Insurance policies that don’t make logical sense

[teddybeans]

I’m quite amazed how insurance policies are put together and the reasoning (or lack of) that comes with it.  So today I found out that if your dog has a claim say for example surgery to remove a lump.  Typically for these treatments will require several trips to the vet, three at least.  One for consult, two for surgery and three for follow up.  Now hypothetically your policy renewal date is 15 June.  If you visit the vet once before the 15th and make a claim and the other two after the 15th, I was told I need to pay two excess even if we are treating the same illness.  It’s two excess because it’s across two policy periods!  Even if they are one day apart.

 

i think that’s insane.  Surely they can make the restriction 12 months from the first claim which would be more reasonable.

[twodoggies2001]

From my understanding, you don't pay for the followup visit after surgery.

 

[teddybeans]

Perhaps follow up was a bad example.  What I was trying to say was sometimes with an illness it can spread over a few consults.  If it's part of the same illness, it should be part of the same claim.  If it was within the same policy year, even if it was 360 days later, they would consider it the same claim.  It is only boundary cases where the illness spreads across policy years that is ridiculous.

[teddybeans]

10 hours ago, Snook said:

I think that's a hard call as some conditions are ongoing. My dog was treated with antibiotics for a suspected abscess under the gum, but which also could have been a dodgy tooth that needed removing, so the vet wanted to try conservative measures before resorting to surgery. The antibiotics worked but almost a year later his face swelled up again and it was the exact same tooth position that was noted on record as being the cause the first time, so the second time, surgery was the go to response. I wouldn't expect an insurance policy to treat it as the same condition, particularly if it was a new policy period (not that his insurance policy we had covered dental anyway but just using that as an example.) 

I’m not disputing that they shouldn’t impose separate excess across time.

I just think should still be one claim for at least a year rather than per policy period.

[Rebanne]

Just be grateful they paid out. A policy period is a year.

 

[sandgrubber]

It makes sense in financial logic.  Hey, insurance is a business.  They're in it to make money, not to help you and your dog.