Pet Insurance - Provider change during treatment

BenjM_2

Hi all, first post on here so be gentle!!!

We got a puppy at the end of March this year that was KC registered and therefore came with the obligatory 4 weeks of insurance cover. During this 4 weeks (early April) he was taken to the vet with diahorrea. The advice given was to consider changing his diet for 4 weeks and to see what happened. The diet change didn’t work so we took him back, however as our KC insurance was due to expire, we took out a new policy with Legal & General.

Over the next few weeks he was diagnosed with giardia and campylobacter by means of stool analysis. This required an insurance form to be completed due to the costs so we completed a L&G claim form.

It was all finally resolved in August/September of this year and Buddy was better.

We’ve just had a letter from the vet to say that L&G have rejected the claim on the grounds that it was a Pre-existing condition. My wife has spoken to the Kennel Club insurance who have also advised that they will not honour the claim as the dog wasn’t insured with them when the claim was initially made!!

My frustration is that the dog was insured throughout the whole process. We weren’t silly and changed insurers during an existing treatment as the recommendation was to change his diet, not analyse poo or prescribe anti-biotics.

Just wondering if anyone has any advice? My thoughts are to involve the Financial Ombudsman but would very much appreciate any other advice.

Thanks!

BenjM_2

Sorry, just realised I hadn’t turned notifications on!!

csgohan4

Did you declare what happened before you joined Legal and general?

KC should have covered if it happened during the period of insurance. I would certainly put a complaint with KC with a letter before action before ombudsman.

BenjM_2

No, we didn’t tell L&G as the vet only advised us to change his food, ie there wasn’t any “treatment” as such

sheramber

The exclusion for pre existing conditions includes anything that can be related to a previous condition.

As the condition was ongoing- as you state in your heading ' during treatment' it is treated as a pre existing condition.

No matter when you changed insurers that condition would have been considered as pre exisitng.

Some insurers will remove such an exclusion after a treatment free a or recurrence free period such as two years.

KC insurance would not pay for any treatment received after the period of cover finished.

sheramber

The exclusion for pre existing conditions includes anything that can be related to a previous condition.

As the condition was ongoing- as you state in your heading ' during treatment' it is treated as a pre existing condition.

No matter when you changed insurers that condition would have been considered as pre exisitng.

Some insurers will remove such an exclusion after a treatment free a or recurrence free period such as two years.

KC insurance would not pay for any treatment received after the period of cover finished.

Changing insurers after a vet visit needs very careful consideration.

BenjM_2

Thanks for the replies. I’ve been back through the note and realised that we didn’t actually take him to the vet because of the diarrhoea, it was part of the monthly check-up/flea/worming visits included within the Vets4Pets plan that we signed up to - not what I would call “treatment” for a “condition” as we just said he had the runs while we were at the vets anyway.

I appreciate what’s been said about how the insurance companies would view it but thanks for clarifying.

I’m still struggling to come to terms with how we can have had cover for the duration of the entire time (albeit via 2 companies) and they are both using different sides of the same argument to get out of paying.

sheramber

You don't need to get treatment for it to be considered a pre existing condition.

The fact that you mentioned it and the vet noted it on his records is enough.

The KC insurance would cover any costs up until the cover ceased. But they do not cover anything after that date, even although it is the same condition. If you had continued with the KC policy then you would have been covered by them.

If you had declared the first episode to L&G when taking out the policy they would have advised you of the exclusion.

That is the way pet insurance works.

It is to avoid people taking out insurance after something occurs.