Hi,

I have a question, i will be taking on a dog at the end of this year. Its my friends who shows him. She isnt entirely happy with the way he moves she cant put her finger on it and he has been to her vet for him to look to see if its something he can spot. Nothing has shown up.

If i was to take him on and insure him and at a later date something became apparent is this pre existing or not? Nothing has been diagnosed by a vet but it has been looked at. Is this a grey area that they could catch me on?

What breed is it? How old is the dog?

Does the present owner have a problem with how he moves in the ring as in it doesn't meet the breed standard or is it something physical they think is the problem.

It would be classed as a pre existing condition as the vet has become involved even though nothing obvious has been found at this time.

The dog is only 14 months old.

In my opinion and i don't have as much experience as the breeder (although she doesn't disagree with me) I think its because he is still immature, he lacks confidence and is a bit scatty and excitable.

Its one of those things that only someone really experienced would pick up as it doesn't happen all the time.

the breeder did think it might me something physical but the vet can't find anything wrong at all.

The thing is it could be anything surely if its movement, from any leg, to spine, to paws anything so if the vet can't find anything can they really say at a later date if something came up if it was his back, or legs or neck etc its such a wide variety surely they would have to pretty much rule out everything?

> It would be classed as a pre existing condition as the vet has become involved even though nothing obvious has been found at this time

A tricky one actually as it depends what tests were done and what exactly has been put on the medical records.  Poor movement needn't be the result of a medical condition obviously but in theory, if something were to crop up later, the insurance company would be asking the vet to see if there was any evidence of this condition before the policy started.

This is an example of an exclusion: This insurance does not cover: 3) Anything that is caused by, relates to or results from; your pet's medical history before the insurance started. (M&S cover)

I would want a copy (print out) of the vets records, which your friend could get for you, then I'd be looking for worse case scenarios based on cost.  Look at possible issues in the breed such as luxating patella, hip dysplasia etc then see what tests were done or wording used on the reports.  You are looking really for anything that the insurance could use to exclude the condition and you need to balance the likelihood of these medical conditions v's the cost of treatment IF the insurance company were to exclude. 

However, and this is an important point IF you are to change vets from that used by your friend there is nothing to make you declare the previous vets.  Plenty of people take on older dogs with unknown medical history...   In this scenario and in the event of a claim your vet would have to reassure the insurance company that the condition wasn't present, diagnosed or showing clinical signs before the insurance started.

You are taking a risk and you simply have to decide if a) it's worth it, in the event that you are left uncovered and b) you can afford it, if the insurance company refuse to pay. 

>However, and this is an important point IF you are to change vets from that used by your friend there is nothing to make you declare the previous vets.  Plenty of people take on older dogs with unknown medical history...  

However the new vet will have to state on the insurance claim that they are not the first vet to treat the dog; if you have any medical records (vaccination details etc) then the new vet will need to know when they're due and a copy of the records forwarded to the new vet. Vets are very suspicious about animals with no prior history (even rescue dogs have a history from the rescue  centre), especially if the new client refuses to give details, because they're the ones risking their careers in the case of an insurance fraud.

Maybe have a chiro or similar look at the dog before you commit?

> Vets are very suspicious about animals with no prior history (even rescue dogs have a history from the rescue centre), especially if the new client refuses to give details, because they're the ones risking their careers in the case of an insurance fraud.

Yes and for this reason if it were me I'd actually discuss the dog, in theory and before agreeing to take him, with my vet.  I'd like to have their take on it as it sure pays to have them on your side if you ever need to negotiate with an insurance company.  My vets went to battle on my behalf when one of my pups was in danger of being excluded for a pre existing condition - thousands of pounds later I'm still very grateful to them!! :)

> there is nothing to make you declare the previous vets.

I think there is.  I'm pretty sure that the declaration you sign when you take out the insurance will have words to the effect that you are not knowingly withholding any information that may affect cover.

Confused, as usual - how can a condition that does not exist be disclosed, what exactly would you be disclosing that the dog does not move to the breeders satisfaction.

Many dogs do not move as you would wish, well lets face most of them don't, it is a matter of conformation not necessary a medical problem at all. If the vet can not find anything wrong with this dog it might just be that there is nothing wrong. Agree it makes it difficult to fill in a declaration but what can you put down that the dogs movement has be assessed by a vet and declared fit and unimpaired.

> how can a condition that does not exist be disclosed,

You are not disclosing a condition, you are disclosing the investigation. 

Do insurance companies ask you to disclose a previous investigation, particularly one that proved fruitless?

Have to agree with you Nova......What condition ???

Not so sure about pet insurance as I do not currently have any but they certainly ask about investigations within the previous year when applying for human insurance.
As you suggesting that the insurance company will not be interested in this and would not consider it material to the cover proposal?

As you suggesting that the insurance company will not be interested in this and would not consider it material to the cover proposal?

No not suggesting anything but the OP asked about disclosing an existing condition (that's how I read it) and I was wondering how you disclose something that does not exist.

Not having seen what is being talked off it is difficult to comment but if it is that the dog is not moving well enough for the breeder to show then I would say that most of the dogs I see in the ring are not moving well enough to be shown with any confidence but I would not say they are unsound. I do wonder reading between the lines if the dogs was taken to the vet not because the breeder thought it had a problem but in the hope that it had and therefore its movement could be improved with the help of the vet.

Well whatever, the breeder did take it to a vet and that is how the insurance company will view it.  They won't be reading between any lines if something did emerge and a claim was made :)

Well whatever, the breeder did take it to a vet and that is how the insurance company will view it.  They won't be reading between any lines if something did emerge and a claim was made

Agree the that most insurance companies will do their best to duck a claim but just what can you tell them, only that the dog has been checked by the vet and it was found to be sound it is up to them if they accept your proposal but if they do they should not say that everything the dog may have wrong in future is a previous condition because it can't be proved.

I had a similar situation with a horse. Vet was asked to check on something, as an ultra cautious preventative measure. Nothing found, but the check was put onto the medical history. When I later had a lameness claim, my vet had to write a report saying that the current lameness was not related in anyway to previous checks.

It was an extra step in the claims process, but the insurance paid up. Basically, if it goes on the animal's history, the insurers seem to want to know about it!

> only that the dog has been checked by the vet and it was found to be sound it is up to them if they accept your proposal but if they do they should not say that everything the dog may have wrong in future is a previous condition because it can't be proved.

Exactly.  You tell them and they offer cover or not with or without an exclusion but if you don't and it then emerges that you didn't disclose something you have wasted your premium at best.

> Do insurance companies ask you to disclose a previous investigation, particularly one that proved fruitless

Not at the time of application, no.  The insurance company ask for all the evidence and information only at the time of making a claim and this information is generally supplied by the vet responsible for treatment.

Extract from a claim form:  IF THIS IS A NEW CLAIM, PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS AND FORWARD THE FULL MEDICAL HISTORY
Please tell us the date or the number of days before the first date of treatment, that the clinical signs were first noticed.
Has this pet had this illness, injury or clinical signs before, or this illness, injury or clinical signs anywhere else in or on its body before?

Statement signed by the vet:  I declare, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that all information provided, in this claim form is true and complete.

The fact that a previous investigation hasn't found a problem doesn't necessarily mean you're on safe ground.  For instance, should the dog be diagnosed with Hip Dysplasia in the next few months then the insurance company might argue that its poor movement was an early indicator and refuse to pay. That's why it's important to know exactly what tests were done on this dog, if any, and perhaps what the owner and vet thought they were looking for.  The OP really needs to read what has been recorded so far, and perhaps to talk it through with her vet before the full risk can be understood.   The OP can't, and certainly we can't, make this decision without having these facts and that conversation.  The vet is the one that can argue whether or not something counts as a 'clinical sign' but the insurance company can really do as it pleases and if they refuse to pay it isn't easy to change their mind.

**Edited to say: this doesn't mean that the dog is uninsurable, anything unrelated will still be covered, and it's entirely possible that no claim will ever arise from this 'possible condition'.  Even if it did, your vet may well conclude that you have the right to claim, and help you to present the facts in the best way :)

I once had the vet look at a small lump on a dog while in for a routiene jab, she jsut wrote something like small lump found on rib no cause for concerne or something similar it went away soon after, but we changed insurance companies and had a claim for something different. The new insurance asked for a full print out and then excluded anything to do with lumps bumps and tumors so do beware.
Aileen

Thanks for everyone's input.

This was never going to be a cut and dried yes or no was it really?

I bit the bullet and just rang my insurance company. I first of all got through to customer services. When i explained the situation she said if the dog has een seen and something was to happen in the future it may be considered a pre existing condition. I pointed out that, as we have no explanation that it would pretty much rule out everything, spinal, neurological, cruciates, elbows etc...
We were on the phone going round in circles for a good 10 minutes varying from yes its a pre existing condition as the dog has seen the vet and there will be records on its file, to well it would depend on the vets say so if a claim was made if they think it was connected.

Eventually she said, i will put you through to a specialist in our claims dept,

So again we went around the same arguments, both of us swinging from yes it is to no it isn't. She then said hold on a minute let me speak to someone. She came back to me and said "is the dog still at the breeders?" which i replied yes she then asked "do you use the same vets?" to which i replied no.

She then said, well if something was to happen we only ask for vets that YOU have registered the dog at, not previous owners. They get so many rescue dogs, or dogs like this that have changed hands that it would be nigh on impossible to track previous owners and their vets, that's even if the dog has the same name as it always has done.

So this answered my question fully really.

Truthfully i don't think there is anything wrong with this dog, the breeder is being over cautious as she always is with anything she breeds from. Judges obviously don't see his movement as an issue (like i say it doesn't happen all the time) as he is only a few points away from his Junior Warrant.

Thanks for everyone's input.

My vet said to me once, regarding insurance, that he only had to look at a certain area of a animal, even if he did not find anything, the fact that he looked with regards to a possible problem would be enough to form a history. I think also you do need to disclose all vets that the dog has been to and if a problem occurs medical histories from those vets would come into force.