Just tried to make a claim for our dog who has an ulser on his eye and a cyst removed from his tail. Both claims denied due to the 365 day rule and conditions now added to the policy.
1st claim for the eye was denied due to a pre-existing condition and they have now added an exclusion dating back to 2013. The original issue that they are basing this on was a small cut under his eye, nothing to do with his eye or sight.
2nd claim denied for a cyst on his tail, they are claiming this was not covered because it went past the 365 days since it was 1st noticed and have now added an exclusion back to 2014.
They are technically correct however the vet recommended that the condition only required monitoring not operating on.
Animals Friends then had the cheek to suggest they always recommend that you follow the vets advice, ofcourse they do if it then allows them to add an exclusion and reason for not paying out.
Worst company I have ever come across.
Shih Tzu
Leave a comment
Hi, i sympathise with you. But take it to the ombudsman as the ombudsman will not let them place retrospective exclusions!! Also if no treatment was recommended by the vet then the ombudsman say they have to pay out!! Trust me i used to work there!
I took my claim to the ombudsman in the belief that they followed their own technical guidelines as the ex ombudsman employee States . However this could not be further from the truth . The ombudsman service took over 5 months and they ignored my vets information that my dog did not have a pre existing medical condition . They did not ask animal friends to remove the added after policy inception exclusion .they took no notice of the fact that my vet was on my side . In short the ombudsman service is a complete waste of time . I am now in the process of court action .
Previous commenter is correct. Ombudsman says that the 12 months starts when it is first TREATED not first noticed.