Has a company treated you unfairly? Our consumer champion, Sally Hamilton, is here to help. For how to contact her click here.  

​Dear Sally,

My horse, Abushamah (Abu for short), injured his leg on the electric rope fencing around his summer grazing enclosure. But my insurer, Animal Friends, has declined my claim for vet bills.

After weeks of me waiting to hear, the insurer pointed to a clause in my equine policy, which states it does not cover horses for injuries caused by fencing.

Horses all go out in the summer to graze, and for Animal Friends to say that fencing accidents are not included in its policy is unbelievable. This means the policy it has sold me is not fit for purpose. I asked if it only insured horses that were kept in their stables all year round, but got no reply.

If I had noticed this clause, buried deep in the policy, I would not have bought it. Animal Friends never sent me a hard copy as I had requested. I like to be able to read it properly on paper rather than strain my eyes online – and I don’t have a printer.

After much debate, Animal Friends told me that I could have cancelled the policy within 14 days. I would have done if the clause had been more obvious. I am retired and on a reduced income. Abu is a rescue animal, a former racing horse. I took out insurance in good faith to give me peace of mind caring for him.

– CL, Scarborough

Dear CL,

I was as astonished as you were to learn that Animal Friends would not cover the £1,950 vet bills for treating poor Abu’s injuries.

Fences are essential for keeping animals safe while they are grazing outdoors, so that they do not wander off and get into more serious situations, such as being run over or stolen. For an insurer to refuse a claim over a fence injury is ridiculous.

You said you asked Animal Friends for a hard copy of the policy before purchasing. The insurer told me it had sent you this, but you never saw it.

I strained my eyes reading these terms and conditions online. I am used to reading through pages of exclusions, but felt the one referring to injuries from fences – which I would say is a significant exclusion – was positioned in such a way as to be easily missed.

It looked almost like an afterthought – coming fourth from last in the lengthy list of claims the company would not pay. It was sandwiched immediately between extreme scenarios such as claims resulting from radiation, explosions, nuclear fallout and terrorism and excluding claims if owners engaged in horse trading.

How many people, rightly or wrongly, let their eyes drift over exclusions relating to nuclear war? Most, I reckon. The wording of the relevant clause could also cause the reader to miss its significance.

It states that the insurer will not cover injuries caused by “barbed wire or other fences”. The reader could easily focus on “barbed wire” being the notable element. If an owner looking for a policy does not put the horse in a paddock with barbed wire, which you don’t, then it would be easy to overlook the clause.

Why does the company not just say “fences of all kinds” to remove any ambiguity – then move this vital exclusion to near the top of the list – or, I would suggest more usefully, to its covering page – so no purchaser would get caught out?

You told me you regretted your purchase, as in the past you had always insured horses with NFU Mutual. Someone you met suggested Animal Friends as an alternative, which at a cost of about £50 a month, although still a significant sum, was about £20 a month cheaper. Unfortunately, that saving has cost you dearly and as a result you have been saddled with vets bills you cannot afford.

I asked NFU whether its policies contained similar exclusions for injury from fences. They do not. It says it might deny a claim if the incident was caused by a fence that was badly maintained, which would come under a general clause related to taking reasonable care to prevent any accident.

The fence at the centre of your claim was a well-maintained electric rope fence. The yard owner confirmed that it was regularly maintained and checked and that there were no issues with it at the time of the incident. You think Abu had simply kicked out to perhaps bat away a fly and got his leg caught up in the rope, which cut hard into his hock, a bit like a human’s ankle.

Although insurers cannot realistically make all exclusions conspicuous, Anthony Burnett of specialist insurance broker SEIB says “significant exclusions” should be highlighted to would-be purchasers of equine policies. I would argue that fence injuries are a significant exclusion.

Mr Burnett said he was aware some horse policies excluded fence injuries but none of the policies his firm recommended contained such an exclusion.

He said: “This underlines the importance of considering levels of cover and the expertise of the provider – and not solely the premium being offered – when selecting a policy.”

You can take a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink. Animal Friends refused to discuss your case with me in detail because, before you contacted me, you had opened a complaint with the Financial Ombudsman Service. Unfortunately, this can make companies clam up, which is a pity because such investigations can take months.

Animal Friends said in a statement: “While this matter is being reviewed and we are supporting the Ombudsman investigation, we are unable to provide any comment at this time. We will of course also uphold any decision made by the Ombudsman in relation to this claim”. I wish you luck and hope you will inform me of the outcome, and that Abu’s injury heals soon.

Katie Morley is on maternity leave.​ Award-winning personal finance journalist  Sally Hamilton will be fighting readers’ corners until her return.

The full Sally Solves column will appear in print every Saturday and Sunday. You can get an early taste every Friday at 12pm.

ncG1vNJzZmivp6x7tbHLnp6rmaCde6S7ja6iaKWfo7K6e8qaq6KdXZ67t7HSraCgmaSawHC%2FwJ2bpZ2UYn56gY9mmaKknGK1sL7SnmSuppKauaqx1ZqZpZ1dm7Kvr8RmoKeipafGbq%2FLmqysnV8%3D