Pet insurance problem

ellymoo

I took out pet insurance in September. One of the things I had to answer was:

"has X been currently suffering from [anything, I presume] or has your pet been examined or treated by a vet?"

Poor English, but I took it to mean "is your pet currently suffering from something [for which they have] been examined or treated by a vet?"

I ticked "no" because he wasn't ill nor had he been examined by/treated by a vet 'currently' (he wasn't under any investigation). He last went to the vet in July for his jabs. He had some teeth removed, and a heart scan, in November 2023, so I knew nothing dental or heart-related would be covered by the policy.

The documents came through and one of the things I apparently stated was 
"Your pet is not currently undergoing treatment or ["has", I presume, is missing] ever been examined or treated by a vet".

I didn't state this, though. If you tick "no" to "is he currrently ill?" that's one thing, but by ticking "no" to "he has [n]ever been treated by a vet" you're saying he has been treated by a vet. If they'd put the word "ever" in the initial question it would have looked totally different.

I'm now trying to claim on this policy and am really worried that I have shot myself in the foot as it looks now like I said he had never been examined or treated by a vet, which is obviously insanity as surely no animal exists which hasn't ever been examined or treated by a vet - even if you get a puppy that's the first thing you do, surely? 

I could just be over-thinking it and panicking, and I am going to give them a call in the morning but I wasn't expecting this policy to cover any pre-existing conditions so this didn't make me blink. Now I'm blinking all over the place!

Any advice gratefully received. I read through the documents at the time but was distracted by them not including a vet call service which they had said they offered when I took the policy out. I rang them about this and they said they were setting it up as they were changing providers so I stuck with them (obviously a mistake). Also I thought that I had answered the question correctly and it's now only that I'm paranoid that I am worried.

ellymoo

ETA I had a look through my documents and the terms say I must:

Take reasonable steps to maintain the health of Your Pet, and prevent it from Accident, Injury or Illness. This includes ensuring that Your Pet undertakes yearly dental and medical examinations, and that any recommended treatment is undertaken immediately following diagnosis, and that Your pet is vaccinated.  

So they tell you that you MUST take your pet to a vet. 

I signed up for this on MSE (that was a mistake) - MSE ask you if you want to be covered for pre-existing conditions (I've just gone through the quote process again) and I said "no" . Not sure what they've processed that as.

DullGreyGuy

ellymoo said:

I took out pet insurance in September. One of the things I had to answer was:

"has X been currently suffering from [anything, I presume] or has your pet been examined or treated by a vet?"

Poor English, but I took it to mean "is your pet currently suffering from something [for which they have] been examined or treated by a vet?"

I ticked "no" because he wasn't ill nor had he been examined by/treated by a vet 'currently' (he wasn't under any investigation). He last went to the vet in July for his jabs. He had some teeth removed, and a heart scan, in November 2023, so I knew nothing dental or heart-related would be covered by the policy.

The documents came through and one of the things I apparently stated was 
"Your pet is not currently undergoing treatment or ["has", I presume, is missing] ever been examined or treated by a vet".

I didn't state this, though. If you tick "no" to "is he currrently ill?" that's one thing, but by ticking "no" to "he has [n]ever been treated by a vet" you're saying he has been treated by a vet. If they'd put the word "ever" in the initial question it would have looked totally different.

I'm now trying to claim on this policy and am really worried that I have shot myself in the foot as it looks now like I said he had never been examined or treated by a vet, which is obviously insanity as surely no animal exists which hasn't ever been examined or treated by a vet - even if you get a puppy that's the first thing you do, surely? 

I could just be over-thinking it and panicking, and I am going to give them a call in the morning but I wasn't expecting this policy to cover any pre-existing conditions so this didn't make me blink. Now I'm blinking all over the place!

Any advice gratefully received. I read through the documents at the time but was distracted by them not including a vet call service which they had said they offered when I took the policy out. I rang them about this and they said they were setting it up as they were changing providers so I stuck with them (obviously a mistake). Also I thought that I had answered the question correctly and it's now only that I'm paranoid that I am worried.

So when the schedule arrived with your answer not being what you believed you were answering what did you do? Call them to correct it?

Who did you buy from? Did the question have helper text?

Ultimately there is nothing you can do now until they make a decision on this claim. If they do decline the claim or void the policy then come back with what they have said. 

TELLIT01

You need to contact the insurer as that second part of the statement you showed clearly states 'been examined or treated', not 'currently'.

ellymoo

Thanks both - I had confirmation from a live chat individual that I was covered, given the fact that you have to have your pet vaccinated in order to get insurance means you must have visited a vet at some point. But I didn't trust that. So I put in an official complaint about the poorly worded clause. To be fair to them, they called me back within a couple of days and admitted that the wording was bad. The agent confirmed that I was covered for any illnesses which arose after the policy started, and that the clause refers to pre-existing conditions. He also said they are stopping insuring pets.

My concern now is that they will look at a "fatty lump" found in 2022 (deemed harmless) and claim it is the cyst discovered in 2025 (which needed removal) but I will cross that bridge when I come to it. The bill is £1300 so I do not expect this to be easy.