Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Pet Insurance -Mental Health Discrimination Clause??

Options
  • 29-04-2010 10:41pm
    #1
    salsagal
    Registered Users Posts: 90 ✭✭


    Hi all,

    I wonder if anyone has any views on the legality of the following clause in a pet insurance policy.

    Re: payment for boarding kennel / cattery fees, the insurance company will not pay ...
    "any costs resulting from you going into a hospital for the treatment of alcoholism, drug abuse, drug addiction, attempted suicide or self-inflicted injuries."

    I've noticed this in 2, possibly 3 different pet-insurance companies' policies and am intrigued by the specificity of the opt-out clause.

    I've contacted the Financial Regulator, who pointed me toward the Equality Authority who mailed me some legalese about the exact terms of discrimination and if I reckon I was being discriminated against, then I could take a personal case.

    I don't want to take a personal case as it hasn't happened to me (that I need to claim for kennelling costs, having ended up in a psych ward due to suicidal actions - not saying I'm not close (for real!)) but wanted some more general way of challenging their rather discriminatory idea that suicide or self-harm isn't a mental health condition similar to cancer being a physical health condition that they have deemed okay to be a reason for hospitalisation (just using cancer as an example).
    Any views?


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    dudara
    Registered Users Posts: 33,519 ✭✭✭✭dudara


    Moved to Banking & Insurance & Pensions

    dudara


  • Options
    #3
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    salsagal wrote: »
    "any costs resulting from you going into a hospital for the treatment of alcoholism, drug abuse, drug addiction, attempted suicide or self-inflicted injuries."

    People who obsess about their pet animals to the point of insuring them are more likely to suffer mental illness or dependencies given their inherent personality traits.

    The risk is unacceptable and therefore it is not covered by an explicit clause.

    The 'body kit' clause in car insurance is designed to weed out a similar unacceptable risk amongst drivers, namely that modified cars are more likely to be driven badly resulting in an accident.


  • Options
    #4
    salsagal
    Registered Users Posts: 90 ✭✭salsagal


    Sponge Bob wrote: »
    People who obsess about their pet animals to the point of insuring them are more likely to suffer mental illness or dependencies given their inherent personality traits.

    Sponge Bob are you for real???????

    Where's the proof behind such a weird claim? People who insure their animals are surely doing what people who insure their health or their cars do - opting to be covered in case of an accident which will incur even higher expenses without insurance.


  • Options
    #5
    Grumpypants
    Registered Users Posts: 7,768 ✭✭✭Grumpypants


    People insure their animals because Vet bills are massive. It can cost more to get an operation on a dog than a person in some cases.

    I would guess that this is a common enough clause to be added as they dont want to pay out on self inflicted problems to the owner. When they enter into a contract they want to ensure that the person in question will act responsible.


  • Options
    #6
    Exclamation Marc
    Registered Users Posts: 11,391 ✭✭✭✭Exclamation Marc


    Sponge Bob wrote: »
    People who obsess about their pet animals to the point of insuring them are more likely to suffer mental illness or dependencies given their inherent personality traits.

    I assume you're taking the píss when you say this, and clearly you either don't have a pet or just don't care if it gets ill or whatnot. Our next door neighbour's dog had to have operations in hospital to repair an accident he had. The bill in A&E was over 200 quid, as the dog was bleeding quite a lot and was screaming in agony. That and medicine afterwards. They didn't have pet insurance.

    I pay just over €10 a month for insurance for my dog, so if an accident happens, I'm not forced into having to pay all that money up front, and that's nothing to do with my likelihood to suffer mental illness, thats just economic common sense.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    pauld
    Registered Users Posts: 220 ✭✭pauld


    Each of the exclsuions listed in the clause relate to moral hazard. All of these hazards are created by the actions of the policyholder who has the sole power to mitigate or eliminate the risks associated with these hazards.A such, they are not insurable. Similar exclusions would apply in Life policies.

    I do not see how it discriminates against anyone as there are no exceptions quoted


  • Options
    #8
    salsagal
    Registered Users Posts: 90 ✭✭salsagal


    Not having a life policy I haven't had the opportunity to peruse the T&C on something like that...I must do that and see if they make the same exclusions.

    Having some knowledge of mental health, especially where depression and suicide is concerned, it could easily be argued that a person who self harms or attempts suicide is as much a 'victim' of their illness - which is not a choice or a moral decision - . as someone who suffers cancer as a result of a nicotine addiction and needs hospitalisation which results in kennelling costs for their pets.


Advertisement