CockersOnline Forum
Cocker Specific Discussion => Health => Insurance => Topic started by: Mike on August 01, 2003, 10:13:50 AM
-
I had to make my first claim recently in 4 years of dog and cat ownership. My cat had an abcess on her face which burst before we could get her to the vet (she's basically an outdoor cat so it was rather difficult to get hold of her!), which resulted in the vet having to deal with the abcess, and then remove the offending teeth which caused the infection.
I have to pay the first £49 excess for my insurance claim - which is fine and something I of course knew. However, this morning I received two separate cheques... the insurance company has broken it down individually into treatment for the abcess, and treatment to remove the teeth - and I'm expected to pay £49 excess for each individual treatment? I was expecting to pay the first £49 of the total vet fees only.
Does this sound right to everyone, or am I just naive ::)
-
That sounds absolute cr@p to be honest. I would have thought that if the teeth had to be removed because of the abcess or because the teeth were bad it caused an abcess, surely it is all one and the same thing. I mean, if the teeth had nothing to do with the cause of the abcess or treatment of it, then why would the vet take them out? Just for something to do??? ??? It is so typical of things today though, they are all quick to take your money but when roles are reversed, they drag their heels and kick up all kinds of stink >:( GRRRRR
-
I agree Mike, if the teeth were the cause of the absess
then they would have to be removed. So i cant understand
why you are being charged twice ??? I would query it
and also mention it to your vet. He might be able to
advise you ::)
-
hi mike i would phone the insurance people, its a bit much you having to spend all that. let me know what the outcome is as i will be looking for insurance for max.. i will try and get a photo to you asap thanx val xx ??? ???
-
hmmmmmmm does sound like they're trying it on :- - but it's worthwhile double checking the detail of your cover as policies differ so much ???. You may need your vet to step in and point out that the tooth extraction was directly linked to the abscess.
Insurance is such a nightmare :P
-
Mike was the claim sent through on one claim form and all together??? As the abcess had been caused by the teeth it is all the one condition. I think you should contact the Insurance company and stand your ground on this. I have made quite a few claims due to having so many animals. They tried this with my Horse and my vet did me a letter saying it was all related to the original condition. They agreed in the end but i wasnt giving in!!!! >:(
Just out of interest who are the insurers.
-
The conditions are definitely related - the bad teeth caused the abcess, so there would have been no point treating the abcess without taking care off the teeth as it might simply reoccur. I'm going to give the insurance people a call. I filled in the claim form myself and sent it to the vet, so it was definitely sent on one form. I probably shouldn't name the insurance company on a public board, given I've got an issue with them - but I definitely agree with everyone else and at least I know it's not just me being naive (makes a change!) ;D
Thanks everybody :)
-
what a load of croc!!!!! lemme at em!!!! ;D sorry I woke up feisty this morning ;D I got insurance for Jessie but haven't thank goodness had to make a claim, however! if I did I would not stnad for that I can tell ya... karate chop em Mikey...go on.. they wouldn't insure poppy on account of her age... but I dont really care, I have never paid a penny out on her in the whole time I have had her except for routine stuff and her spay op, so I think I have enough in my funds to cover anything if she gets ill, bless her pea pickin heart (as me ol friend says) ;D
remind me of the time when I had a classic mecedes stolen after restoring it completely two months previously, the incurance compnay tried to tell me it wasn't worth as much as I was claiming, well I whipped out me agreed valuation slip they had signed to agree its value and said pay up mister or see ya in court!!!... they paid ;D
and I was recovering from a c sec and had a newborn (obviously) and toddler to cope with... talk about moody...he picked the wrong female to argue with I can tell ya ;D
-
LOL ;D Lynsey you are soooo funny you crack me up!!! ( in a nice way) ;D ;D
You made an insomniac smile!!!!
Emma and Indie
-
LOL ;D Lynsey you are soooo funny you crack me up!!! ( in a nice way) ;D ;D
You made an insomniac smile!!!!
Emma and Indie
;D I crack myself up ;D just re read my post and I sound completely nuts :o
-
That wouldn't be because you are completely nuts would it??? :P :P I speak only as a fellow looney you understand...
-
That wouldn't be because you are completely nuts would it??? :P :P I speak only as a fellow looney you understand...
hmmmmmmm ya know I think you might be on to something there ;D
-
Just seen this post and yes - Mike stand your ground with them. We pay our premiums for a reason, we shouldn't have all this and then have to battle to get them to pay out.
It does sound as though they are trying it on.
Good luck
-
I had a similar situation when 2 claims for the same thing were submitted fo rmy cat. One was from the Bristol vet school and the other my local vet. You need your vet to write a letter to sort this out (as the insurers would rather take your vets word over yours no matter how much you protest, as they were the ones who treated the cat). My vets were very good at getting me more out of my insurers as when sadly my cat was eventually put to sleep they managed to successfully claim by breaking down its components (you can't claim for euthanasia itself) and a home visit (which they argued was essential).
There is usually one particular person at a vets who deals with claims so its worth speaking to them as they have the best experience of dealing with these sort of things.
-
Just being curious Mike....have you rang your insurance company yet? I still haven't got insurance for Lottie but it's something I am often contemplating, weighing up the pros and cons. I've listened to so many different stories about insurance, good and bad :-
-
I havent yet Mary. Afraid my birthday got in the way ;D Whatever happens, I'm still a firm believer in pet insurance, I just may need to find a more suitable insurer is all.
-
Dont know if you can name insurance companies on here, but I have been with mine for 3 years with Alfie, 2 with Archie and recently with sonny> I have had to make 3 claims each for nearly £300 each and have received the cheque within 3 days of the vets sending in the claim, with no questions or queries, they might not be the cheapest I pay £12.99 a month for £6,000 of cover and this covers and illness for life not just for a year, lots of other benifits too.
-
I pay almost 60 pounds a month for my premiums and have never made a claim int he last 4 years but in the past week, I have submitted 2 claims for Vegas - one for his shoulder injury(this one turned out quite pricey due to x-rays and an orthopaedic specialist reading the x-ray for me) and the other one was sent off today for his food allergy(again quite pricey as we have backdated it for 6 months and it also includes the allergen test, the cost of which made me go a bit :o). They have paid up for the shoulder claim but I have a feeling they may try and wriggle out the allergy one.....we shall wait and see ;) ;D
-
The conditions are definitely related - the bad teeth caused the abcess, so there would have been no point treating the abcess without taking care off the teeth as it might simply reoccur. I'm going to give the insurance people a call. I filled in the claim form myself and sent it to the vet, so it was definitely sent on one form.
Could it be your vet wasn't explicit enough in their explanation. When I had an issue with my insurer over 2 excess payments like yours for the same thing I was told to go back to my vets and they had to re-explain it to the insurer (as they wouldn't listen to layperson me, who probably knew a lot more than them anyway but that's another story). I received the cheque for the correct amount by return post.
-
I spoke to the insurers and they said I'd need the vets letter - so no surprise there. I'll chalk this one up to miscommunication somewhere along the line - if they sort out the correct payment then I'll probably continue the pets' insurance with them.
ps Gill... you pay an awful lot per month, I have to say :o
-
ps Gill... you pay an awful lot per month, I have to say
Well, at one point Brooks premiums alone cost 60 pounds :o So switched him over and only pay a third of that for him now, so its basically an average of 20 pounds a month per dog. Think its maybe about time for me to think about a doggy fund ;) ;D
-
Okay everyone, get this.
Just spoke to the vets re getting them to send a letter to the insurance company. They said no.
At the time, they said that a particular tooth had caused the abcsess, and so they removed it. That's all I knew, as we picked Manoon up after the operation and didnt hear any more. Now that I've made this enquiry, the vet now says that the tooth WASN'T infected after all they found, once they'd removed it, and therefore it didnt cause the abcsess. They still removed the tooth BECAUSE of the abscess, in my opinion that it apparently didnt turn out to be the cause is neither here nor there surely ??? The vet said their position is the tooth had to have been the cause of the abcsess in order for me to be able to claim the whole costs as one treatment, and therefore it would be a fraudulent claim if they wrote otherwise.
SO I'm 50 squid out of pocket due to a technicality >:( I'm not impressed with the vet at all.
-
Hi Mike,
Surely the vet should have known if the tooth was infected before he removed it!!! >:( If as he says the tooth wasnt infected after he removed it then i think he is incompetant!! and the fault surely is his !!! >:(
I would take this up with the vets as he has told you one thing and it turned out to be another !!!! I would also explain the situation to the insurance company, and see what they say. I really wouldnt put up with it !!! ???
You are a bit far away for me to recommend my vet, he is a one man show with his own practice and he is excellent. I have recommend so many people to him and they have all said how good he is !!! I know that doesnt help you!!! ::)
-
Cant follow this Mike ,as Sam says if the tooth didnt cause the absess ( spelling) why remove it in the first place. ???
Another query from me, we havnt got Nell insured :o
We found out 2 days after we bought her she had a heart murmur grade 2 whatever that means. :o How would we stand regarding insurance? i,m referring to anesthetics
would we be wasting our money. ? i,m not sure but iv,e got a feeling the premiems would be very very high. ???
Barb. i would appreciate any advice.
-
At the time he based his assumption the tooth was infected on the fact that it was loose, and directly where there abscess had occurred - "the likely cause", I think he said, something along those lines anyway.
I am pretty annoyed. I mean, imagine I had said no when he said he was going to remove the tooth, after having told me it was the reason the abscess had occurred? I'm interested to know what Gill says, as a veterinary nurse (no pressure there Gill ;D)
-
Well, the way we do our claim forms, that would have all gone down as one claim :- The fact that, in hindsight, the tooth did not cause the abscess would not have been an issue as at the time of the procedure, that was thought to be the cause of the problem and was therefore removed. We had a similar sort of case not too long ago where a dog was tested for hypothyroid and the vet was positive that this is what the dog had. Tests came back borderline so they decided to place the dog on treatment anyway and see how it responded. A few months later, the dog came in for another blood sample and another vet thought that the dog had cushings ::) This result came back positive. When it came time to complete the form, we included the thyroid test and treatment as that was what the vet thought was causing the dogs initial symptoms. So I reckon your vet is being very harsh and I certainly wouldnt give in just yet. We have also included lab fees for tests done for Vegas - the vet thought he may have been suffering a bacterial infection which of course we know now that wasnt the case. My vet could have argued that had nothing to do with the allergy so couldnt claim for it but its all part and parcel of finding the cause isn't it :-
-
Thanks Gill. I dont agree with/understand my vet's logic, but it actually does make me feel better to know that you dont think I'm mad ;D As I've already gone round in circles with the vet though, I dont really know what else to do... except maybe change my vet? :-