Pet Insurance help

We've just had a call to say that they've found two more lumps that will need to be removed from Oreo and are they ok to do it at the same time.

Of course I said yes but they dropped out that the insurance company will probably consider this as three seperate claims given that it's three sepeate lumps and therefore three seperate excesses.

Now I work in insurance (all be it in a different type) but feel that this is disgusting.

Now as Oreo is already under surely the cost to the vet is minimul given that drugs were already given to Oreo and she will probably only be under slightly longer than should would have for one lump removal. So from the vets perspective I feel it a little naughty they are suggesting they are charging for three lots of opperations given that actually only one has occured.

Now in regards to the insurance aspect does the same thing not apply?

I would pay anything to make sure Oreo is healthy but when I specifically by insurance for this reason feel it's a bit naughty to be paying out three lots of excess for the same thing.

Can anyone shed any light on how these companies work?

I'm not an expert, but I'm pretty sure that the claim works on the vet's recommendations. If the vet says that the three lumps are related, it should all come under the same problem and the same claim. I'd contact your insurance company directly about it, first!

That sounds like trying it on to me. If you accept this, then they haven't had to pay out some of the money - if you query it, then they'll most likely back down (I guess).

I would make it one claim, to cover one operation to remove lumps. If you get charged for 3 separate procedures I would advise a fight!

You are in a good position to do so, being in the insurance industry yourself.

How is Oreo doing now? Gentle

I totally agree with Lynda - it's one operation to remove three lumps.

Treat it as one claim - if the insurance company queries it, fight it! Ask the vets to include the removal of three lumps as one procedure.

The vet has kindly included it as one procedure.

She advised that pet plan have been really naughty recently with lump removals and consider that each lump is considered a seperate illness therefore a seperate excess.

She has listed it as one procedure in the hope only one excess is payable. The vet didn't charge us much extra for the other two lumps (just the extra time needed etc) which is what i expected.

I had a fight with them in March this year and lost. Oreo went in to have a lump checked and a fine needle test at the end of feb.

The policy renewed on 1st March. She had the opperation on the 1st also and pet plan took two excesses as it was over two policy years.

Technically it is correct but given that it was hours into the new policy I thought they would honour it but they didn't. They also increased the premiums as a result.

They've got me over a barrell as I cannot move to another insurance company given all the exclusions that would be in force. They know this too and take the mickey with it as well.

And they're suppost to be one of the better insurance comapnies.

brummiedog wrote:
The policy renewed on 1st March. She had the opperation on the 1st also and pet plan took two excesses as it was over two policy years.

That's why I won't use Petplan!

My own insurer covers for life, not just from policy renewal to policy renewal!

The policy covers her for life. So she won't have pre exisiting medical conditions (as long as I don't switch to another insuerer).

But part of pet plan's terms is that you pay one excess per illness each year you make a claim.

So for example if your dog has an ongoing illness that requires monthly medication you pay your excess for that illness each year you claim.

It's not perfect but it's saved us a lot of money but the way they go about things are not exactly professional in my opinion.

Sounds like there's room for improvement, doesn't it? On the bright side, though, at least this time it's all covered with one excess!

brummiedog wrote:The policy covers her for life. So she won't have pre exisiting medical conditions (as long as I don't switch to another insuerer).

But part of pet plan's terms is that you pay one excess per illness each year you make a claim.

So for example if your dog has an ongoing illness that requires monthly medication you pay your excess for that illness each year you claim.

It's not perfect but it's saved us a lot of money but the way they go about things are not exactly professional in my opinion.

Yes, I understand what you mean, but our policy doesn't work that way - you pay the one excess & it doesn't matter if that particular illness runs into the next policy year, it's still just the one excess.

Really? Sounds like a good policy.

Have you had it a while? Because I looked for a policy like that but was told that companies don't offer them anymore.

It's Animal Friends, and this is the second year of the policy. All the ones I've had in the past have run this way - M&S, Sainsbury's & now Animal Friends.

It's the Lifetime cover, as opposed to the non-lifetime cover. I'm pretty sure most of the larger companies do it, although the premiums are a little higher, I think.

I can't change now anyway given the pre exisiting conditions. But I'll keep that in mind when/if we ever get another dog.

thank you