Emails Received, Updates and News

Hi Karen.

Thanks for getting in touch. Can I just prefix this email with the reason for the getting in touch with Alex was to specifically address the wider topic of the 14-day clause on all pet insurance. My reason for contacting Alex was not to ask specifically for a resolution to Danny’s case. I’m sure Alex will be happy to forward my previous correspondence if he hasn’t done so already. Because of my parent’s age, the sudden loss of Danny, and the fact that they are pensioners, my partner and I stepped in to pay the vet bill of £1175.79 as they would have struggled to find that kind of money and it just compounded the grief of losing Danny so suddenly.

In relation to Danny’s case, and to give you a brief overview, my Dad had a policy with Tesco underwritten by RSA. When the renewal came up, due to the policy going up in price by c£100, he did a comparison on a comparison website and found that he could get the same policy with Tesco, underwritten again by RSA, and it was considerably cheaper. So he switched, unaware that this would be classed as a new policy (both my parents are in the mid-70s). At the time of taking out the new policy, Danny showed no signs of illness. It was only a few days into the new policy that he started vomiting, and my parents were being cautious and took him to the vets. The vet wasn’t overly concerned, and blood work showed no underlying medical conditions to explain the vomiting. After a couple of days, Danny was still vomiting, so the vet thought, to be on the safe side, to do an ultrasound. That is when a mass was found in his stomach. A laparotomy was performed which is when they found the undetected stomach cancer. It was at that point that the vet had a discussion with my parents about Danny’s prognosis, which was terminal, and the decision was made to euthanise him whilst still under the general anaesthetic.

For your reference the two policy numbers were as follows:

Reference Policy Numbers:
Old policy number RSAP**********
New policy number RSAP**********

As I explained to Alex, I feel that the 14-day clause on policies, especially for some illnesses is unfair. They are also unfair when a pet, especially cats, become injured due to a fight in the first 14 day’s which could not be foreseen or mitigated against. What I am trying to achieve here is to open up a discussion on this clause. Alex explained that the reasoning from the underwriter’s point of view for this clause. However, as I explained in my counter-argument, fraudulent claims can be mitigated when a vet has to complete the claims form to ensure that the condition wasn’t pre-existing if no insurance has been taken out prior. Additionally, as a responsible pet owner, if you take out insurance and your pet needs urgent medical attention in the first 14 days (as was the case when our cat Lulu was involved in a fight within the first 14 days of her policy), you shouldn’t be penalised.

I would welcome your thoughts on the matter, and how underwriters can make the 14-day clause fairer for pet owners whilst still mitigating against people who actively and knowingly try to commit insurance fraud. I’m not seeking any form of reimbursement as to me, the matter is now dealt with as we have settled the vet bill. What I really want to do, in Danny’s name, is to make pet insurance fairer for all.

All the best
Dave

In reply to Karen M’s original email dated 18th January 2021 to Dave Parker

Dear Mr Parker,

I have been asked to look into your queries regarding your parents pet within your recent correspondence with Alex Jones.

Could you please provide me with the policy details for both pets to enable me to look into the circumstances surrounding the claims in which you state have been turned down?

I look forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards,

Karen M

Complaints Specialist