Craig made an insurance claim after having his horse put down because she was in pain and he didn't want her to suffer any longer.
What happened
Craig’s horse, Amber, had a degenerative joint disease and struggled to walk. Craig called his insurer to find out whether his policy would cover him putting her down.
An adviser explained that if Craig made a successful claim, he’d get a lump sum benefit after his horse’s death. She also went through the relevant euthanasia criteria. After the conversation, she sent Craig a letter and a claim form.
When Amber’s pain increased, Craig worried about how much she was suffering and asked his vet to put her down. He then tried to make a claim on his insurance policy, but it was declined.
His insurer said that the euthanasia process used didn’t comply with the British Equine Veterinary Association (BEVA) guidelines. It also pointed out that for a euthanasia claim on Craig’s policy to be valid, he would need written consent from the insurer beforehand.
Craig complained that the BEVA guidelines weren’t mentioned in his policy terms. He said his policy allowed him to make a valid claim without written permission if the horse was put down on humane grounds. He also said that he had been given written consent because the adviser had written to him and sent over the claim form.
Craig’s insurer rejected these arguments, so he came to us.
What we said
BEVA guidelines say it’s up to the attending vet to decide whether to advise an owner if their horse should be put down. They also say it must be clear that “no other options of treatment are available to that horse, at that time”.
When we reviewed Craig’s policy documents, we found that they didn’t mention the BEVA guidelines. However, the policy did make it clear that putting down the horse must be “immediately necessary” and that euthanasia would only be covered if “no other treatment was available”.
Craig’s vet and the insurer’s vet also gave us evidence and both agreed that Amber’s condition could have been treated. She could have been given anti-inflammatories and retired to a paddock. This meant circumstances didn’t fit the guidelines or policy terms for a claim.
Finally, we looked at the insurer’s letter to Craig, sent along with the claim form. It said a “fully completed claim form” would be needed before a claim’s validity could be considered. We didn’t consider this to be written consent.
Although we sympathised with Craig for the loss of his horse, we thought that the decision to put Amber down didn’t meet the conditions set out in his policy. So we didn’t uphold the complaint.