When we set up the “A Change For Danny” website, our goal was to get the insurance industry to have a frank, open, and honest discussion about why the 14-day “no-claim” clause penalises responsible pet owners whose pets suddenly, and quite unexpectantly, become unwell in those first 14 days.
Of course, nobody wants to see those who purposely commit fraud get away with it. And that’s something we advocate strongly. Those who knowingly try to defraud insurance companies should be punished to the fullest extent in the law.
However, those of us who genuinely take out pet insurance to cover our furry friends for when they get sick should not be faced with the difficult decision of how to pay for vet treatment if they fall ill in the first 14 days of cover, and there have been no previous signs of illness, as backed up by a vet. This is exactly what happened to Danny. The 14-day “no-claim” clause is unfair and unjust. As we have said all the way along, you don’t take out holiday insurance or car insurance and are then told “but you cannot make a claim for x number of days”.
Just bear this one piece of information in mind. When you submit a claim for a new condition on your pet insurance, your vet has to certify that the illness was not previously known about, or treated for. You also have to give your previous vet clinics prior to your current vet where applicable. No vet would ever falsify a claim. It simply is not ethical for them, and if they did, they run the risk of never being able to practice again.
So, when a pet suddenly falls ill, as Danny did, within those first 14 days worth of cover, why should you not be able to make a claim. The insurance sector is all about risk and reward. The premiums charged far outweigh the cost of insurance paid out against a pet in many cases. If it didn’t, then they would not be in business.
All we’re asking for is to have the 14-day “no-claim” clause abolished, or at the very least, fairer. For conditions such as cancer, accidents, or injury, you should be able to be compensated against your insurance, even more so if your previous policy was underwritten by the same insurance company, as was the case with Danny.
Another practice that needs looking at, refined, and if need be, abolished, is where you can get a cheaper quote on a comparison website with the same broker and underwriter. Again, this is what happened with Danny. If the broker/insurer is not prepared to honour a claim in the first 14 days, then it should not be permitted. It happens all the time with car insurance. You find a cheaper quote online, sometimes with the same insurer, and they will honour that. If they don’t, you move to another insurer. But in doing so, you are not prevented from claiming on your insurance if you have an accident in the first 14 days.
There’s plenty that’s good with our insurance sector in the UK. But there is also grey areas or plainly wrong areas such as the 14-day “no-claim” clause that needs to be reviewed and amended.
Tellingly, when we started out on this path back in December 2020, we reached out to the top 4 insurance companies in the UK that offer pet insurance; Alliaz Insurance, Royal and Sun Alliance Insurance (who underwrote Danny’s policies), Ultimate Insurance Co and Zenith Insurance. Only Royal and Sun Alliance (RSA) replied, albeit without answering the fundamental question we have asked. To us, that says they are unwilling to consider the very people they rely on to continue to make a profit. Of course, maybe that will change once word of A Change For Danny gets out there. And we would welcome that. We are not interested in pointing fingers, playing the blame game, or accusing them of any form of wrongdoing. All we want is to make things fairer for every pet owner who finds themselves in this kind of situation. A seemingly healthy dog, with no prior history of significant illness, who within 5 days becomes unwell, diagnosed with a mass in the stomach, then has to be put to sleep because there’s nothing that can be done. Then to be told that you cannot claim for the vet fees because you changed policy. Is that fair? We don’t think so, and we think the majority of pet owners won’t think so either.
One final point of note here. It is not possible to start a new insurance policy 14 days before the old one expires. Well, actually, that’s not technically true… you could! But that would invalidate both policies, at least for those first 14 days. So why is it that insurance companies can stop that kind of practice (quite rightly), but also not cover a pet owner for the first 14 days.
This is a topic that’s going to run and run. Especially over the last 12 months during lockdown because of Coronavirus, many more people have taken on a pet where they might not have done so before. That’s more people who, potentially, will run into this kind of issue at some point in the future.
We ask you to join with us, to get A Change for Danny noticed, and to start the conversation about this clause in almost all UK pet insurance policies. Please let people know about this website, about our Facebook page and about what we’re trying to do.
If you have your own stories of where you’ve come up against this unfair clause, please submit it using the Pet Owner’s Stories page so we can potentially add it to the website and/or social media.
Are you with us on this? We hope so.
