discussion with them, asking for an explanation as to why it is such a large increase, and it's been confirmed that the fact that I've claimed means that I'm more likely to claim in the future and therefore that makes me a higher risk and has contributed to the increase (along with other things such as rise in vet's fees and online and new business discount obviously not available upon renewal). They also told me that if I went with them as a new customer with a new policy then they would load the premium because of my claim (of course they would have my history) and the cost of the new policy would be more than the renewal of the existing one. I was stuck between a rock and a hard place. I had to either stay with John Lewis, have lifetime cover for anything that can be linked to what I claimed for (as I have a lifetime policy) or go with another company and not be covered for that as it would be a pre-existing condition. I opted to stay with John Lewis but downgraded my policy to what I can afford.

The one thing that seems to have been completely missed is that pet insurance is only any good if the insurer pays out. There are some companies that fight every claim, no matter how valid. There are others that seem to pay out every time. There's a website which claims to list the 'ethical' ones only - https://www.petinsurancecompare.co.uk and it has a Buyer's Guide which leads you through the different types of policies, where the catches are and what to look for. It's also got tips on saving money when you buy. Buying pet insurance based on the amount of premium alone is a really, really stupid idea and I'm amazed that Money Saving Expert has devoted a whole section of its site to just that.

Circuit,
Agree with you. I cancelled my Marks and Spencer insurance when the premium rose substantially for my dog and she was only six. Think it was about £55 a month. They brought in a big excess, and when they started, they had zero excess. She didn't have any major claims either, only stitches to a foot cut on broken glass in a park. Have only had to visit the vet once for treatment for her since cancelling and the cost was easily covered by credit card.

HiggledyPig wrote: »

Whole Life Cover

Having had unlucky an expensive experiences with the health of my first three dogs, I insured my subsequent three the day they were 8 weeks old.

They were/are all insured on the Whole Life, top cover plan which at the time was quite competitive. Currently it costs around £136 per month for the 3. It suddenly struck me though that having taken out a Whole Life Plan with M & S I'm probably stuck with them as I doubt I could transfer the Whole Life to another provider covering things they've received treatment for.

Does anyone know the facts about this? It seems rather unfair and sot of goes against the whole Competitions act thing.

Thanks

After having a 120% increase in my young dog's lifelong policy renewal premium last year and my insurer confirming that the fact I'd made a claim for £302 for a one-off removal of a benign lump contributed to the increase, I did a fair bit of research when it came to renewal time.

From what I was told my understanding is that whatever is on your vet's records that showed clinical signs or symptoms, whether claimed for or not, may be regarded as a pre-existing condition by a new insurer if you want to change providers. I understand that some insurers may be willing to drop the exclusion after a certain period of time but that's by no means universal, it's up to the individual insurer.

My vet was appalled at the level of increase to my policy and said that she would recommend going with PetPlan (who don't seem to be making huge increases in renewal premiums like a lot of other insurers have during the last few months) and was willing to speak to them and was confident that she could probably persuade them not to make an exclusion for lumps. However, PetPlan was even more expensive than the increased renewal premium so I opted to stay with the company I was already with.

The only way to be sure would be to find a policy/provider that you would be happy with and then speak to them to see whether any exclusions would be made for anything already on your dogs' records/had been treated for. If they did agree to not make certain exclusions I would suggest that you get it put in writing so they can't change their mind further down the line. It seems that insurance companies are quite clever at linking things back to a previous complaint.

baz8755 wrote: »

I have a 3 year cat who is never allowed outdoors. She is currently insured with petplan but I was wondering if any insurers will offer a reduced premium for a house cat as the risk of accidents is greatly reduced.

Well, you'd only know for definite by asking them but to be honest I can't see it happening. How could you give them proof that she is an indoor only cat? Plus although the risk of certain types of accidents would be removed, accidents can still happen in the home. But it's an interesting thought .