Pet Insurance - Might not pay!

Hoopylass

Ive been insured with more than since july 2004 and never claimed on their pet policy.
My dog has been suffering from seasonal dermatits for the past few years and ive never claimed since it only lasted a few weeks and it wasnt that expensive, however the condition is now lasting for alot longer and is more severe so after exhausting many treatments my vet referred me to a doggy dermatologist. The initial consultation cost £124 and my dog is due in for a skin test on wed, I filled in the insurance claim form and got a letter yesterday saying they needed more info from my vet, so i called them today to find out more they are now saying that it is very unlikely that they will pay since benji attended the vets before the insurance started...however he attended once and now even the vet is saying its unlikely that it is a seasonal thing. Im panicking now that they wont pay...Ive to go and see my vet tonight and collect another completed claim form I just hope its written favourably! :mad:
Sorr for the rant...has anyone else experienced something similer to this?

pboae

Do you mean that you first took your dog to the vet with this complaint before you took the insurance out?

gazza975526570

If the dog suffered from the condition before you took the insurance out they wont pay out

Its like crashing your car and then taking out car insurance

Hoopylass

NO the condition that my dog suffers from now is different to what he was originally had, he wasnt diagnosed with a condition in the beginning although now he has

BargainHunterCat

It's a bit of a grey one. It sounds like the insurers feel the dog was suffering from this condition before the policy was taken out hence why they are refusing it.
Is the new condition totally new or is it a natural progreession or worsening of what the dog had before? Did the previous condition make the dog prone to what he has now? If so, I'm afraid your insurers will be most probably correct to argue pre-existing condition under their policy terms.

NB A condition does not have to be professionally diagnosed to be considered to exist if the symptoms were apparent

Bossyboots

I always understood it was pre-existing symptoms, not condition whether diagnosed or not that excluded things from the insurance. This animal clearly did have pre-existing symptoms and I agree with the others that the insurers have a case to make that they shouldn't have to pay out.

Hoopylass

:rolleyes: Thanks for the help peeps...guess I will just have to pay it as I do need to find out what is wrong with him

Astaroth

Ultimately it will be dependant on what the vet says which will determin if it is pre-existing or not. Of cause what was submitted on the first claim form has suggested that it was and therefore if the vet totally changes his story he would potentially be looked into for fraud so dont expect the vet to lie on the forms.

Pre-existing is generally the continuation of a condition that existed prior to the inception of the policy irrespective of if it has worsened since the policy is taken out or if it had not be diagnosed before inception (ie it was still under investigation) - or a complication of another pre-existing condition. It certainly does sound from your description that it is pre-existing but I am no vet.