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.
TIA