pet insurance issue

DullGreyGuy

No matter how they count the 14 days that would put it just outside the period.

Ultimately you need to ask them for the grounds for declining the claim first, makes it much easier to counter their arguments once you know what they are. It may be they are counting the "fall" as a sign, it could be they argue you dont go from fine to howling in pain in instantly without some symptoms in the preceding day(s) which would then bring it just into the 14 day window or something else in the vets previous notes that have caused concern

sarahlynnesmith said:

There's no point in any of us insuring on that basis? 

Because of the nature of health insurances it is always a big decision to switch insurers and price is too often the basis of the decision. Unfortunately sites like this are generally guilty of holding the price as the main factor to consider but worse is when they do the same for health based insurances without highlighting the risks both around conditions early in the policy and secondly without the warning that if your pet does develop a chronic condition whilst under a policy then you are effectively locked into that policy on wards.

sarahlynnesmith

Elsie’s - when I arranged the policy on the 24th August we hadn’t been for the visit about the muscle damage. We went 2 days later on the 26th. 

sarahlynnesmith

Dullgreyguy - you’re right. It seems that once there is a problem with health you can’t win.

in terms of his vets notes it would be avery thin file as there aren’t any, aside from the muscle damage and the tumour as he had never been taken to the vets for an illness, only for his annual vaccines. That’s why it has to be that they’re citing the muscle damage as something else to avoid paying. 

DullGreyGuy

sarahlynnesmith said:

Dullgreyguy - you’re right. It seems that once there is a problem with health you can’t win.

in terms of his vets notes it would be avery thin file as there aren’t any, aside from the muscle damage and the tumour as he had never been taken to the vets for an illness, only for his annual vaccines. That’s why it has to be that they’re citing the muscle damage as something else to avoid paying. 

Its all second guessing until you've heard from them on their grounds. 

Not saying its the case here but at times customers make throw away comments that either 1) reveal information that they are trying to conceal or 2) are totally miss understood by the advisor. Good handlers are well trained to pick up important side facts from conversations... some will say this is insurers try to get out of paying claims but really its trying to catch dishonest customers who aren't paying their fair share. I remember one case where the policyholder commented that the TP had alleged the damage to their car was pre-existing but the only damage to their car was from the accident last year on the other side... a quick check on the records and they had declared they'd had no accidents in the last 5 years.