PET INSURANCE AXE A HUGE BLOW TO RESPONSIBLE PET OWNERS

Just got this from the BVA , don't know if it affects anyone on here?...


Veterinary associations are highlighting consumer guidance on pet insurance following news reports that thousands of pets have been left uninsured by Lloyds TBS and Halifax pulling out of the pet insurance market.

Lloyds TSB has stopped renewing policies from 1st February and Halifax stopped on 24th September 2011 leaving more than 50,000 policy holders looking for cover, according to reports.

The British Veterinary Association (BVA) recommends that pet owners whose policies are affected should speak to their own vets as soon as possible to discuss existing treatment, alternative treatment options, and future insurance cover.

The BVA is also refuting claims by the insurance companies that rising veterinary fees are to blame. Although pet insurance claims have increased over the years this is due to improvements in technology and medicines meaning that more can be done for individual animals. Veterinary inflation has remained relatively stable.

The BVA and its division, the Society of Practising Veterinary Surgeons (SPVS), worked with the Association of British Insurers (ABI) to produce a Pet Insurance Consumer Guide. The Guide explains the benefits of pet insurance, the different types of policy, and outlines a number of areas to consider.

Commenting, Carl Padgett, President of the BVA, said:
“This is a huge blow to thousands of responsible owners who have pet insurance but are having it taken away from them through no fault of their own.

“We advise owners to speak to their vet as soon as possible to discuss the treatment of ongoing conditions and, if necessary, alternative treatment options. Clients may also be eligible for support from one of the animal welfare charities.

“Rather than blaming veterinary practices for increasing the levels of treatment available, these insurance companies should do everything they can to ensure their policy holders are not left high and dry.”

Richard Holborow, President of the SPVS, added:
“Over recent years many insurance companies have come into the pet insurance market and there is a huge amount of choice for owners.

“Price comparison websites are not able to distinguish between the many different variables associated with pet insurance so owners should talk to their vet about the right type of policy appropriate for their pet before shopping around.

“The ABI Pet Insurance Consumer Guide is a good place to start.”

Further info:
Lloyds

Halifax

Unless they underwrite the three main rabbit insurance policies, it is probably mostly going to affect dog and cat owners. Which is a shame because if your insurer withdraws cover, it leaves you seeking cover with a new company and then you must have pre-existing issues excluded. So unfair.

NickieM wrote:Unless they underwrite the three main rabbit insurance policies, it is probably mostly going to affect dog and cat owners. Which is a shame because if your insurer withdraws cover, it leaves you seeking cover with a new company and then you must have pre-existing issues excluded. So unfair.

This. I'm quite worried until I learn more. I hope Pet Plan is safe because I could not have afforded the vets bills without insurance and I've claimed on everbody's I'd be sunk to have all the conditions as exclusions. I only went from 4 to 8 rabbits because of the ability to insure.

I recently moved Rudy from PP to P@H, if his insurance is one that won't renew I need to move him back before April when he turns 5 (Only 5 months into his new policy though).

I've just yesterday taken out a rabbit insurance policy with P@H, not received the paperwork yet but the underwriters were Lloyds, which is puzzling.


Edit to add: I've just read the Halifax link and the administrators for them are BDML Connect Limited, the firm that paid out for Artie via Pets at Home so that's reassuring.... and I've looked up Rudy's policy and they are his underwriters too. Thankfully.

As far as I can tell, both companies have their own insurance companies and are not solely underwriters.

The cat and dog pet insurance market has absolutely boomed in the last few years with all the major supermarkets getting in too. There is less and less money to be made there.

I think that the bunny insurance companies appear to be out of this for the moment. Because it is a niche market, there are fewer providers and there is probably good money to be made because of that with a bigger market share thus spreading the risk.

NickieM wrote:As far as I can tell, both companies have their own insurance companies and are not solely underwriters.

The cat and dog pet insurance market has absolutely boomed in the last few years with all the major supermarkets getting in too. There is less and less money to be made there.

I think that the bunny insurance companies appear to be out of this for the moment. Because it is a niche market, there are fewer providers and there is probably good money to be made because of that with a bigger market share thus spreading the risk.

I really feel for anybody affected by it. It's not like car or house insurance that you can swap around without penalty. There should be some sort of compensation as you are really insuring the pet for life even though it's an annual contract.

How awful is that. Some animals are really going to suffer because of this and owners left heartbroken as they are left without cover.

Terrible.

That's really terrible, I truly feel for the owners of pets with pre-existing conditions who don't have substantial savings to cover any potential illnesses or injuries down the road.

That is just shocking! Being a responsible bunny parent is to be admired and encouraged!

To me the real shocker is that they are leaving people unable to get insurance. If you have a bun over 5 years old the opportunities to get insurance for them are few. It is one thing not to take on new customers but to leave existing customers uninsurable is negligent.

cheryl'n'bruce'flo wrote:To me the real shocker is that they are leaving people unable to get insurance. If you have a bun over 5 years old the opportunities to get insurance for them are few. It is one thing not to take on new customers but to leave existing customers uninsurable is negligent.

I agree. It's totally unethical. They should honor the policies already in existence or arrange a transfer to another insurer where they pay the new insurer to carry on with cover for existing conditions etc. Just to leave you high and dry is unacceptable, it's not like they've gone into receivership, they've simply changed their mind which is plain wrong

I agree that this has been handled extremely badly/unethically.

I'm doing a piece on it in the news section of HM, and will represent your views in that.

Having just had the renewal through for our now 10 year old dog I am horrified by this. We are not affected but by doing a few price comparisons to check how competitive our new fee was, if we were we would have been in huge trouble as many companies will not insure a dog of Poppy's age and those that do are with a big excess, exclusions and basically double the price.

I really feel for those who are affected by this decision.