View Full Version : Beware of PetCare Insurance UPDATE 03/25

Molly's mom
25th January 2007, 10:32 PM
Please beware if you have PetCare Insurance or are planning on getting PetCare Insurance.

Because their Excluded from Coverage Clause says "Any illnesses that are symptomatic, noted and/or treated prior to coverage effective date of within the thirty-day waiting period for illness coverage".

My policy begain September 11, 2006 with illness coverage beginning 30 days later. I took Molly to the vets on 12/22 because of her head/neck scratching. I then proceeded to get an MRI, thinking that this would all be covered...right? Well, the MRI Doctor had asked me how long she had been scratching (I wasn't thinking of the insurance right at that moment, my bad since my dog was about to go under anesthesia.) I mentioned a couple of months or did I say Sept? I don't remember.

Anyways fast forward and now my claim has been denied due to "pre exisiting illness" why? because Molly had the nerve to scratch before her policy began...she wasn't treated or diagnosed...The petcare insurance rep said I needed a note from the Doctor proving that the scratching in Sept was not related to syringomyelia...HELLOOOO...She wasn't seen by a Vet so how can anyone prove why she was scratching...moreover, dogs pretty much scratch something from the time they are born?? right??

What really angers me is that they won't even pay for the MRI which diagnosed the syringomyelia. Bottom line is that it is my fault for not carefully noting terms on page 5 of 12 in which it says "This includes illnesses that are existing, symptomatic and or treated but not necessarily diagnosed and being more careful with what I said.

Anyways, I justed wanted to vent..and also let anyone else getting or has PetCare Insurance, especially to cover hereditary conditions....make sure your previous record is clean and be very careful as to what you say outloud and how it may be recorded.

I am out a what would have amounted to $3000, but my primary concern is Molly's health which is priceless.

25th January 2007, 10:46 PM
Insurance companies seem to always have "fine print" and you're right, a slip of the lips can sink any compensation.

Sorry that happened to you but you're right, the important thing is the health and welfare of Molly. :flwr: :flwr:

You've pretty much answered my concerns about Mary Alice though. :(

Molly's mom
25th January 2007, 10:52 PM
What baffles me is that scratching can be caused by about a gazillion things or nothing at all, but any illness that has scratching as a symptom, can be excluded from coverage if it is notated on paper or in my case (in hind sight) verbally. :(

25th January 2007, 10:59 PM
Don't beat yourself up over something you think you said. The language in the contract that you quote above gives them the opening that any disease that preceded the contract (meaning also from birth) would be pre-existing. I am betting that for SM, they would always consider it pre-ex as the dog would have it from birth, even if you and the vet are not aware it existed.

You probably have a right of appeal in the contract and can try to have the decision overturned. Unfortuantely pet insurance is not under the regs of each state's insurance commission.

25th January 2007, 11:00 PM
This would be the case with *any* insurance company.

The fact that she was scratching such a long time back, even if she was not recommended at that time for an MRI, means it was a pre-existing condition that had not been correctly diagnosed. If you had insured her before the scratching, and then the scratching started, and a number of tests and scans were done to try and pinpoint the cause, then they would be covered.

I do try to emphasise this to anyone considering insurance -- do it from the very moment you get your puppy if you want comprehensive coverage. Absolutely anything that might indicate a condition before you take out insurance will be considered an exemption, even undiagnosed symtpoms, if your vet notes this in records or you volunteer the information. Most vets are asked to discuss a condition in some detail to the insurance company if the company is looking at a bill for something as costly as an MRI.

Only two companies will even cover MRIs for hereditary conditions in the US or treat hereditary conditions full stop -- PetCare and PetPlan in the US -- so PetCare is actually one of the better plans cavalier owner can go with. But they will both look for indications that any condition had been spotted and was pre-existing, even if not diagnosed.

SM would NOT be considered pre-existing if there were no indications of symtpoms. PetCare has covered many people I know of for the full MRI and surgery and is very good on this particular condition.

25th January 2007, 11:00 PM
ALL dogs scratch.....that's a fact of life for them.

I don't think I can get insurance for Mary Alice because we went to an emergency vet when we first got her....it was an emergency but they brought up "possibilities" that are on the notes. Arghhhh!!

But what are you supposed to do?? Not help her??

I'd never even heard of SM......... :( :(

25th January 2007, 11:05 PM
But folks: this is the whole issue with insurance!

You need to take it out BEFORE you go to visit a vet and start reporting potential problems! Any problems may be pointing to a serious, pre-existing condition. That is a very normal assumption to make for any kind of medical insurance. It looks especially suspicious to show up only days or weeks after coverage kicks in to ask for a very complex or expensive procedure or service and they will be thorough in their investigations as to when any signs were spotted.

To expect them not to exclude the pre-existing conditions would mean I might as well just go sign up for insurance only when I know my dog has an illness I want insurance to cover.

That's not how insurance works. The whole point of insurance is to protect you IN CASE something arises, and give you peace of mind IF it arises. That means paying out BEFORE anything is spotted.

Get the insurance at the very first vet visit after they do a basic exam and you have a presumably clean bill of health. Do not wait til you think you might need it or you will very likely find any tiny indication of a potential problem noted by a vet means whole swathes of diagnoses are now excluded. This is so, so important. :thmbsup:

I am really sorry this has happened. But keep in mind that yes, all dogs scratch, but not so much that owners really notice it as something unusual. If you said you noticed scratching that started around a certain point, to a vet or an insurance company or neurologist, that indicates it stood out enough for you to think it unusual -- hence, a possible symptom of a problem you are now diagnosing. So yes -- people need to be very careful in what they say if you are trying to not divulge too much information that might invalidate a claim. remember you are t a doctor's visit when talking to a vet or consultant and they *will* note what you say on their charts for your animal.

You can work hard to try to get an exemption especially if your vet had seen the dog at any time and had not noted scratching on her record.

25th January 2007, 11:18 PM
I'm so sorry Molly's mom - to get bad news on top of more bad news is nothing that any of us can take without getting upset. I hope something really good happens for you or to you really soon and that molly feels better with treatment :flwr: :flwr: :flwr:

Molly's mom
25th January 2007, 11:51 PM
What's funny is that at the time I didn't think it stood out until I found this discussion board as I had never even heard of SM and I wasn't seriously worried until December which at that point I took her right away. So it was months not days or weeks after I took out the insurance and it wasn't mis diagnosed, I had not even brought it to anyone's attention until December. When asked in January by the MRI vet how long she had been scratching, it was my hind sight that said "September, a few months ago, or whatever I said, I don't remember.

Quote from Karlin
"That's not how insurance works. The whole point of insurance is to protect you IN CASE something arises, and give you peace of mind IF it arises. That means paying out BEFORE anything is spotted. "

Which is what I felt I did. And something did arise.

The following is a quote from one of my first posts on September 7. As you can see she was scratching once a day.

"Molly is 16 months old and occasionally she scratches (once a day, maybe?)

She has always had some tearing and occasionally rubs her face on the carpet or your lap.

The only tender area on her body is if someone tries to pick her up under her arms (armpit area)

She does scoot her butt on occasion but her anal glands have had to emptied a few times.

When she is overly excited (around large crowds)she will do the "Cavalier Snort" but does not snore or otherwise seem to have breathing problems."

The reason I got the insurance was that I was worried about luxating patellas or MVD. If you want real hind sight, she was probably scratching much earlier than that, I just thought she had itchy skin or that her collar was irritating her. I've never had a dog before. In light of the fact that the scratching was not documented verbally to a professional at the time or on paper (other than my minds eye) prior to December, I would have thought that they would have at least covered the diagnostics but excluded any treatment.

But other than the vent my disappointment/frustration, I did want to let others know what my experience with PetCare has been so far so you at least know what could happen.

25th January 2007, 11:57 PM
I think PetCare is probably one of the best policies around as it covers the genetic problems at this point in time.

I would definitely insure a puppy, as soon as it arrived but dealing with a rescue is a bit different.

Even her pick-up was tentative, then it was done very quickly with her on some meds.

It's very hard to insure a pet under these circumstances...we didn't know if we were getting her or not til 2 hours beforehand & that's when we found out she was on meds.

I agree that to insure them and then run tests does look fishy to the insurer.

I expect that in the near future, illnesses such as PSOM and SM will be exclusions anyway, as they are so expensive to diagnose and treat.

The only real hope for these beautiful Cavaliers, long term, lays in research, IMO. :flwr: :flwr:

26th January 2007, 01:28 AM
That's really disappointing, Molly. To THINK you're covered and feel that peace of mind, and then to lose that security on top of the scary diagnosis must be extremely frustrating and difficult to deal with.

Given the nature of the issue, I would look into finding out what you'd have to do to content the insurance companies decision. There are procedures in place, as no system is infallable. If you can get the doctor who actually noted down the scratching before the coverage began to state that his note was speculative without any real backing, you might be able to make a case. For $3,000 it is worth investigating!

26th January 2007, 05:07 AM
Molly's Mom...I'm going through a similar situation with Petcare Insurance. I highly recommend you speak with a vet about writing a letter. They need to specify the time frame you gave them regarding Molly's scratching. If you said you noticed her scratching "a couple months ago" then IMO that would mean October 22nd, and your policy should cover the MRI.

I had an issue with Kingston's eye, and PetCare insisted it was a pre-existing condition. I had my vet write a letter and now they've removed the exclusion! Be aggressive and they will work with you.

Cathy T
26th January 2007, 05:28 AM
Definitely appeal! We appealed with VPI and were still turned down. But my vet was wonderful and wrote a great letter. Can't hurt!

26th January 2007, 06:06 AM
But they will both look for indications that any condition had been spotted and was pre-existing, even if not diagnosed.

If a dog scratching (like they never do this) is pre-existing to an undiagnosed problem... then having a flow murmur would be pre-existing for how many heart conditions? I realize flow murmurs are innocent and often go away, but I mean from an insurance view - they could use this to deny coverage on any health condition related to the heart? (for me this is a big if whether to get insurance in the next wk)

I could be wrong, but in your case I think an appeal is worth it. You took Molly to the vet because of scratching in Dec. The fact you noted she scratched in whatever sept/oct doesnt matter because obviously the scratching wasnt bad enough to make you think she needed a vet - because you didnt go then. The question was misleading - when did you notice scratching... if someone asked a non-sm owner that, they would think back to a time they remembered scratching. your post says maybe she scratched once a day - that by my non-sm lab would be a miracle, she scratched to distraction 50% of the day. If anything your documented post proves she only scratched a bit - your post to me sounded like a regular dog. My lab rubbed her face on the floor many times a day and someone here just posted about their dog hating to be picked up under the arms (Kathy?) - these are normal dog behaviours and surely didnt indicate a problem.

26th January 2007, 06:17 PM
molly's mom, your warning is very important, you bring attention to the art or skill of using insurance, which i learned from experience as well. The key thing to making it work on your behalf is the wording of claims and medical records.

You have a good chance to succeed on an appeal if you want to go to the trouble. At this point, it depends on what vets are willing to write. If the neurologist or another vet is willing to write a clarification making clear that the owner did not report any symptoms that a reasonable person would think were SM until just before bringing the dog for evaluation, you can begin to have the exclusion removed. It would be likely that Petcare would want further clarification from the vet, another letter, a phone interview, which the vet might initiate.

In my case, a vet wrote down that zack had an enlarged heart based on looking at an abdominal xray. He wrote it down in big letter in the chart. (this was at the ER). the vet was wrong and the following day he talked to the radiologist who said the heart was likely normal, he wrote that down in the chart on another page, in small writing. He did not write "What i wrote yesterday was wrong, Zack does not have an enlarged heart," although he said that to me on the phone, not that he had been wrong explicitly but that there was nothing to worry about the heart, "his heart is fine."

when i got the policy from petcare wiht the exclusion, permanent, for anything related to the heart, i called them and said this is a mistake, and told them that the vet had made a mistake when he wrote enlarged heart and tht on the next day he told me the heart was fine, based on the radiology consult. the petcare rep said ok, fine, just have the vet document that.

Easier said than done. Neither he nor the radiologist would explicitly say that the diagnosis had been wrong, allthought both said to me that his heart was fine. the radiologist was militantly anti-insurance and wanted to do anything she could to help i asked her and and faxed me a copy. I was disappointed to see how ambiguous it was. After they got her letter, they said it hadn't been made clear that the heart was fine. Well, vets can't really say his heart is fine, without an echocardiogram, they can only say all his heart signs were normal, but this was too ambiguous to cancle "Enlgarged heart" in big writing on his chart. Unless someone would say "the other vet made a mistake," which wasn't something they apparently wanted to say on record. The radiologist then called Petcare to ask what they wanted her to write in order to get the exclusion removed. They told her what to write and said it would be removed. She wrote it and sent me a copy, just a day or two after her first letter. she was also in close touch with me, calling me, et, she really wanted to help, she felt bad about the mistake and did not like insurance companies either. Again, the letter was ambiguous, it said all of zack's heart signs were normal, that heart disease was a very rare cause of vomiting in a dog that age and that abdominal xrays could not tell anything about heart shape or size.

So, petcare sent me a new policy and they changed the permanent exclusion on the heart to a temporary exclusion. Progress, but that wasn't good enough. they onlyl want to get the temporarly exclusion removed apparently would be an my expense to have an echo gram for $500, after a year. A normal echogram. If it wasn't normal and they excluded the heart, that wouldn't be fair since there was no valid reason to exclude the heart in the first place, the vet had made a mistake, what he noted in the chart was wrong so it shojld not be seen as a pre-existing condition but as a vet mistake.

At that point, i looked into filing a complaint with the insurance commission. That is a definite real and important option. I can see that Petcare was not being unreasonable in the actions they too. The doctor was not clearly saying that the notation of enlarged heart should be ignored, explicitly, you had to do a lot of reading between the lines to get that. But it was there, if you read between the lines. Petcare claim adjusters are just don't look at claims tht quickly. They look for clear eay to see writing that is siimple and to the point.

If your claims are clear and to the point, they won't probe around and try not to pay. If a vet signs it and it's a clear notation of a condition or diagnosis, they just will pay. 'Enlarged heart' was very clear. The modifications of that were definitely not.

So, the insurance commisssion website has an online form to fill out to make a complain. They say before you make a complaint, to attempt to resolve it with the insurance company. So, i called PetCare and asked to speak to their complaints department. I was put in touch wiht a certain person. I wrote her a long letter spelling out all the things the vet left to implication and said that a reasonable person would look at this and see that there was no evidence that Zack had an enlarged heart and no grounds for an exclusion. i sent it by email. She emailed right back and said she was having someone contact the radiologist to clarfiy things. She then quickly wrote back and said the exclusion was removed and she would send me a new policy.

If you PM me, i'll give you more details., contact info etc.

At this point it's all about what a vet will write to them.

If i was in your position, i would call petcare and say "a mistake has been made. My dog developed symptoms that concerned me long after the 30 day waiting periond. Then i took her for an evaluation to see if it was something neurological because i had read about something that i thought it might be. The neurologist i went to asked me how long the dog had been scratching and i gave a rough estimate offf the top of my head, but i wasn't sure, i wasn't thinking about being precise. He wrote it down adn the date was before the end of the waiting period. But in fact, the symptom was just scratching. It wasn't a scratching i was concerned about at the time, and i still do'nt konw if it was related to the condition, there was no reason at the time to think it was. Puppies often scratch, it was normal scratching, it was not over a lot, but being a new mom, i took note of every move the dog made, of courses. But there has been a misunderstanding, i never had any concern about this disease until months later, there would have been no reaason to, and i did get concerned about some different symptoms that came long later, and immediately took her in. So i need to get this clarfiied. Please tell me what Petcare needs for my vet to say, in order to clear up that this condition or symptoms of it, were not noted until (whatever date you said, Decmember?). Ask her what they would need for the vet to say. They are very nice and present themselves as supportive (i talked to lots of them during my ordeal and they did try to help me to konw what i needed to do, and my vets didnt' do it, but eventually it got straightened out, it was a hassle but i felt i had to go through it, it was too important to have the heart covered). It's all about playing by the rules with them. They will tell you the rules they go by, to help you know how to get what you need.

After you make your case, wiht your vet documentation (and it might require more than one vet letter and documented phone call, and you might print up stuff from the web about SM showing that your puppy had nothing special goihng on durign the waiting period that would lead to a concern asbout SM, and scratching is nonspecific, and only a minority of SM dogs have it, and it's usually a special kind of scratching--the point of making a case, a REASONABLE case that you had no reason to be concerned about SM at that early point and the vet's notation was based on a misunderstanding or miscommunication which can be easily cleared up, the point of this is, if you make a complaint to the insurance commission you want to show petcare that a reasonable person will see things your way, and tell them that you really want to work it out with them but are frustrated and have looked into making a complaint because your request is not unreasonable, but the the complaint process requires first tryig to work it out with the insurance company so that's why you are writing to her (their claims manager administrator, or whatever her title is).

At this present stage, it's about talking to your neurologist, saying "Here is the misunderstanding. I need to clear it up. Here's what petcare said they need to have documented, i need a letter to them from you, and here is their phone number if you want to call them. Please fax me a copy of anything you send them and call me and let me know what they say if you talk to them on the phone. I'm appealing the exclusion because i had no worry about SM during the waiting period and no vet had any worry about SM during the waiting period, and there is a misunderstanding.

before talking to the vet, ask petcare what they need for the vet to say, more or less, or specifically if possible. you can be completely honest, it's a misunderstanding, it could happen to anyone in that position, and now it needs to be cleared up, it's nobody's fault, they are your team , to help your animal get the care it's entitled to, and you need their help in clearing the misunderstanding. They talk to customers all the time about these things and they will tell you.

it's a hassle and i'm really sorry you have to go through any of it. Again, your warning to people here is important, i've had to learn by trial and error, if knew then what i know now, i could've gotten my problelm cleared up faster. My progress was to some extent slowed down by my own assumptions that petcare was trying to avoid covering zack's heart for any reason beyond needing a certain wording from a vet. That became somewhat of a self fulfilling prophecy. If i'd seen them more optimistically i could've gotten it taken care of faster. It was all about communication.

you can work with vets, being conscious of this. All the vets i've worked wiht have been very eager to help get the insurance to cover whatever it was.

I totally agree that you should appeal the exclusion and think you have a very good chance, based on what i learned from dealing with them with an exclusion (of everything to do with the heart! :yikes). My impression when all was said and done was that they did not have an agenda to exclude the condition because it might be expensive for them, but rather that they were just playing by the rules, and the wording was such that they would certainly exclude it, after dealing with having them remove this exclusion and making a couple of claims, i think they are pretty mindless in evaluating claims--if it's worded right, i think they will simply pay without hesitation.

A dog who has SM can be scratching for some other reason,SM dogs can get allergies too, or dry skin. Your vet or neurologist should be able to clear this up. A history of scratching reported in retrospect isn't enough to exclude SM, unless it's worded in a way (which it was) to make it sound like it was linked to SM. At this point, the vet may be able to clear up that the condition was only suspected shortly before the presentation for evaluation and diagnosis. Do you have the medical records showing what was written? I think it's really on your vet now, and one letter from the vet may not be enough, but it should be worth fighting for. The exclusion is wrong, there's no need to get moralistic about it with PetCare, it's about the wording, they play by the rules.

it's really unfortunate that you have to go through this, and others can definitely learn from your story.

In my case, an ER vet had illegitimately interpreted an abdominal xray as showing an enlarged heart, he wrote it in the chart in big letters, 'enlarged heart.' The next day he consulted with the radiologist who said the heart looked normal and the ER vet wrote in the chart that she said 'heart appears WNL' (within normal limits)....in SMALL letters.

When petcare got those records, they saw 'enlarged heart,' and proceeded to give a permanent exclusion for anything to do with zack's heart, he was just 4 months old and his heart was fine.

Try to get a vet to come out and say "I made a mistake when i wrote that down."

PetCare asked me to get a letter from the doctor, saying that the notation of enlarged heart was incorrect. I found out that was not going to happen. However, the radiologist really wanted to help, she was militant hostile toward insurance companies, and she immediately wrote a letter saying the heart signs were normal. She said that abdominal xrays did not provide information that would allow any conclusions about heart size or shape. But this letter was ambiguous, it didn't say zack DIDN'T have an enlarged heart. So petcare didn't remove the exclusion. Then the radiologist called them and spoke to someone who said Petcare just needed a letter saying the examination showed normal pulse, heart rate, etc, on auscultation, so the radiologist wrote that up and said that i "would like enlarged heart removed from Zack's records." To me, this was a lot of beating around the bush when the bottom line was, the other vet made a mistake, there is no basis for saying the heart was enlarged, it was a mistake.


27th January 2007, 01:29 AM
This is so sad. I do feel for you. I would try and fight it. Thank you for the reminder. I just signed up with Marks&Spencers pet insurance after reading your post. It's so expensive and there's so much small print, I feel like I'm signing my life away. My step dad pays less for his builders and contence insurance put together.

More importantly, I hope you get the best care for your Molly and that she is ok in the end.

Let is know how it goes :hug:

Molly's mom
24th March 2007, 11:51 PM

We got PetCare to lift the Syringomyelia clause from Molly's policy :p :p
It took a long time but it boiled down to a very well written letter from my Vet (boy do I owe her!!)

I just received a check for Molly's first MRI and my claim for the surgery is still in processing. Boy do I wish now I had gotten the $6,000 policy. The $3000 was eaten up in the blink of an eye.

I never in my wildest dreams would have thought I would spend this kind of money on a pet...but of course that was before I had a cavalier ;)

Cathy Moon
25th March 2007, 12:16 AM
:w**h**: :w**h**: :w**h**: :w**h**: :w**h**:
I am soooo happy for you!!! :flwr:

25th March 2007, 12:50 AM
We got PetCare to lift the Syringomyelia clause from Molly's policy

Most excellent! b*n*n*

Here in Australia, pet insurance is about as useful as mammary glands on a bull (to put it politely). All the ones I looked at exclude any illness that is a known problem in the breed, there is a huge list of exclusions (which is just about everything that ever happens to dogs), there is no cover for any routine procedures, and there is a cap on how much they will cover you for. The amount you can claim back is piddling, compared to what you shell out.

I now have what I call my own pet insurance.... ie an account that I put a set amount of money into each month and that does not get touched unless the dogs need veterinary care above & beyond the expected.

25th March 2007, 02:45 AM

We got PetCare to lift the Syringomyelia clause from Molly's policy :p :p
It took a long time but it boiled down to a very well written letter from my Vet (boy do I owe her!!)...

Woohoo is right! Good for PetCare and Hurray for your persuasive vet!!

this is what i experienced with Petcare too--if a vet will document the condition in a way that corresponds with their coverage rules, you will be ok. They won't try to deny coverage if they have that documentation. Usually it's easy, a vet just writes down a diagnosis on a claim form, they cover almost everything there is. But once they have some reason to think there is a pre-existing condition, they're going to exclude it--and that's what happened to you, and to me too, but as you have shown, all is not necessarily lost! It's all about having documentation from a vet. in your case, that must've been some great letter because i know that another vet had written it up in a way that sounded like it was pre-existing.

Good for you for fighting it and getting your vet to advocate. After all, you paid the premiums, you should get covered. You rock!!


I too got the $3000 coverage per illness category when i first signed up. I looked at the $6000 policy and i thought, hey, he's only 15 weeks old, healthy as can be. I can upgrade the policy later. But then, zack got diarrhea and vomiting and in 5 weeks i paid out $1100 in vet bills, almost half of it in one night's trip to the ER, just for diarrhea and vomiting. Whoa. I called them up and switched to the $6000 plan. what a rude awakening.

But hopefully there aren't many things that go over $3000??!

25th March 2007, 03:06 AM
That's fantastic news, Bev; you've had a lot of good things happen in the last day or so! :) It sure helps to get a bit of financial support with something like this.

25th March 2007, 03:34 AM
Yay! I'm so happy for you! I also have great experiences working with PetCare on getting a controversial claim paid off. I'm really happy with them so far. It's been WELL worth the money.

25th March 2007, 05:02 AM
Congratulations! that is GREAT news. I'm so happy for you and glad that Molly seems to be doing better. Hugs to her from Lucky. :flwr:

Cathy T
25th March 2007, 05:46 AM
Bev - Wow!! That is fantastic news!!

matties mum
25th March 2007, 10:39 AM
Mollys mom wrote

We got PetCare to lift the Syringomyelia clause from Molly's policy
It took a long time but it boiled down to a very well written letter from my Vet (boy do I owe her!!)

:jump: very pleased-----Aileen and the gang (Jazzie----Barney----Sam)

25th March 2007, 11:24 AM
EXCELLENT! news, you got your money refunded.


In the U.K I have always got the cover started the day I got the dog (rescues as well)
M&S and Pinnicle both cover rescues with lifelong CONDITION cover, not just the normal 12 month cover.

I have pre-informed the company beforehand when they are coming and from when I wanted the cover to start, then seen the vet afterwards if and only I have needed to, normally getting past the 14 and 28 day wait time.

We normally manage to scrape through, it's about being as good as them at reading the small print. :roll:


Molly's mom
25th March 2007, 04:29 PM
The older I get, the more I seem to learn things the hard way :sl*p:
but I have more advice for my children.
Explain that one icon_whistling

If you get a puppy, run don't walk to sign up for the insurance. (one that covers hereditary diseases of course) and get the largest policy you can afford.

I knew nothing about nothing really until I found this discussion board, at that point Molly was 1 1/2 years old, and being a first time puppy mom, I had run her to the vet every time she sneezed :roll: , so by the time we got the insurance there was plenty of things in her records for them to pick apart. :oops:

25th March 2007, 07:13 PM
Bev, you're a fighter like me! I recently had to fight for my National Insurance Contributions to be back dated after a mistake was made(not my mistake). It took plently of very detailed letters and in the end, though the mistake was only a few months, I got it back dated to 1997.

It's such a relief to get things sorted isn't it. But how is Molly?

25th March 2007, 07:34 PM
Lots of up to date info on Molly in the SM/MVD forum.

25th March 2007, 08:36 PM
This is a very useful link to read whilst considering pet insurance...


26th March 2007, 03:36 AM
The older I get, the more I seem to learn things the hard way :sl*p:
but I have more advice for my children.
Explain that one icon_whistling

If you get a puppy, run don't walk to sign up for the insurance. (one that covers hereditary diseases of course) and get the largest policy you can afford.

I knew nothing about nothing really until I found this discussion board, at that point Molly was 1 1/2 years old, and being a first time puppy mom, I had run her to the vet every time she sneezed :roll: , so by the time we got the insurance there was plenty of things in her records for them to pick apart. :oops:

Excellent advice Bev that I echo. I got Lily's Insurance through Pet Care when she was just 12 weeks old, and so far we have used it 4 times, and they have paid like clockwork. We have already recouped out premium for this year. I am so glad that we made the investment. Kudos to your Vet fro helping you with this.