Just a thought I had, would this be a good idea considering?

The breeder arranges 4 weeks free insurance for puppies, once the puppies have their prospective owners (let's say each owner has paid a deposit to secure their puppy), the breeder extends the insurance for 1 year for each of the puppies in the name of the new owner. Owners come to collect the puppies and pay the rest of the price which includes the 1 year insurance (in other words the price for the puppy will be higher to that extent).

The main advantage is that the puppies are protected and should a puppy come back to the breeder ill or mistreated or anything, the breeder will be in a better position to help this puppy. As opposed to relying on the new owners to extend the insurance themselves, and in the case when new owner don't do it a good breeder will still take their puppy back no matter what, but then they could face expensive treatment ets.

Of course this "guaranteed" protection would only be for 1 year, but this seems a reasonable compromise...

I can see one objection being what if the new owner doesn't like the policy or the provider of the insurance, against this it might be said that the breeder would do the best for their puppies, insuring them with leading provider with "life" policy. There would also be an opportunity to discuss the suitable insurance provider with the new owner.

Any other ideas, what do you guys think?

Voluntary system ? I wouldn't sign up as I'm not a fan of insurance and in my healthy breed I would consider it a waste of money.

Compulsory ? Happy days for the byb/thieves who would sell under the radar and make even more profit as they would be a lot cheaper and still make more than the registered breeders.

The only positive I can think of is, premiums should be a lot lower for the health tested litters and it might highlight the issue both for buyers and breeders. Then again most of the health tests aren't relevant for the first few years anyway.

Compulsory. The puppies would be advertised as coming with 1 year insurance in place, and as such the price increase would be explained.

The new owners will be facing a choice - to buy a puppy from a breeder with 4 weeks free insurance which was extended to 1 year, or to buy a puppy from a breeder with just 4 weeks free insurance. Price is the same in both situations minus insurance.

Let's say from the point of view of the breeder a question could be asked, do I want a puppy to go to the new owner who doesn't want the puppy to be insured, or to the new owner who is happy to have the protection at least for the first year of the puppy's life (when many issues if there are any could transpire)?

Remembering that we breeders often don't know the new owners very well, no matter how good research we do and everything. Would not the new owner willingness to have the puppy insured be an extra piece of mind that the puppy is likely to be in the right hands.

If the pup did have health problems and the breeder chose to insure with pet plan or another expensive insurer, the owner would have to stay with that insurer.  I would rather pay just the price of the pup and get my own insurance but I am the kind of person that has a sim only phone plan so I can be more flexible with handsets and tariffs. As a concept, insurance for a year would  e good but would only suit some people.

Not being au fait with insurance, would insurance companies agree to an extended policy if the puppy had changed hands?   I think this is far too complicated an idea.   And frankly I have never gone with insurance in any case, mainly because with the numbers we had through most of our time with our breed, it simply wouldn't have been feasible.   We had good vets who, knowing we'd pay them before feeding ourselves, would allow stage payment if we hit a bad patch.   Which wasn't that often.   Insurance didn't normally cover our biggest expenses (whelping) in any case.  

I'd rather breeders concentrate on producing a healthy line and choosing owners who would look after the puppies they sold.   Again, Insurance Companies are not in the habit of doing anything other than making money for that Company!

the breeder extends the insurance for 1 year for each of the puppies in the name of the new owner.
should a puppy come back to the breeder ill or mistreated or anything, the breeder will be in a better position to help this puppy
But the insurance would be in the name of the new owner so the breeder would not be able to claim on that policy

If the owner wanted to change insurers they would have problems with 'pre-existing' conditions

in other words No, good idea on the surface buy not when you look further.

Think it's way too complicated.

My 3 dogs are insured with Direct Line and there are discounts on the policy if more dogs are added (discount per dog, I mean).  No way would I want to be forced to have another insurance for the first year with a new puppy and be unable to add the puppy to my existing policy.  If an issue occurred that first year, I could be stuck with that insurance for life.

> But the insurance would be in the name of the new owner so the breeder would not be able to claim on that policy

I don't seem to find anywhere it says that if the dog changes the owner, her existing insurance becomes invalid, the new owner has to take put new insurance and all conditions under previous insurance become pre-existing conditions?

> Think it's way too complicated.
> My 3 dogs are insured with Direct Line and there are discounts on the policy if more dogs are added (discount per dog, I mean).  No way would I want to be forced to have another insurance for the first year with a new puppy and be unable to add the puppy to my existing policy.

I did say above that the question of a particular policy/provider could be discussed with the potential new owner. Do you think this discussion is going to be too complicated? I confess to thinking it would be a fairly straightforward matter, in the same way as we discuss the new owner conditions at home, their work and daily life routine, their other pets and so on, while assessing whether the puppy would be suitable for this particular home.

> And frankly I have never gone with insurance in any case, mainly because with the numbers we had through most of our time with our breed, it simply wouldn't have been feasible.

Same here. But: personally I would never let a puppy go to a new home which has "numbers", unless it is a fellow breeder or otherwise a person I know very well, in which case it would be entirely different matter of course. (Only once in my experience did we let a puppy go to a house with two dogs, so together with the puppy there were three. The new owners had a large farm which we visited, their existing two dogs were small docile terriers and one of these terriers was at the time 9 years old, the other middle aged.)

Therefore I'm thinking more about ordinary puppy sales, where a person/family is buying the puppy as an only dog, or as a companion to an older dog. The insurance seems to offer additional protection - some new owners may decide to conceal from the breeder how many dogs are already in their household, but if they are asked to buy a 1 year insurance for the new puppy they would be likely to think twice.

Could have problems transfering a policy into another name if the breeders took the puppy back .it's not something that companies usually do as the policy is yours not the  dogs .if a dog is rehomed the policy is normally ended and a new one taken out bu new owner in this case the
breeder  .everything would be reunderwritten with possible exclusions

This is what I've been trying to ascertain, but don't seem to find a precise information on this. I've assumed that at least with leading providers the life policy etc, the policy would stay with the dog and would be transferred to the name of the new owner if the dog is re-homed.

I'll call petplan on Monday to ask. I kind of thought that transferring the policy to the new owner would be in the insurer company interest...

I have had Zumas insurance with several different firms, I have been asked at least twice if I wanted my husband named on the policy as well 'so that he would be able to instigate a claim if, for any reason, I could not.

This makes sense that only the person named on the policy can instigate a claim, if anything there are matters of paying excess which only the person named on the policy has formally agreed to. But can a policy be transferred to a new person should a dog be re-homed? Obviously the new owner would go through same questionnaire agreeing to excess and providing other information such as whether dog will be taking to work etc. Depending on the new owner's circumstances the premium could be raised or lowered I suppose, but the main question would the dog's conditions remain the same...

Say even a more basic scenario than re-homing. A person buys a puppy, insures it. Some time later the person marries, and some time later dies. The spouse gets in touch with the insurance company to transfer the puppy into their name. Common sense tells me there shouldn't be a problem but I'll ask on Monday when I ring them

What about the simple fact that cost of insurance varies according to where you live, with London for instance being more expensive as vet fees are higher? That's another complication.

This I thought would be an example of a different circumstance which could affect the premium but not the conditions regarding the dog. So if a person moves to London they phone the insurance company to notify them of the change, and premiums are adjusted accordingly. And if a person gives the dog to live with another person who lives in London, should it not work in a similar way - they phone the insurance company to notify them of the change etc.

A new owner would have to take a new policy. Think of it like car insurance, if you buy a car in a private sale you would not call up the previous owner's insurance to change to your name, you would arrange your own policy, the same applies to dogs.

It would be interesting to see what they say .if u take the opposite situation where u may want to rebroke the policy elsewhere it has to be a new policy which may gain exclusions
.i appreciate the difference but my understanding is that the policy is yours not the dogs .do let  us know what u find out as I would imagine in another circumstance where someone had their dog insured but needed to regine taking in the existing policy may be cost effective
My knowledge of insurance and the cynic in me says to me this idea may be detrimental to the company as well.as.tye technical detail and so no go.
Just thought it may not be In the ins urers interest as premium is worked out in many things including geographic area and claims experience / costs in the postcode

The big difference with the car is that it is the person driving the car, in other words even if the car is the same a great deal depends on the person whether they are likely to cause accident etc. Whereas with dog insurance it's just the dog really, the one time I took the insurance out I remember there were not that many relevant questions about the owner. That's why I'm thinking the dog may change address moving to a more expensive place, or less expensive place,  or similar, in which case it would make sense to adjust the premiums. But what reason would be there to adjust the conditions of the dog such as to refuse to cover the illness which was coverable in the old place/ with the old owner.

The reason I think it could be in the insurance company interests is because otherwise there would be no incentive for the new owner to take out the policy. I.e. what would be the point if it's going to come with a bunch of exclusions. On the other hand say the dog had few problems as a pup, perhaps some may come back as it gets older, perhaps not, but in any situation overall the insurance company stands a very good chance to earn profit from this dog's continuing policy, particularly with their practice of increasing premiums every year.

I'll report on what they say, never thought about it before as don't use the insurance companies with my own dogs, its just with the breeding it came up and I thought how can the breeder ensure the best for their puppies.

Problem is the Insurance is not transferable, so if pup came back you'd still be liable for any treatment it needed.

Also could male a pup very expensive, annual premium could be as much as the price of a puppy in some breeds..

Not every owner would wish to Insure.  I don't Insure any of mine as it is far too expensive and you still have the excess (often more than run of the mill vet expenses), and by the time in a healthy breed you might need it for age related issues, the premiums are sky high.

Insurance is designed to make them money, it is not like national Insurance, designed to pay for healthcare etc.

>Say even a more basic scenario than re-homing. A person buys a puppy, insures it. Some time later the person marries, and some time later dies. The spouse gets in touch with the insurance company to transfer the puppy into their name. Common sense tells me there shouldn't be a problem but I'll ask on Monday when I ring them

What did they say?

I would imagine that if the ownership changes the policy terminates.

> I would imagine that if the ownership changes the policy terminates.

That is why we issue Cover notes for pups in new owners names, Insurance is not transferable.

Facebook Reply:

Jean Williams says:  My breeder did it for just 8 weeks with the option of carrying the insurance for the rest of the year. A new puppy is a lot more time spent on the puppy ,so I found it a good thing. @ Jean xxx

>Insurance is not transferable

Insurance is fully transferrable, at least with Petplan life policy, just confirmed. There is a transfer code etc similar to transferring microchip. Glad common sense prevailed this time!

Thanks everyone for replies and thoughts. I do understand those people who say that not everyone would want to insure their puppy. However from my point of view as the breeder, I would like my puppies to go to owners who are willing to insure at least for the first year of puppy's life.

Interestingly with healthy breeds (and mine is), insurance seems to be even more pertinent issue because healthy breeds aren't tested. I may make the very best and responsible decisions in my breeding so far as my girls is concerned, but I can never be 100% sure about the sire of the puppies, therefore things may happen.

But I was also thinking that the 1st year insurance is more than inhereted health problems. Puppies get in to trouble. They are excitable, they run and jump without thinking, they make mistakes they may eat something wrong, not listen to the owner and not come back and get run over or attacked by another dog and so on. Lots of things which could of course happen to adult dog, its just that the puppies are more vulnerable and due to their puppy temperaments and early days of the training some of those accidents are more likely to happen to them compared to adult dog.

First thing I remember as a breeder, don't breed unless you can take and care of all of the puppies you have bred should for any reason they come back to you. I'm fortunate to have a lot of space, therefore I'm always able to accept a puppy or adult dog I bred back. However should there be health issues, my bank account is not inexhaustible of course.

Basically if possible I would like to avoid a situation such for example where the puppy is brought back by her crying owner, telling me that the puppy has broken its leg and very expensive surgery is required or the puppy will loose its leg, and that they can't afford it and can't bear the puppy suffering and that's why they are returning it. Crazy scenario I know but I hope you see my point.

I don't Insure, so I would feel a hypocrite forcing a new owner to do so.

I don't insure too, however I self-insure - our dogs have a separate bank account on which we put money every month equivalent to what an insurance company would have charged for every dog that lives with us (we have 4). All money paid for the puppies go to the account too. We've been doing this for a number of years now and the account is comfortably fat now to accommodate expensive medical treatment for our dogs should it be required.

When the new owner comes to buy a puppy however, there is no way to know for sure that they are in the similar position - i.e. that they have a sufficiently fat bank account which will be reserved for the puppy needs only. As such there is absolutely no reason for me to feel like a hypocrite when deciding to sell the puppies with 1 year insurance in place which would guarantee that at least for the first year of the puppy's life it will be protected.

Perhaps it is a personal choice of a breeder when they are parting with their puppies, if so my personal choice is definitely to prefer an owner who can afford a 1 year insurance for the puppy (which currently is around £300-400 in my breed) and is fully happy and willing to do so because the puppy is a greater priority for them than other considerations in this regard, as opposed to the owner who thinks the puppy maybe too expensive because of the insurance fee.