Horse insurance(8 Posts)
I know this is very subjective, but I was wondering if anyone would be willing to give their opinion on whether or not we should keep our horse insured. I'm really just wondering whether we are missing any buggies in our considerations.
So, DH is 17 and became permenantly unrideable due to a tendon injury last year (this was a reinjury and has healed with his foot in a different position). He does not appear to be in pain so is summering out and will be stabled overnight in the winter, and kept as a "pet".
We have always had full insurance with NFU, but a few weeks ago we stopped the rider element if our policy as we don't ride. Our policy renewal has just come through and, despite this, the monthly payments would now be £15 more than before we took this off (around £75/month). Due to previous injuries, his legs are already excluded from any cover and, to date, he has always been relatively healthy otherwise. We have money put aside for the time he needs to PTS, so son't need cover for that. We could also probably cover a very bill upto £1k if necessary, but due to his pre-existing injury, we would be reluctant to commence any expensive/ life preserving treatment beyond the basic.
In this situation, would it be sufficient to take out BHS gold membership for the sake of public liability injury, or is this likely to be a naive mistake.
We do live DH, and I don't wish this post to sound like we would have home PTS at the drop of a hat. He does, however, cost a lot of money to keep and we don't want to be "wasting" money we don't need to. He has everything he needs (injury monitored by vet, suitable rugs, feed, anti-allergy bedding etc.) as well as things to make his life as comfortable as possible (ocassional osteopath visits, supplements etc.), so this really isn't about us skirling financial responsibility.
Personally, so long as you keep up your public liability insurance, I think that's reasonable. You have money if he needs some vet treatment, you can afford to get him PTS if need be. I'm assuming, to be blunt, that you wouldn't put an unrideable 17 year old horse through too much anyway. E.g. he's not going to have a colic op. I think in your situation a lot of people would have decided to have him PTS anyway. It sounds like he has good quality of life. You could always put the insurance money in a pot for him so you have a bit more if something does happen.
I know insurance is necessary for somethings but I also think that insurance companies scam us. A well-known insurer refused to insure my 2nd floor flat on the grounds that it might be subject to flooding. True, if the ground floor had flooded access would have been impossible but because the block of flats was built near a river, it had had extensive work done to ensure that the area was very unlikely to flood. Anyway, I might be in a minority but I think so long as you can afford some vets' fees and you have public liability, there's no particular need to insure him further.
Thanks Gabilan, I think that's what I needed to hear. No, with an unrideable horse of his age, we would not consider any invasive/ expensive treatment. TBH, we are keeping him very much with the expectation that he will be PTS the next time he does a serious injury/ becomes unwell. He has had a wonderful life (we know the only two people who have owned him since birth) and we are now trying to give him the most condor table retirement we can do as long as he able to enjoy it naturally. It just goes against my thinking to not have him insured, even though I know we would be unlikely to even consider something like colic surgery, even if we were covered for it.
I'd agree, keep the Public Liability aspect in case of the (unlikely) event of him straying into the road or injuring someone or their property. They're big old things and can cause a lot of damage- you don't want to be forking out for damage to someone's car, or because he stamped on the groomer's foot, both of which are scenarios I've dealt with in the last six months through my job. And I don't even do a lot for specific horsey insurers.
Craic, we would never get rid of publi liability insurance. It's a bit like driving a car without insurance IMO.
Sounds like a sensible plan. I also would not put my retired oldies through something like a colic op or an operation requiring prolonged box rest, not because of the cost but because of quality of life issues.
We have never insured any of our elderly equines ( except liability) , if something happens we assess our options at the time and make a decision re treat or PTS .
Thanks. It's reassuring to know we are not being irresponsible or neglectful.
Join the discussion
Please login first.