# Loaner unfortunately lost horse but now in tricky situation...



## BBoutiqueBlog (5 April 2014)

Hi new to here but felt that I needed to get some advice from like minded people...

I have recently lost my horse that I had been loaning for 5 years at an event due to a fatal heart attack. As said, me and my Mum had loaned the horse for 5 years and had paid for everything (vet fees, livery, tack etc) and had taken out an insurance policy in case of injury/loss to rider and horse. Therefore the premium has been paid by us and so we made the claim when said horse passed away. No loan agreement was set out at the beginning of the loan...

The tricky thing is now the owner wants half of the money from the insurance even though they signed a letter saying that they were happy for the full amount that would be paid out by insurers to come to us. The owner has four other horses, 2 rising 4 and two other horses which are all not insured. The owner is getting back tack which they paid for (including a saddle worth at least £900 after only just having it changed). We feel now that this is just becoming a money making scheme and know that in no way will any amount of money ever bring the horse back that I loved. If the money has to be split we then are left with only a small amount of money to buy a horse and tack... 

I would like to know peoples views on this... Thanks for your time!


----------



## vickyb (5 April 2014)

If you have paid the premiums and have the letter you mention, I wouldn't have thought that they have a leg to stand on re getting half the money.


----------



## webble (5 April 2014)

I would take all paperwork to a solicitor and see what they say. Good luck and sorry for your loss


----------



## Penny Less (5 April 2014)

Sorry to hear of your loss. I would think that if the owners had signed a letter saying you could have the insurance, then they don't have a  case


----------



## Fides (5 April 2014)

This is why as an owner I would always pay the insurance myself when loaning. The owner has no comeback unfortunately  it is a horrible situation  the owner is the one that has lost the financial side of the horse but the loaner gets the money  you legally get to keep the money but morally, I think it is wrong


----------



## Patterdale (5 April 2014)

The owner has no comeback, they should have taken out their own insurance.
Plus you have the letter. 

It's cut and dried, I would just tell them that they won't be having a penny from YOUR insurance claim and then stop answering the phone to them. 

Yes they've lost out, but they knew the risk they were taking when they didn't take out insurance.


----------



## cappucino (5 April 2014)

wrong thread!


----------



## Jnhuk (5 April 2014)

If you paid the premiums then you should get the payout or you could ask the owner that if they wish 50% of the insurance payout, that they need to pay you 50% of the insurance premiums that you have paid over the course of the loan.

Let me guess which will be more.

What I can't understand if you bought all the tack, why is the £900 saddle being returned or have I misunderstood.


----------



## el_Snowflakes (5 April 2014)

Sorry to hear about your horse and the situation you have found yourself in.

The owner signed an agreement to say that money would go to you so she doesn't have a leg to stand on. If you think it might make her back off you could try having your solicitor send a letter stating the above. However, it would be better to try to solve this amicably if possible.


----------



## EffyCorsten (5 April 2014)

Sorry for your loss, but I think I would be splitting the money between us. if it's not about the money then it wouldn't be a problem for you to split it. I don't know how much you're pay out is but Usually you always have to pay out more to get another horse it's just the way it is I'm afraid. 

The owner has lost out financially too they have lost an asset but they must also be feeling pretty upset that the horse has passed away. the last thing anyone needs is to fall out over money as you must have some sort of relationship with them after 5 years. 

Hope it all gets sorted for you all


----------



## Toby_Zaphod (5 April 2014)

This is  difficult one. You don't own the horse but by insuring the horse you also prevent the owners insuring it as a horse or indeed any item cannot have two policies running on them. Really the owner should have insured the horse against death & you should have insured for vet bills.

If you loaned someone a car & they insured it & they crashed it writing it off then who would the money go to? I suggest that you would have the money as it is your car & your loss. The fact that it is a horse makes no difference.

The fact that the owners are getting tack back that they paid for has nothing to do with the claim. The fact they have other horses that are not insured again is nothing to do with the matter in hand.

If you have it in writing from them that you are to keep the insurance money then possibly you may be able to. To be sure you need to seek professional advice from a solicitor. You don't need an equine solicitor for this, any solicitor should do.

This is a messy situation & I hope it gets resolved to everyone's satisfaction however I doubt it.


----------



## Doormouse (5 April 2014)

Fides said:



			This is why as an owner I would always pay the insurance myself when loaning. The owner has no comeback unfortunately  it is a horrible situation  the owner is the one that has lost the financial side of the horse but the loaner gets the money  you legally get to keep the money but morally, I think it is wrong 

Click to expand...

Why? The owner choose not to pay insurance premiums and the loaner did, simples.

Sorry but I cannot see why the owner having choosen not to pay insurance should be in anyway entitled to the pay out. If she still had the horse with her and the accident had happened while she was in charge then she still wouldn't have any money because she chooses not to insure any of her horses.


----------



## khalswitz (5 April 2014)

Toby_Zaphod said:



			This is  difficult one. You don't own the horse but by insuring the horse you also prevent the owners insuring it as a horse or indeed any item cannot have two policies running on them. Really the owner should have insured the horse against death & you should have insured for vet bills.

If you loaned someone a car & they insured it & they crashed it writing it off then who would the money go to? I suggest that you would have the money as it is your car & your loss. The fact that it is a horse makes no difference.

The fact that the owners are getting tack back that they paid for has nothing to do with the claim. The fact they have other horses that are not insured again is nothing to do with the matter in hand.

If you have it in writing from them that you are to keep the insurance money then possibly you may be able to. To be sure you need to seek professional advice from a solicitor. You don't need an equine solicitor for this, any solicitor should do.

This is a messy situation & I hope it gets resolved to everyone's satisfaction however I doubt it.
		
Click to expand...

This.

Perosnally, I think it's mad that you've insured for death - it;s not your horse. You haven't bought it, and therefore it's not your financial loss. Vets bills I do understand, but not death. So I see why the owner would be upset.

If you have a signed letter, then they don't have a leg to stand on, but you've managed to make money out of their loss so I do feel for them a bit.

I do agree that they shouldn't just get free insurance pay out, but I think morally what you've done is a bit off... and I can see why they;ve said what they have. Tack etc irrelevant as presumably it was theirs anyway (as was the horse!!)


----------



## Fides (5 April 2014)

Toby_Zaphod said:



			If you loaned someone a car & they insured it & they crashed it writing it off then who would the money go to? I suggest that you would have the money as it is your car & your loss. The fact that it is a horse makes no difference.
		
Click to expand...

actually it does  the owner will get nothing - legally it is right that the owner gets the money but morally it is wrong  it's like life insurance - you don't have to be the spouse to insure someone and make a claim...


----------



## Chunkie (5 April 2014)

Sorry for your loss - it's hard enough to deal with as it is, without this added complication.

The insurance company will only pay out to the person who's paid the premiums.  What you do with the money is up to you, but IMO, if the owner chose not to pay the premiums, then she chose to accept the financial loss.

Hope it gets sorted soon.


----------



## WelshD (5 April 2014)

khalswitz said:



			This.

Perosnally, I think it's mad that you've insured for death - it;s not your horse. You haven't bought it, and therefore it's not your financial loss. Vets bills I do understand, but not death. So I see why the owner would be upset.

If you have a signed letter, then they don't have a leg to stand on, but you've managed to make money out of their loss so I do feel for them a bit.

I do agree that they shouldn't just get free insurance pay out, but I think morally what you've done is a bit off... and I can see why they;ve said what they have. Tack etc irrelevant as presumably it was theirs anyway (as was the horse!!)
		
Click to expand...

This. Absolutely. 

I can see why the loaner should be getting vets fees back but am astonished that they should feel a lump sum on value for death is their rightful money. 

You wouldnt sell a loan horse so why expect its value after an accident? In fact im amazed that the insurance company would pay out a lump sum value to someone who wasnt the owner as so many scams could be done that way

The fact that the owner agreed to the loaner keeping the payout has effectively shot them in the foot but as a loaner my concience wouldnt let me keep the money full stop.


----------



## Patterdale (5 April 2014)

I once loaned out an incredibly valuable horse to good friends who promised to insure it. I didn't check. The horse died. They hasn't insured it. 
I lost out to the tune of tens of thousands. 

It was crap but it was my fault. 

The owner here will learn their lesson. They choose not to insure their other horses too so they obviously know of and accept the risk.


----------



## Pinkvboots (5 April 2014)

Fides said:



			This is why as an owner I would always pay the insurance myself when loaning. The owner has no comeback unfortunately  it is a horrible situation  the owner is the one that has lost the financial side of the horse but the loaner gets the money  you legally get to keep the money but morally, I think it is wrong 

Click to expand...

How is it wrong these people have paid all the premiums they should get the money, if the owner wanted the money they should have paid the insurance so I dont think its morally wrong, the owner does not even insure the horses they have now so why should the loaner even offer them any.

I also agree that the loaner shouldnt have had the horse insured for death with it not being there horse but its done now.


----------



## ester (5 April 2014)

I'm amazed that insurance will pay out for death of a horse that is not owned by you and can't imagine it happening with any type of insurance -are they aware that you do not own the animal?- and hypothetically what would stop people insuring a horse that they haven't paid for and a few months down the line ensuring a fatal accident and claiming the insurance money??


----------



## khalswitz (5 April 2014)

Pinkvboots said:



			How is it wrong these people have paid all the premiums they should get the money, if the owner wanted the money they should have paid the insurance so I dont think its morally wrong, the owner does not even insure the horses they have now so why should the loaner even offer them any.

I also agree that the loaner shouldnt have had the horse insured for death with it not being there horse but its done now.
		
Click to expand...

Because they are making money on the value of a horse that has never belonged to them, and they did not have any ownership rights over, whilst the owner loses the value of their property? I agree owner legally isn't entitled to a penny here, but I think morally this scenario is appalling.

I maybe see this differently as I paid insurance when loaning a horse, on the understanding my paying the premiums was part of the package, but any payout relating to value of the animal or tack belonged to the owner. It was in our loan agreement that I was responsible for market value of the animal on death - so insurance was necessary.


----------



## DEEDEE83 (5 April 2014)

Morally I think its shocking that someone who has no claim or financial imput or loss to an animal/car/item can get paid out on death/loss/theft. Personally what I would do is deduct what I had paid in insurance premiums and pay owner whatever was left but even that is possibly unfair on owner. This shows a loophole in the system and possibly something to be written in to contracts between owners/loaners. Slightly different I work in car insurance and we cover private car policies when the vehicle does not belong to the proposer and pay out if the vehicle is written off to the policyholder not owner.

I just cannot understand how OP can justify her being at a financial loss due to her loan horses death and ultimately thats what insurance is for.

As 2 policies for one animal/object/vehicle cannot be insured at the same time the owner wouldnt of been able to insure herself anyway. Let this be a lesson to anyone thinking of loaning out their horse.


----------



## Shay (5 April 2014)

What a sad situation - my condolences to both sides.

I'm with the more recent posters.  The loanee should really not have insured for death and should not profit from it.  The horse was the property of the owner and it is the owner who should have compensation for its loss.  I am slightly surprised that an insurance company would pay out for loss to someone who did not in fact own the asset lost.  That would open up a whole scam of insuring for the loss of something you didn't actually own then profiting from its loss - whether it is a horse or some other valuable item.  It may well be that this will backfire if the insurance company now deny the claim.  Alternatively the owner may opt to sue for recovery of the asset or equivalent monetary value which it seems to me they are probably entitled to do. 

OP -  perhaps splitting it between you both would be both the pragmatic and the moral thing to do?


----------



## khalswitz (5 April 2014)

DEEDEE83 said:



			Slightly different I work in car insurance and we cover private car policies when the vehicle does not belong to the proposer and pay out if the vehicle is written off to the policyholder not owner.
		
Click to expand...

In that scenario though, the policy pays out value to the policyholder not the owner - but would the owner not be within the rights to sue for damages to their property? Just out of interest.


----------



## Gloi (5 April 2014)

I always thought that a loaner paid the insurance so that if anything happened to the animal whilst in their care they could recompense the owner.


----------



## Goldenstar (5 April 2014)

Gloi said:



			I always thought that a loaner paid the insurance so that if anything happened to the animal whilst in their care they could recompense the owner.
		
Click to expand...

That's certainly what I expected to happen if anything had gone wrong when I had a horse for MrGS on loan.


----------



## DEEDEE83 (5 April 2014)

Sorry unable to quote on phone but with regards to owner suing policyholder for their loss I guess it depends on their contract or relationship. If vehicle is loaned through a company or on HP this will always be written in to the lease and the insurance company aware and will payout to the company direct if it is a personal or informal arrangement we as their insurers dont get involved and just payout to the policyholder. Most insurers we work with require a copy of the contract or HP agreement for this very reason.


----------



## Cowpony (5 April 2014)

I can see both sides here as the OP paid the premiums, but surely the payout is for the loaner to give to the owner, as she can no longer return the horse when required to do so? The horse was on loan, so the owner's and loaner`s expectations would have been that when the arrangement came to an end either the horse would be returned to the owner or the loaner would pay the owner the value of the horse if she wanted to keep it. So the insurance would have been to cover the loaner`s risk that something might happen to the horse and she would have to pay the owner the value. That seems like a very legitimate risk to insure for, but the point is that the money now belongs to the owner as she can no longer ask for the return of the horse.

The loaner has lost nothing financially (although I appreciate the huge emotional loss). She didn't own the horse, hadn't paid for it, and could go out tomorrow and loan another, also at no cost. I would favour the idea somebody suggested above, deduct the premiums from the amount paid out by the insurance company and give the rest to the owner.


----------



## *hic* (5 April 2014)

Loaner has to be in a position to return the horse. Loaner therefore insures horse so that in the event of the loss of the horse, and thus their no longer being able to return it, they can return the value of the horse. It's quite easy! Loaner insures for vets fees because as a loaner they are responsible for vets fees and they want to have any unexpected bills covered, completely different issue.

Owner, according to OP, paid for the £900 saddle which is going back to them as, of course, it should - they paid for it!


----------



## el_Snowflakes (5 April 2014)

Just to add: normally yes, I would say the owner should get the payout but they signed an agreement expressly saying that the money would go to you.

If I was loaning out a horse id be taking out my own insurance so any payout was paid to me, the owner. It seems a strange agreement but they were presumably happy with it when they signed it.


----------



## Honey08 (5 April 2014)

I think its absolutely morally wrong.

When you hire a car you also pay to insure it and if it was stolen the money would go to the car hire company..

When we have had horses on loan we have always paid to insure the horse and have arranged with the insurers that any vets bills pay outs would go to us (who have paid the vets bills) and any death of horse payments should go to the owner (who paid for the horse).

In this case it sounds as though legally the money can be kept by the loaners, however I feel sorry for the poor, poor owner, who loaned their horse out to someone else for them to enjoy the benefits of for five years, and who now gets to keep the value of the horse as well.  Very very bad morals.

Edited to add, on re reading the OP's post I am even more disgusted - you think its a money making scheme by the horse's owner!!!  You won't have any money to buy another horse unless you have this money (which has been made from the death of someone else's horse!!!).  Selfishness in the extreme.  Another reason not to loan a horse out IMO.


----------



## Sheep (5 April 2014)

jemima*askin said:



			Loaner has to be in a position to return the horse. Loaner therefore insures horse so that in the event of the loss of the horse, and thus their no longer being able to return it, they can return the value of the horse. It's quite easy! Loaner insures for vets fees because as a loaner they are responsible for vets fees and they want to have any unexpected bills covered, completely different issue.

Owner, according to OP, paid for the £900 saddle which is going back to them as, of course, it should - they paid for it!
		
Click to expand...


I think this approach makes most sense - of course the idea of a loan is that horse can be returned at theoretically any point - so the insurance payout for the sad loss of the horse should in theory act as the 'return'.


----------



## magicmoose (5 April 2014)

The owner made the decision not to insure the horse and had no agreement in place with regards to the OP making any payment in the case of the loss of the animal. That was their decision. 

If the OP had not insured the horse either and the owner was now demanding payment for the horse, I suspect most people would side with the OP.


----------



## DEEDEE83 (5 April 2014)

Another idea after noticing you have loaned the horse for 5 years and not knowing the amount of work you have put in to it. Give back to the owner what the horse was worth the day the loan started if it was just a baby with minimal value and hadnt done much. That way they are getting back what they lost and you are getting back what you put in. Although to be honest you are saying it seems to be becoming a money making scheme but that seems to be your angle too although I admit there is minimal additional info to go on.


----------



## jrp204 (5 April 2014)

The horse, which had a value was loaned, not gifted. Ownership of the horse has not changed hands and the OP is now unable to return the horse to the owner. OP being unable to buy another horse is irrelevant, they didn't buy this horse and are now depriving the owners of an asset. OP insured the horse, I would expect the value of the horse minus premiums paid to be handed over to the owners, and frankly it is totally immoral to keep the insurance money. If I was the horses owner in this instance I would be sending a bill for the value of the horse at the start if the loan. The letter stating the OP can keep the insurance money is fine, it still doesn't stop the owner sending a bill, how the OP pays it is up to them.


----------



## Polos Mum (5 April 2014)

As someone above said, OP I wouldn't worry too much about who's getting the money, if the insurance company get even a sniff of the fact you don't own the horse they won't pay out anyway.  I'm supprised they didn't ask you whether you owned him or not when you took out the policy. 

The loaner can't insure something for loss that they don't own as they can't loose it 

To make a claim the insurance co will want receipt etc which you won't have.  
Even if they do pay out and then find out later they'll probably come after you for the money - so think long and hard before claiming at all.  

Just think, how would it be different to me insuring all the horses in the national today and being pretty sure I'd be able to make a death claim on one of them - probably a cheaper way of generating money than betting on the winner. 

All loanees should insure their horses themselves and get the loaner to make a contribution to cover vets fees insurance. 

The difference with vets fees is that the loaner is incurring the cost (it's almost always the person who calls the vet who has to pay the bill - unless you've expressly agreed other wise in writing) so the loaner is insuring their risk


----------



## lastchancer (5 April 2014)

Oh what a predicament, and yet another example as to why loaning is such a mine field. 
I'd give half the money to the owner as a good will gesture if nothing else. If I put a horse out on loan I would (and have) insure it myself. However most loans seem to so sour so I'd be very reluctant to do it again.


----------



## lastchancer (5 April 2014)

Are there any legal types on here? Just wondering what the courts would say?


----------



## Polos Mum (5 April 2014)

Lastchancer - likely as not it would be fraud by false representation  - the OP would be claiming loss of a item that didn't belong to her. 
 She can't loose it as it isn't hers.


----------



## Goldenstar (5 April 2014)

Polos Mum said:



			Lastchancer - likely as not it would be fraud by false representation  - the OP would be claiming loss of a item that didn't belong to her. 
 She can't loose it as it isn't hers.
		
Click to expand...

When I insured the horse we loaned the NFU had full knowledge of the situation and that the horse insured was not mine and that I was insuring the horse so I was covered for the cost of the horse if it died/ was damaged  so I could pay the owner .
It's no different to when a owner loans a art gallery a painting the gallery insures it so they can pay the owner if disaster occurs .


----------



## EstherYoung (5 April 2014)

Polos Mum said:



			Lastchancer - likely as not it would be fraud by false representation  - the OP would be claiming loss of a item that didn't belong to her. 
 She can't loose it as it isn't hers.
		
Click to expand...

This would be my gut feeling. Certainly when I've insured loan horses, there have been exclusions on this basis. I've got a feeling neither of you will end up with the money


----------



## Polos Mum (5 April 2014)

Goldenstar said:



			When I insured the horse we loaned the NFU had full knowledge of the situation and that the horse insured was not mine and that I was insuring the horse so I was covered for the cost of the horse if it died/ was damaged  so I could pay the owner .
It's no different to when a owner loans a art gallery a painting the gallery insures it so they can pay the owner if disaster occurs .
		
Click to expand...

Absolutely GS but probably technically what you're insuring isn't actually the horse (or painting) it's the risk that you have to give a large cheque to the owner of the horse/ painting in event you can't return the actual item to them - this very much is your risk and hence you are absolutely fine (and sensible) to insure against it


----------



## Kitty B (5 April 2014)

I agree that the owner of the horse should have insured it herself. However, wanting a portion of the money would not be any sort of 'scheme' in my opinion, but rather something she is entitled to. OP can not return the horse, so it is only right to return the value of the horse. If the insurance company pays this sum out to you, it is not rightfully your money as it was not your horse. I agree that if there is money back from premiums, then fine, but the money paid out on the value of the animal is for the owner of the animal, and that, OP, is not you. The owner should not have signed any letter stating that you could keep any payout, and to be honest I can not see any owner doing that to begin with. Who draws up a letter and has the owner sign it, stating that they have taken out insurance on the death of the horse, and the owner is perfectly happy to not get a penny of it? As the owner of any horse on loan, there is absolutely no way I would sign any such thing. That said, I'd have insured it myself, but that is something else entirely. Premiums, keep; value of the horse, do the right thing and return it to the owner, who has really lost here. If you want another horse, find another loan, or do it the right way; save it up yourself and don't use the money kept from an animal that was never yours to begin with. Is it truly fair that the owner loses out entirely, no horse and no money for his value, and you get to go out and buy a new one?


----------



## evilzebra (5 April 2014)

Hi all, I sadly lost a horse I had on loan for 4 years. The insurance had death cover as mandatory so as I insured for vets fees this cover came along with it. The insurance company took the legal owners details and would only pay the death claim direct to the owner. This was because the owners name was on the receipt of sale/passport etc which had to be provided for the claim. They confirmed they would not have paid to me as they were aware the horse was on loan. Vets fees were paid direct to the vet, disposal cost to myself and death cover benefit to the owner.


----------



## Mince Pie (5 April 2014)

Honey08 said:



			I think its absolutely morally wrong.

When you hire a car you also pay to insure it and if it was stolen the money would go to the car hire company..

When we have had horses on loan we have always paid to insure the horse and have arranged with the insurers that any vets bills pay outs would go to us (who have paid the vets bills) and any death of horse payments should go to the owner (who paid for the horse).

In this case it sounds as though legally the money can be kept by the loaners, however I feel sorry for the poor, poor owner, who loaned their horse out to someone else for them to enjoy the benefits of for five years, and who now gets to keep the value of the horse as well.  Very very bad morals.

Edited to add, on re reading the OP's post I am even more disgusted - you think its a money making scheme by the horse's owner!!!  You won't have any money to buy another horse unless you have this money (which has been made from the death of someone else's horse!!!).  Selfishness in the extreme.  Another reason not to loan a horse out IMO.
		
Click to expand...

Sums it up completely for me.


----------



## Tiddlypom (5 April 2014)

Polos Mum said:



			As someone above said, OP I wouldn't worry too much about who's getting the money, if the insurance company get even a sniff of the fact you don't own the horse they won't pay out anyway.  I'm supprised they didn't ask you whether you owned him or not when you took out the policy. 

The loaner can't insure something for loss that they don't own as they can't loose it 

To make a claim the insurance co will want receipt etc which you won't have.  
Even if they do pay out and then find out later they'll probably come after you for the money - so think long and hard before claiming at all.
		
Click to expand...

This is not true.

I have just taken an elderly mare on loan. I have insured her for accidental injury and death with SEIB, who are fully aware that she is a loan horse. The owner's details are recorded on the policy, and SEIB have a copy of the loan agreement, which is based on the BHS template.

In the event of her accidental death, the insured value of the mare is payable to me, and I am to pass it on to the owner. I am to keep any payout for vets fees (as I am responsible for them) and I pay the excess. If she dies from illness, which she is not insured for, then I do not have to pay the owner any recompense. I pay all vets fees for illness up to an agreed value, then I split them 50:50 with the owner if they exceed this value.

I can only impress on anyone who is involved in a loan, how important it is to have a written, formal agreement.


----------



## Fides (5 April 2014)

Shay said:



			What a sad situation - my condolences to both sides.

I'm with the more recent posters.  The loanee should really not have insured for death and should not profit from it.  The horse was the property of the owner and it is the owner who should have compensation for its loss.  I am slightly surprised that an insurance company would pay out for loss to someone who did not in fact own the asset lost.  That would open up a whole scam of insuring for the loss of something you didn't actually own then profiting from its loss - whether it is a horse or some other valuable item.  It may well be that this will backfire if the insurance company now deny the claim.  Alternatively the owner may opt to sue for recovery of the asset or equivalent monetary value which it seems to me they are probably entitled to do. 

OP -  perhaps splitting it between you both would be both the pragmatic and the moral thing to do?
		
Click to expand...

OP doesn't feel she should have to an says the owners are trying to make money out of her??



lastchancer said:



			Are there any legal types on here? Just wondering what the courts would say?
		
Click to expand...

OH is a solicitor and says that unless there is a clause in the insurance (which you can do) stating the the financial interest is in the owner not loaner, there is nothing the owner can do to claim off the insurance. He has also said that if the insurance ask for a bill of receipt and loaner cannot provide one the insurance will not pay out TO EITHER PARTY. Both lose out. OP it is in your best interests to speak with the owner as you may get nothing!

Further he has said that if the horse had not been insured and had died there would be no route of recompense to the owner BUT as the loaner has profited from the death, the owner is within rights to take the loaner to the small claims court for the full value of the horse (not the payout less excess).

OP think very carefully before you try and swindle the owner! You are morally wrong and you may find yourself out of pocket with legal bills to pay too...

Plus who on earth is going to loan you a horse now with this thread online? Good luck in finding another loan - I don't think anyone on here would loan you theirs, I certainly wouldn't!


----------



## hairycob (5 April 2014)

We had a horse on loan that sadly had to be pts. He was insured by me through NFU who were fully aware of the situation. There was no pay out for death as it didn't fulfil BEVA guidelines but if they had paid out I wouldn't have dreamed of keeping the money. Any pay out would have been for the loss of their horse, not mine. Yes you paid for his keep for the last 5 years but you had the use of a horse that someone else had bought for that time.


----------



## Polos Mum (5 April 2014)

Tiddlypom - as I said above you have a binding commitment to return either the horse or a cheque, you are insuring the risk that you don't have the horse to return to the owner and hence you're insuring the risk you have to write a big cheque.  Which is your risk and hence you can insure against it. 

If the OP calls the insurance company and explains that she wasn't the owner of the horse but would like to claim for it's death and keep the money as she has no commitment to pass any of the money on to the owner - it'll take all the debate out of the question, I suspect.


----------



## Mince Pie (5 April 2014)

Broke_But_Happy said:



			Sums it up completely for me.
		
Click to expand...

Also, thinking about it a little more, I think the owner has been incredibly generous in offering you half the value of the horse. To turn round and insinuate that they are now scamming you is totally out of order.


----------



## Darremi (5 April 2014)

This situation exemplifies why it is very important to have well drafted insurance provisions in any loan contract.

I would always recommend the owner holds the policy in their own name and is contractually entitled to recover premiums from the loaner. The loaner should be entitled to request a copy of the insurance certificate.

This is how insurance clauses are set up for commercial property leases.


----------



## FinkleyGladiator (5 April 2014)

When I had Finn (he was owned by redwings) we insured him with NFU and I can't really remember the ins and outs but it was cheaper to insure him for everything rather than just tack and vets bills. They said if he was to die we should use it to make a donation to redwings


----------



## Pigeon (5 April 2014)

I guess whoever paid the insurance will get the money. I would take enough to cover the premiums you've paid over the years and give the rest to the owner.


----------



## honetpot (5 April 2014)

I always thought that you could not insure what you did not own, to prevent fraud. When you take out car insurance they ask who the legal owner is. In any case you are insuring to cover the owners losses, if you didn't own the horse as the loaner you would have no loss. I think your morals are skewed.
 I think its far more straightforward for the owner to insure and claim the premiums back from the loaner then there is no doubt as to who and what is covered.


----------



## Geminismum (5 April 2014)

Money should go to who ever paid the insurance premiums. If the owner hasn't paid for insurance then they can't expect to get a pay out!


----------



## MagicMelon (5 April 2014)

vickyb said:



			If you have paid the premiums and have the letter you mention, I wouldn't have thought that they have a leg to stand on re getting half the money.
		
Click to expand...

But then again they would have paid for the horse in the first place.  Hard one.


----------



## MotherOfChickens (5 April 2014)

Geminismum said:



			Money should go to who ever paid the insurance premiums. If the owner hasn't paid for insurance then they can't expect to get a pay out!
		
Click to expand...

but the loaner didn't have the initial cost of the horse to begin with. So the loaner should get vets fees IMO but the rest should go to the owner. I don't see how someone can claim the purchase price (or value) of an animal they've never purchased but they should get the money back that they've spent treating said animal.


----------



## Exploding Chestnuts (5 April 2014)

I am afraid the owner should have insured the horse if they wanted money in the event of death, would they have paid excess on insurance, or even routine vet bills.
I never really understand why loaning is so popular, if you own a horse why give it to someone else other than the fact you can get it back if the welfare is compromised.,


----------



## Exploding Chestnuts (5 April 2014)

honetpot said:



			I always thought that you could not insure what you did not own, to prevent fraud. When you take out car insurance they ask who the legal owner is. In any case you are insuring to cover the owners losses, if you didn't own the horse as the loaner you would have no loss. I think your morals are skewed.
 I think its far more straightforward for the owner to insure and claim the premiums back from the loaner then there is no doubt as to who and what is covered.
		
Click to expand...

Loaners have have made this agreement only to be told that the premium has not been paid and vet bills are not covered. So it works both ways. 
One can insure anything if one "has an interest", so not a neighbour's horse, but yes one you have on loan.


----------



## shadowboy (5 April 2014)

Maybe I misunderstood but the OP mentioned the owner had a saddle back which the OP had recently changed to the tune of £900? If that's the case the owner potentially has a saddle worth more than they loaned. After 5 years the value of a horse could increase dramatically - and 5 years of premium could also add up to over £1000 the owner could have at any point paid the insurance but it seems they are not interested in protecting their assets so the way I see it if it was a natural death caused through no fault of the loaner that, could it still have happened in the owners care then the owner has no right to the money as they would have lost everything if they had the horse at home with them.


----------



## RunToEarth (5 April 2014)

Polos Mum said:



			Tiddlypom - as I said above you have a binding commitment to return either the horse or a cheque, you are insuring the risk that you don't have the horse to return to the owner and hence you're insuring the risk you have to write a big cheque.  Which is your risk and hence you can insure against it. 

If the OP calls the insurance company and explains that she wasn't the owner of the horse but would like to claim for it's death and keep the money as she has no commitment to pass any of the money on to the owner - it'll take all the debate out of the question, I suspect.
		
Click to expand...

The OP owns the insurance policy and therefore any legitimate claims made - we insure the chancel repair of a local church, morally it is so if anything goes wrong we have reduced our repair liability (glebe land) but on the face of it we can claim and do what we want with it - we had the forethought to insure it. 

Morally I think it is very wrong to financially benefit from a horse you didn't pay for.


----------



## jrp204 (5 April 2014)

" The owner is getting back tack which they paid for (including a saddle worth at least £900 after only just having it changed). We feel now that this is just becoming a money making scheme and know that in no way will any amount of money ever bring the horse back that I loved."

OK, the owner gets back their tack it appears,doesn't say the loaner bought the saddle. OP you actually say no amount of money will bring the horse back so deduct your premiums and since you are unable to return a horse that died on loan to you, give the owner it's value when it came to you.
(Horses don't always increase in value on loan)


----------



## zaminda (5 April 2014)

To my mind the owner should get all the money. If you have a horse on loan you insure it to cover the asset, it doesn't mean you have any right over the actual asset. I would be absolutely furious if a horse I had loaned out died and they kept the money.
The think with loaning is you are borrowing a horse, I dare say they expected to get the horse back at some point, unless it was on permanent loan.
As the loaner, you would not have been allowed to sell the horse to get the monetary value, so why should you have any right over the lump sum at its death? (Of course barring any costs for disposal)


----------



## SO1 (5 April 2014)

In this scenario I would deduct the costs of any insurance premiums that you have paid for over the years and then give the rest of the money back to the owner.

You have had use of the horse without having the associated costs of buying the horse in the first place so this would be the morally correct thing to do.


----------



## Patterdale (5 April 2014)

RunToEarth said:



			Morally I think it is very wrong to financially benefit from a horse you didn't pay for.
		
Click to expand...

As do I. 

But as it seems that this is what OP wants to do, the owner really doesn't have a leg to stand on. 
She didn't take out her own insurance, AND then signed away her right to the money. 

One of the many reasons I will NEVER loan again.....


----------



## Honey08 (5 April 2014)

No I wouldn't loan a horse out again either, more so from reading this.  It sounds like the OP has had five years of fun on someone else's horse and now expects to cash in on it's death, leaving the owner, who provided them with their horse to have fun on, high and dry.  Truly shockingly bad behaviour.  Their name will be mud!


----------



## Dunlin (5 April 2014)

So sorry for the loss of the horse, it must have been a terrible shock. Legally the money will come back to you and you are entitled to keep it as you took the policy out, morally I would be offering the money to the horses owner, it's a hard lesson to learn for the owner, they should have had their own policy. Although you have paid for the horses upkeep when in your hands you did not purchase the horse to begin with. If you borrowed a friends car and wrote it off would you expect to keep all the money from the insurance payout?


----------



## Shutterbug (5 April 2014)

BBoutiqueBlog said:



			owner wants half of the money from the insurance even though they signed a letter saying that they were happy for the full amount that would be paid out by insurers to come to us.
		
Click to expand...

If she agreed to this in writing, and if she did she was fully aware that you had insured the animal for vet bills and death, then you are entitled to keep the money.  Morally correct aside

Yes, the owner has paid out  for the intial cost of the horse so the owner insures the animal for death when it is on loan in order to recoup the initial outlay, but it sounds like you and the owner had a different agreement from what you say.


----------



## Copperpot (5 April 2014)

When I had a horse on loan the owner stipulated I insured it for death. If it had of died I would have had to give the value insured for back to the owner. How could I keep it?

I didn't spend X amount buying the horse and therefore was not entitled to keep the money.


----------



## MagicMelon (5 April 2014)

jrp204 said:



			" The owner is getting back tack which they paid for (including a saddle worth at least £900 after only just having it changed). We feel now that this is just becoming a money making scheme and know that in no way will any amount of money ever bring the horse back that I loved."
		
Click to expand...

Which who paid for, the owner? If the owner paid for the tack then of course they should get it back.  If the loanee sold the original saddle (owned by the owner) in order to buy a new one then IMO they should get the tack back still if its of equal value (or give back the difference).  Otherwise the owners loses out on the cost of their tack as well as the initial cost of the horse.  The loanee is effectively getting a horse for free (and has the option of just handing it back when they dont want it anymore) so IMO paying out for insurance is still a perfectly good deal. Vets fees of course the loanee should get back as they paid for them, but they did not buy the horse originally therefore owner should get loss of horse money. I'm surprised she's only asking for half the money now Ive thought about it.


----------



## Tiddlypom (5 April 2014)

OP is very quiet.......


----------



## Bearsmum (5 April 2014)

I sadly lost a horse I loaned, well she was kept at the owners home, but I was her only rider. I insured her, owner wanted me to have third party cover, so no come back on him if anyone or their property was injured/damaged, and got a riders policy which covered the loss of the horse as well as the cover the owner wanted.
When she died the policy paid out (eventually E&L) and I paid every penny to the owner, yes I'd lost a horse I loved, but he'd paid to buy her in the first place, I didn't think that morally the money was mine.


----------



## jrp204 (5 April 2014)

MM, Sorry, should have put "quote" on the first bit, it was copied from the original post and is not my opinion.


----------



## Illusion100 (5 April 2014)

From years of experience working in Equine Insurance, many horses die or require euthanasia everyday. Horse owners know that horses die or are PTS through injury, illness, disease, or can require extensive veterinary fees, it's not a rare and shocking phenomenon...... this is why Insurance exists.

To prevent loosing out on cashing in on your horses death, illness/injury etc, you insure it. Something this horses owner failed to do. 

This owner happily loaned out a horse for 5 years, very happy that Vets Fees, farriery, worming, livery, feeding etc weren't their problem to pay for and carried on their life with their other uninsured horses. 

Plus, as they have NOT financially contributed towards the horse for 5 YEARS, (unless this horses value was CONSIDERABLE), the owner has already been remunerated for the value of the horse by not having to put their hand in their pocket for this horse whatsoever for the last half decade.

The loaner was morally and financially responsible and insured the horse. With some insurance policies LOA (Loss of Animal) is compulsory. The loaner paid the Premiums, the money is hers. 

Now the owner wants money for the horse???? The owner now wants money for the horse they loaned to someone else to pay for, for 5 years, that they didn't even bother to insure themselves? IMO, THIS is morally wrong.

The Owner fobbed off responsibility for this horse for years and now wants a pay off because the Loaner paid for Insurance. MORALLY WRONG!

I am sorry to hear you lost this horse OP.


----------



## Roasted Chestnuts (5 April 2014)

If I had kept a horse as mines for five years, paid out on everything, cared for that horse like it was mine,and insured it like it was mine and the owner had written a letter stating I could keep the money then that' exactly what I would be doing. 

How is this person making a profit when premiums alone are probably more than the horse death payout? I loaned out my boy and he was insured by me for the loaners, they paid any excess for vets treatment but if he died then the payment went to me as i paid the insurance. Small price to pay for my peace of mind was the £21 a month.


----------



## Horseycrazy (5 April 2014)

To the OP you have done nothing wrong, the owner should have insured the horse if it was an issue. Well done for having the common sense to insure the horse.


----------



## jrp204 (5 April 2014)

So, I lived in a house that belonged to my father, he paid no maintenance for it for 20 years, we insured it. If it fell down he would have the insurance money as it is HIS house. We were grateful for the opportunity.
This horse was loaned, it is irrelevant what the owner paid for or even if they insured it, it was up to the OP to loan the horse, they could have put their hands in their pockets and BOUGHT one but they chose to loan off someone else. 1 yr, 5 yrs, 20 yrs, it is still a loan and the horse is not theirs. They have nothing to return to the owner except the value of the horse when it came to them less the premium.


----------



## Doublethyme (5 April 2014)

Illusion100 said:



			From years of experience working in Equine Insurance, many horses die or require euthanasia everyday. Horse owners know that horses die or are PTS through injury, illness, disease, or can require extensive veterinary fees, it's not a rare and shocking phenomenon...... this is why Insurance exists.

To prevent loosing out on cashing in on your horses death, illness/injury etc, you insure it. Something this horses owner failed to do. 

This owner happily loaned out a horse for 5 years, very happy that Vets Fees, farriery, worming, livery, feeding etc weren't their problem to pay for and carried on their life with their other uninsured horses. 

Plus, as they have NOT financially contributed towards the horse for 5 YEARS, (unless this horses value was CONSIDERABLE), the owner has already been remunerated for the value of the horse by not having to put their hand in their pocket for this horse whatsoever for the last half decade.

The loaner was morally and financially responsible and insured the horse. With some insurance policies LOA (Loss of Animal) is compulsory. The loaner paid the Premiums, the money is hers. 

Now the owner wants money for the horse???? The owner now wants money for the horse they loaned to someone else to pay for, for 5 years, that they didn't even bother to insure themselves? IMO, THIS is morally wrong.

The Owner fobbed off responsibility for this horse for years and now wants a pay off because the Loaner paid for Insurance. MORALLY WRONG!

I am sorry to hear you lost this horse OP.
		
Click to expand...

This.   I'm really surprised how many people think differently.    Any owner doesn't automatically have death insurance on their 'asset'. It's personal choice and insurance doesn't belong to anyone but the person paying the premiums.   If the owner was that bothered they would have insured themselves and if required put a clause in the loan making the loaner responsible for paying them the premiums. They didn't and they don't insure any of their other stock, so who is morally wrong and cashing in???    The owner in my view, as it sounds like if horse had died with them it would not have been insured anyway. 

You paid the premiums, you keep the money.


----------



## ester (5 April 2014)

I would still be surprised that insurance would pay out on a horse you didn't own, hence asking ages ago whether they know horse was on loan or not - as yet unanswered. Until the OP has a cheque in her hand it could all become a moot point!


----------



## Evie91 (5 April 2014)

Wow I'm amazed how many people think owners should cover the insurance for a horse that is out on loan.
I was a loaner and happily paid the premiums - it was in my contract that the horse should have been insured. I was happy with this as it meant vet bills were covered. The owner stipulated the amount the horse should be insured for. 
Loaning means you don't have to find the money for a horse upfront - no way on earth would I have thought I could keep the money if anything had happened to the horse, despite paying the premiums as I never paid for horse (the horse is on loan not owned).Yes, I would have paid out for many years and had years of enjoyment during this time. Why should the loaner profit when the animal dies.
Perhaps the owner signed an agreement to say the loaner could keep the money, but perhaps the owner was not thinking clearly at this time.
Loaner is no worse off than when she started loan. Owner has lost money she paid out. The money should all go to the owner. I'm amazed others are suggesting otherwise. Whether owner chooses to insure her other horses or not is entirely her business and nothing to do with case in point. It may well be a condition of loan that horse is insured.


----------



## honetpot (5 April 2014)

Illusion100 said:



			From years of experience working in Equine Insurance, many horses die or require euthanasia everyday. Horse owners know that horses die or are PTS through injury, illness, disease, or can require extensive veterinary fees, it's not a rare and shocking phenomenon...... this is why Insurance exists.

To prevent loosing out on cashing in on your horses death, illness/injury etc, you insure it. Something this horses owner failed to do. 

This owner happily loaned out a horse for 5 years, very happy that Vets Fees, farriery, worming, livery, feeding etc weren't their problem to pay for and carried on their life with their other uninsured horses. 

Plus, as they have NOT financially contributed towards the horse for 5 YEARS, (unless this horses value was CONSIDERABLE), the owner has already been remunerated for the value of the horse by not having to put their hand in their pocket for this horse whatsoever for the last half decade.

The loaner was morally and financially responsible and insured the horse. With some insurance policies LOA (Loss of Animal) is compulsory. The loaner paid the Premiums, the money is hers. 

Now the owner wants money for the horse???? The owner now wants money for the horse they loaned to someone else to pay for, for 5 years, that they didn't even bother to insure themselves? IMO, THIS is morally wrong.

The Owner fobbed off responsibility for this horse for years and now wants a pay off because the Loaner paid for Insurance. MORALLY WRONG!

I am sorry to hear you lost this horse OP.
		
Click to expand...

 I have loaned my ponies out for a number of years and on numerous occasions, I do not insure them as I am prepared to take the loss even though in their time they have been quite valuable. If I decided to insure them depending on their use I would expect the loaner to pay the premiums and it would be part of the contract. No matter how long a loaner has an animal and how much they spend its still not their horse, that's why its called a loan. Whether I horse is on loan for 5 minutes or five years I would be absolutely hopping if I found out the loaner had claimed loss of use and pocketed the money, it leaves it open to abuse as why look after an animal if you get recompensed for its loss for something you never paid for. 
 Insurance is supposed to leave you in a situation where you would be before the claim, in this case the loaner would be better off, the amount of money paid in premiums should have no baring its an insurance policy not a savings account.


----------



## Illusion100 (5 April 2014)

Doublethyme said:



			This.   I'm really surprised how many people think differently.    Any owner doesn't automatically have death insurance on their 'asset'. It's personal choice and insurance doesn't belong to anyone but the person paying the premiums.   If the owner was that bothered they would have insured themselves and if required put a clause in the loan making the loaner responsible for paying them the premiums. They didn't and they don't insure any of their other stock, so who is morally wrong and cashing in???    The owner in my view, as it sounds like if horse had died with them it would not have been insured anyway. 

You paid the premiums, you keep the money.
		
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more. The OP was the one who has just lost the horse they have loved, cared and paid for, for many years....now the Owner wants paid off????!!! The owner didn't pay for Insurance but feels entitled to benefit from the loss of an animal they haven't bothered with for years??? 

I'm on the OP's side on this one.


----------



## Tobiano (5 April 2014)

Sorry OP for the loss of your loan horse - very sad.

I do agree that the OP should not have to pay the owners because nothing was said in the agreement.  I loaned out my horse for 4 years (have now gifted him to his loaner) and asked for her to arrange and pay for the insurance but stipulated in the loan agreement that in the event of the death of the horse the insurance claim would come to me.  The main reason for this was if there was any veterinary treatment needed, and the fact that with the loaner dealing with all the insurance she would be able to speak directly to the insurance company rather than having to go through me all the time.  Fortunately in our case it did not come to that but I would have kept the money had there been a claim, as that was the agreement.

In this case as there was no agreement I think it entirely reasonable that the OP keeps the money and hope she will be able to buy another horse with it.


----------



## Illusion100 (5 April 2014)

honetpot said:



			I have loaned my ponies out for a number of years and on numerous occasions, I do not insure them as I am prepared to take the loss even though in their time they have been quite valuable. If I decided to insure them depending on their use I would expect the loaner to pay the premiums and it would be part of the contract. No matter how long a loaner has an animal and how much they spend its still not their horse, that's why its called a loan. Whether I horse is on loan for 5 minutes or five years I would be absolutely hopping if I found out the loaner had claimed loss of use and pocketed the money, it leaves it open to abuse as why look after an animal if you get recompensed for its loss for something you never paid for. 
 Insurance is supposed to leave you in a situation where you would be before the claim, in this case the loaner would be better off, the amount of money paid in premiums should have no baring its an insurance policy not a savings account.
		
Click to expand...

Nobody is debating as to whom this horse belonged to. No contract for paying premiums/pay outs to either parties described. The owner did not state that the loaner must insure horse for LOA and pay out must go to them. 

So if horse not insured by loaner, this situation would not have arisen.


----------



## Angelbones (5 April 2014)

OP - if you had insured the horse and after 4 months it had died, would you then feel you should benefit from the payout?

I think some of the feeling that the OP is due the money is that the loan went on for 5 years, and has therefore paid substantially over time to insure the horse. If the horse had died in month 3 and a payout of, say, £4k had been made then I think it would have been a different story. If the OP can think of the term of the loan in individual parts, eg if the notice period is one month then the term of the loan is one month renewing, and each month is insured, but if no claim is made then that month's money is lost, then to benefit substantially on the fatal month's insurance seems very wrong.  Presumably at the start of the loan it wasn't known how long the loan would go on for - the OP could have paid out for one year and then the horse could  have gone back. As it was the loan lasted much longer and the insurance premiums have totalled a healthy sum which starts to feel like an investment in the horse, but just paying out for a horse obviously doesn't mean you are any more entitled than the owner and no part of the ownership title has passed to you. Yes the owner should have insured for loss, and the loanee for vet fees, but even with the note from the owner passing up the payout, I still feel the loanee should pay the owner the half they are asking for - they are lucky not to be paying it all back to the owner.

OP - the question is, taking on board that you have done nothing wrong by insuring the horse, and that the owner signed away some of their claim, how comfortable do you really feel about keeping all the money and ending the relationship with the owner? If you have no qualms over it, keep the money. If you have an ounce of doubt that it is fair or just or right, share it. 

If the shoe was on the other foot and the owner had insured for loss, and the horse died resulting in a pay out, would the OP approach the owner expecting some/half/all of the money? And if the owner offered the loanee some of the money, would we all think that was wrong, or lovely, or fair? Would we be telling the OP to turn it down? Would we tell the OP to ask for money from the pay out as they had been looking after the horse for 5 years?

This whole thing has made me question a loan agreement I have in place at the mo - the loanee is insuring my horse, and this type of aspect hasn't been nailed down properly, I can see that now.


----------



## smellsofhorse (5 April 2014)

They are trying it on.
They signed to say you could have the money.
You looked after the horse.
Just ignore them.
Hopefully the insurance will pay out with no issues.
Sometimes they will only pay to owner.

This another example of why an agreement is needed, even after so long, things can go wrong.


----------



## HaffiesRock (5 April 2014)

I have not read all the replies here, but as both an owner and a full loaner, I can give my point of view. For my share pony I have taken out insurance. The pony is question is low value, but if anything were to happen to her, I wouldn't for a second consider keeping the pay out on death. It is not my pony, therefore not my money, regardless of how long I had loaned her for, how much I had paid into her etc. The insurance is to cover vet fees and public liability. 

If I was to loan my own boy out, I would fully insure him myself so I knew he was covered for vet fee's etc. Again, he is not a high value animal, and no amount of money could ever replace him, but the long and short of it is, if I own a horse, any payout on death belongs to me, regardless of whether myself or the loaner insure.


----------



## AmieeT (5 April 2014)

In this situation I would keep the money.

Owner has signed to say she accepted this as so, it's there in black and white. So she paid for the horse- loaner has also paid 5 years worth of maintenance which would have been a small fortune the owner saved.

I loan, and I pay for all except insurance. To be perfectly honest, even if i did, I wouldn't give a damn about the money, he means more to me than that- as he does to the owner.

Ax


----------



## honetpot (5 April 2014)

Illusion100 said:



			Nobody is debating as to whom this horse belonged to. No contract for paying premiums/pay outs to either parties described. The owner did not state that the loaner must insure horse for LOA and pay out must go to them. 

So if horse not insured by loaner, this situation would not have arisen.
		
Click to expand...

She will still be better off as she has not purchased the animal, in your insurance disclosure it asks for the sum paid and any value over that has to be accounted for. I also hate the this idea that if you loan an animal for a long period that somehow you are taking advantage of the loaner and the owner doesn't care. I have been on both sides of this as a loaner and a owner, I had a loan horse PTS and at the time got money for the carcass and I gave it to charity, it was not my money even through I had looked after him for ten years.


----------



## millikins (5 April 2014)

I find it very strange that many people consider that paying the keep of a horse for several years somehow equates to a sort of informal hire purchase agreement. If I rent a flat for 5 years it doesn't mean I own any part of it at the end.


----------



## HashRouge (5 April 2014)

I really, really don't understand why there is any debate over this. It is not a question of who owned the animal, but a question of who payed the insurance premiums. You don't automatically get money upon the death of your horse and, in this case, the owner does not have any of their other animals insured and left the question of insurance in the hands of the loaner. If they wanted some payout on the death of the horse then they should either have paid the insurance themselves OR simply paid the portion relating to the loss of the animal. 
Morally a lot of people might feel inclined to split the money with the owner, but as far as I can see the owner doesn't have any actual right to a penny.


----------



## Orangehorse (5 April 2014)

I learned at college that you could not insure something in which you did not have a legal "interest" i.e. own it.  However, it seems that with horse insurance it is different!

When I loaned out my mare (with a loan agreement, of course) I telephoned the insurance company to ask for their advice and was very surprised to learn that they would accept insurance from the loanee.  In the end we agreed that I would pay the insurance in full, but that they would give me a cheque for half the premium.

I am afraid that I can't give an opinion on the OP's dilema - I really can't sort this one out!


----------



## ladyt25 (5 April 2014)

Sorry - the owner OWNs the horse whether you have it on loan for 6 mths or 6 years, it is still ON LOAN. Normally on a proposal form when you apply for horse insurance it will ask you if you own the horse and, if not you supply the details of the owner. Therefore, should the horse die the settlement goes to the owner as ultimately they are the ones who have lost out financially as in they are the ones who paid 'x' for said horse originally or who could have sold said horse for 'x' amount.

Same applies if horse needed an operation under GA. Generally the insurance company would ensure the owner wished for the procedure to go ahead as they have an insurable interest in the horse irrespective if they pay for all or part of the insurance premium.

General vets fees, liability, personal accident cover, tack etc are usually paid to the loanee as they are the ones responsible for the horse.

Death cover is usually obligatory and actually makes up very little of an insurance premium anyway. It is usually part of the 'package' offered by Insurance companies along with liability cover. Vets fees are the expensive part of insurance.


----------



## Meandtheboys (5 April 2014)

Not sure who you are insured with but I always though 'Proof of Ownership' receipt etc. was required as part of a claim for death.


----------



## Illusion100 (5 April 2014)

Meandtheboys said:



			Not sure who you are insured with but I always though 'Proof of Ownership' receipt etc. was required as part of a claim for death.
		
Click to expand...

No.


----------



## MotherOfChickens (5 April 2014)

Meandtheboys said:



			Not sure who you are insured with but I always though 'Proof of Ownership' receipt etc. was required as part of a claim for death.
		
Click to expand...

that is true actually, I had to provide one for Petplan last year. 


I think loaners get a bad deal most times tbh and have little in the way of rights. But claiming the value of a horse that you did not pay for doesn't sit right with me.

It is more difficult without a formal agreement when the owner has seemingly given up all interest in the animal. I have one long term loan pony that the owner didn't want back last year (telling me to shoot him and wanting me to pick up the tab for it-he's completely healthy, I didn't) only for said owner to ring up 8months later saying she could have him back if I still wanted to !? I still have him and still insure but he's worth nothing monetarily. She refuses to sell him to me or sign him over.


----------



## Illusion100 (5 April 2014)

honetpot said:



			She will still be better off as she has not purchased the animal, in your insurance disclosure it asks for the sum paid and any value over that has to be accounted for. I also hate the this idea that if you loan an animal for a long period that somehow you are taking advantage of the loaner and the owner doesn't care. I have been on both sides of this as a loaner and a owner, I had a loan horse PTS and at the time got money for the carcass and I gave it to charity, it was not my money even through I had looked after him for ten years.
		
Click to expand...

The sum paid and the value of the animal do not necessarily equate in Equine Insurance. Which does not have to be accounted for. 

Unless with a LOA or LOU claim where the sum insured far exceeds the original value of the horse at the time the policy was taken out, this is when Equine Valuers are used by Insurance companies.

Sorry to hear of your loss and wonderful you donated the money.


----------



## Pidgeon (5 April 2014)

IMO I thinks some of you are being a tad harsh on the OP bearing in mind the loaner paid the insurance premiums that the owner could not be bothered to pay why should she not get the benefit of what she has paid for? Would you be prepared to pay the insurance for my horse and then give me any pay out from it? I think not. I would love someone else to pay my insurance premiums but they don't so I do it myself. If the owner was that bothered about getting anything back for the horse when the unthinkable happened then they would have insured it themselves. they also signed to say they didn't expect anything back from the insurance as well, again another opportunity for them to decide to pay if themselves. If the horse had stayed with the owner, they would have got nothing as not insured, how is the loaner keeping the insurance money any different? 
And as for the tack as far as I read it the loaner has been maintaining the tack, and naturally replaced the saddle for whatever reason and has very kindly given that back to the owner of the horse, which they were not entitled to do as they had paid for it.


----------



## Regandal (5 April 2014)

If the owner had cared that much for the horse, they would have put a decent contract in place.  As Pidgeon says, if the horse had died in their care, they would be looking at zilch anyway.


----------



## Illusion100 (5 April 2014)

millikins said:



			I find it very strange that many people consider that paying the keep of a horse for several years somehow equates to a sort of informal hire purchase agreement. If I rent a flat for 5 years it doesn't mean I own any part of it at the end.
		
Click to expand...

If the flat gets destroyed by lightening/flood/act of God, you'd pay the Landlord for his loss then?


----------



## ester (5 April 2014)

If I rent a flat I can't get buildings insurance... only contents  though sometimes accidental damage to landlords fixtures and fittings so if a horse is one of them  but obv I would be paying that to the landlord..


----------



## Honey08 (5 April 2014)

Illusion100 said:



			If the flat gets destroyed by lightening/flood/act of God, you'd pay the Landlord for his loss then?
		
Click to expand...

Yes - from the insurance...

So basically the OP has paid insurance over the past five years not to replace the horse that they have been lucky enough to borrow, but to make money from it to buy another when it dies in their care??

I've loaned horses out in the past (fortunately a few decades ago and to people that had morals) and have never paid insurance for them, the loaner has, as they have taken over all costs involved in keeping the horse.  I've had horses on loan, and insured them purely to be able to give the owner the money to replace their horse if I should not be able to give it them back because it died.  It wouldn't have EVER crossed my mind to take the money myself.

Some shocking morals on here.


----------



## windseywoo (5 April 2014)

Maybe then this shows that there is something wrong with how horses on loan are insured? If that horse had still been with its owners when it died the owners would have got nothing, because they hadn't had it insured. Yet the OP has insured said horse for five years and paid everything, so if then the horse died why shouldn't she get the money. Ok it maybe morally a bit low and she could offer something, but as stated the owners wouldn't be getting anything if the horse died in their care. Maybe the answer is that if the loaner of any horse insures the horse, then the owner should contribute a percentage of the fee and if the horses dies they get the money? The insurance companies should be clearer on who can and should pay for what when insuring a loan horse. Personally if I loaned a horse to someone I would still want to be paying the insurance.


----------



## Illusion100 (5 April 2014)

Honey08 said:



			Yes - from the insurance...

So basically the OP has paid insurance over the past five years not to replace the horse that they have been lucky enough to borrow, but to make money from it to buy another when it dies in their care??

I've loaned horses out in the past (fortunately a few decades ago and to people that had morals) and have never paid insurance for them, the loaner has, as they have taken over all costs involved in keeping the horse.  I've had horses on loan, and insured them purely to be able to give the owner the money to replace their horse if I should not be able to give it them back because it died.  It wouldn't have EVER crossed my mind to take the money myself.

Some shocking morals on here.
		
Click to expand...

Your home has been destroyed along with your possessions, you claim off the only insurance taken out (which you solely instigated and paid for) and hand it over to someone who didn't want to protect their loss regarding their own property???! Laughable! 

To state people are 'lucky' to loan a horse that the owner does not support financially or otherwise is quite far off. The horse is the lucky one to find a home where it is cared for in every respect, including paying for insurance that it's owner never bothered about.

And 'dies in their care' is quite callous.


----------



## Mince Pie (5 April 2014)

I'm shocked at the amount of people who would keep the money! Many have said that if they put a horse on loan they pay the premiums and get the loaner to pay them back - so what is the difference? As for the owner choosing not to insure that is her own prerogative, perhaps she self insures... either way she is the one who spent the initial outlay to buy the horse and she is the one who should receive the money, minus vet/disposal costs which should go to the OP.
The saddle was paid for by the owner and she rightfully took it back.


----------



## Fides (5 April 2014)

There's a lot of talk about 'the owners wouldn't have had the horse insured anyway' - maybe they would? I have (well had) 3 horses and only one of them is insured LOU, one (who has recently died) not insured LOU as 'retired' and worth less than £1000, other unbroken so of little monetary value so not insured LOU, 3rd is my mare who I had put on loan last year - she is insured LOU as she is rideable and had monetary value. Last year she was on loan with the agreement that rider was to insure themselves for 3rd party etc and I would insure the horse. This year mare is insured for vets bills and LOU and boy isn't as just putting money away 'just in case'. However when he is backed fully this will change.

Stating that the owner wouldn't have insured the horse anyway is a mute point because as you can see from my horses - maybe they would have, who knows the reason for them not insuring their others...


----------



## Theocat (5 April 2014)

The OP paid the premiums and therefore is the person entitled to the money.

I'm not sure insurance companies should be accepting premiums for death cover from someone who didn't pay for the horse, and I'm not sure why the loanee would want to pay them when they didn't pay for the horse in the first place, but that's not the issue here.

the OP insured the horse.  The owner chose not to.  There is a pay out, and it goes to the person paying for the insurance premiums.


----------



## Honey08 (5 April 2014)

Illusion100 said:



			To state people are 'lucky' to loan a horse that the owner does not support financially or otherwise is quite far off. The horse is the lucky one to find a home where it is cared for in every respect, including paying for insurance that it's owner never bothered about.
		
Click to expand...

That's the whole point of loaning a horse - you don't own it and you are lucky enough to borrow one to take on.  In this case OP has had five years of eventing and fun with someone else's horse - something she couldn't have done without them, she even states she won't be able to get another good horse now unless she takes this money..  Just because the owner didn't insure her horses doesn't mean they can't pay vets bills or replace the horse, lots of people don't insure their own horses.  You insure something you loan so that you can pay to replace it when you break it, which, in black and white, is what OP had done..


----------



## Fides (5 April 2014)

Illusion100 said:



			Your home has been destroyed along with your possessions, you claim off the only insurance taken out (which you solely instigated and paid for) and hand it over to someone who didn't want to protect their loss regarding their own property???! Laughable!.
		
Click to expand...

You can't insure insure for buildings if you rent so this is a mute point you raise... You would get the money from the insurance for the contents, the owner would get the money for the property.

Unforunatley with horses (as far as I am aware) You can't split the insurance like this. Though the owner can insist that it is mentioned in the policy that they have the financial interest in the horse and payout is to them.


----------



## Fides (5 April 2014)

Honey08 said:



			You insure something you loan so that you can pay to replace it when you break it, which, in black and white, is what OP had done..
		
Click to expand...

^This!


----------



## Spring Feather (5 April 2014)

The premiums for horse mortality on a policy is peanuts per annum.  It is the vet fees that take up the majority of cost on premiums.  Many policies basically give you mortality added into the policy.  So the OP may well have been paying insurance premiums for the horse for 5 years and this has no doubt saved her money on vet fees over the years.  

In normal situations the payout would go to the owner, the loan person benefits from other parts of the policy.  However in this case where there is some form of contract, then I'd say the OP may well be able to have the payout, but as others have said, yes that would be morally wrong to benefit from something you did not buy in the first place.


----------



## be positive (5 April 2014)

There are an awful lot of assumptions on this thread, which the OP has left with no further comments to clarify the true story or their side of it.

The owner obviously did not care for the horse, she sent it on loan 5 years ago so had no interest, she may have loved it and wanted to keep control hence loaning rather than selling. She may for all we know have kept an interest, visited regularly gone to see it compete, may have even been there when it died.

She does not insure so again does not care, plenty of people do not insure it does not mean they do not care, that she doesn't insure her others has no bearing on this case.

The horse may not have died if it was with it's owner, it died at an event possibly due to exertion, if it was doing nothing in a field it may have lived for many years.

It was of no value to the owner, we have no idea what it was worth, no idea what age it was, whether it had gone up or down in value since going on loan, it may have been a mare with breeding potential.

The loaner may have paid the premiums but most of the charges are for vets cover not death, that is a small%, I do think the owner was mistaken to sign something stating that the insurance would go to the loaner and am rather surprised that she did that but did not have a proper agreement in place, the owner has made mistakes, not least by trusting a horse into the care of someone without looking into all aspects before doing so, the people I know who loaned a pony had everything written down in a detailed contract and they paid the insurance which would have been given to the owner if the pony had died, a loan is exactly that the title is with the owner not the loaner.


----------



## Illusion100 (5 April 2014)

Honey08 said:



			That's the whole point of loaning a horse - you don't own it and you are lucky enough to borrow one to take on.  In this case OP has had five years of eventing and fun with someone else's horse - something she couldn't have done without them, she even states she won't be able to get another good horse now unless she takes this money..  Just because the owner didn't insure her horses doesn't mean they can't pay vets bills or replace the horse, lots of people don't insure their own horses.  You insure something you loan so that you can pay to replace it when you break it, which, in black and white, is what OP had done..
		
Click to expand...

If you wish to loan a horse (as the owner) you should have moral ethics, involving a clearly stated contract/agreement. 

Different rights are given to those who pay to loan a horse and instances where the horse is loaned FOC. In either case, again, a defined contract should be signed and witnessed regarding both parties. 

I 'loaned' horses to ride today, if they had died, say via a heart attack, do I have to pay owner for the cost of the horse??? Or do I have to 'break it' as you state, implying deliberate harm??? 

If you don't insure your own assets then blame yourself. Why would others have to pay for your irresponsibility?


----------



## YorksG (5 April 2014)

The more I read about loans on here, the less inclined I would ever be to loan one of mine! I am horrified that the loaner is intending to keep the money, surely the loaner should either return the horse, or pay the owner the market value. If the insurance payout is more than  the market value, then surely that is a fraudulent claim?


----------



## Spring Feather (5 April 2014)

Yes I agree with you Be Positive.  How people can assume the horse is not loved by the owner based on her not paying for the insurance is, to say the least, a bizarre thought.  There are many reasons for people to loan out their horses, however the usual reason for someone loaning a horse is because they don't have the funds to buy a horse of the calibre that they would like.


----------



## Spring Feather (5 April 2014)

Illusion100 said:



			If you don't insure your own assets then blame yourself. Why would others have to pay for your irresponsibility?
		
Click to expand...

I own around 26 horses and none of them are insured (well they are as farm stock; 3rd party and some mortality).  Occasionally friends ask to borrow my horses and that's fine they are welcome to borrow them, however they do know that if they break them, they pay for them.  I own these horses and if something were to happen to them whilst in the care of someone else then I expect to be fully refunded for the loss of my property.


----------



## Honey08 (5 April 2014)

Illusion100 said:



			If you wish to loan a horse (as the owner) you should have moral ethics, involving a clearly stated contract/agreement. 

Different rights are given to those who pay to loan a horse and instances where the horse is loaned FOC. In either case, again, a defined contract should be signed and witnessed regarding both parties. 

I 'loaned' horses to ride today, if they had died, say via a heart attack, do I have to pay owner for the cost of the horse??? Or do I have to 'break it' as you state, implying deliberate harm??? 

If you don't insure your own assets then blame yourself. Why would others have to pay for your irresponsibility?
		
Click to expand...


Because they're borrowing your property and aren't returning it???  It doesn't matter how the horse died, its not being returned and anyone with half an ounce of decency would recognise that not profit from it.  And you could say the owner was naïve in thinking people would do the decent thing not irresponsible.  You are basically saying that anyone who has a horse on loan and insures it is only doing it so that they make money.


----------



## nuttychestnut (5 April 2014)

Just reading through everyone's replies. I fully agree that you have insured the horse to pay for its vet fees etc, the death benefit, in my eyes, is to be used to cover the cost of the value of the horse should you be unable to return it in the condition you were given it. 

I do disagree that the cost of the premiums should be taken out of the value of the horse. If you were to rent a car (purchase insurance in the retinal cost) should the car be lost/stolen etc, the rental company would not return you the insurance cost. 

As a few people have stated the OP has gone pretty quiet, the thing with the internet is we have no idea of the OP's age, she could be a teenager whose parents have paid for the upkeep of the horse. The value of the insurance would be seen differently in the eyes of a child. Imagine not being in the position to purchase your dream horse and now due to unfortunate events you are able too?

Personally the OP decided to loan and not purchase their own, so they need to understand that they need to return the loaned asset either as itself or its value.


----------



## Illusion100 (5 April 2014)

Fides said:



			You can't insure insure for buildings if you rent so this is a mute point you raise... You would get the money from the insurance for the contents, the owner would get the money for the property.

Unforunatley with horses (as far as I am aware) You can't split the insurance like this. Though the owner can insist that it is mentioned in the policy that they have the financial interest in the horse and payout is to them.
		
Click to expand...

No, you're right, you can't. Was just trying to make a point. Insurance Policies can have added clauses. The owner did not bother. Their problem.

BTW, think you meant Moot, not mute!


----------



## be positive (5 April 2014)

YorksG said:



			The more I read about loans on here, the less inclined I would ever be to loan one of mine! I am horrified that the loaner is intending to keep the money, surely the loaner should either return the horse, or pay the owner the market value. If the insurance payout is more than  the market value, then surely that is a fraudulent claim?
		
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly, if the horse is insured for a high value the insurance co will start to ask questions, want to see proof of purchase or have a valuation done to get the market value, I expect it will be less than £5k as over that they want a vets cert usually, it may be that the owner has discovered that the payout is potentially high and feels aggrieved that they signed away their rights so it could be about the money as the OP suggests, you never expect a horse to die suddenly and most insurance is to cover vets fees, they may have thought that is what they were signing over not the value if it died.


----------



## Theocat (5 April 2014)

For those of you saying the money should go to the owner, would you expect the loaner to pay the market value to the owner if they didn't have insurance?  I'm just curious - there seem to be two slightly separate issues here.


----------



## Goldenstar (5 April 2014)

I have never insured my horses .
I believe it leads to over treatment and decisions that are not always in the interest of the horse .
The only horse I insured was the one we had on loan .
I am not irresponsible and I care for my horses deeply .
When one of mine went on loan ( to my vet ) she insured it him if he had died I would expected her to give me the money .
She hunted him and did competitions on him , I could have left him in a field until I needed him I increased my risk by having him worked the insurance meant I was covered .
In the end she bought him from me .


----------



## Pidgeon (5 April 2014)

For those saying the loaner never paid for horse so should not benefit from its death please explain why the owner who never paid for the insurance should benefit from it?


----------



## Honey08 (5 April 2014)

I've explained it a million times already, read my last few posts!


----------



## Spring Feather (5 April 2014)

Pidgeon said:



			For those saying the loaner never paid for horse so should not benefit from its death please explain why the owner who never paid for the insurance should benefit from it?
		
Click to expand...

The owner paid out presumably thousands of pounds to purchase this horse.  Over a 5 year period the premium purely for mortality might have been a few pounds, probably not even one hundred pounds.  So it's okay for someone to get thousands of pounds for an item they did not pay for in the first place, purely based on the fact they may have paid 70 or 80 pounds over a 5 year period?


----------



## DSCC (5 April 2014)

Yeah, good luck to the loaner getting paid out for the horses death - if her name isn't on the passport as the owner it wont get paid - you can't claim for something you don't own unless there is a legal contract (bits of paper with a signature don't count).


----------



## Cinnamontoast (5 April 2014)

HashRouge said:



			I really, really don't understand why there is any debate over this. It is not a question of who owned the animal, but a question of who payed the insurance premiums. You don't automatically get money upon the death of your horse and, in this case, the owner does not have any of their other animals insured and left the question of insurance in the hands of the loaner. If they wanted some payout on the death of the horse then they should either have paid the insurance themselves OR simply paid the portion relating to the loss of the animal. 
Morally a lot of people might feel inclined to split the money with the owner, but as far as I can see the owner doesn't have any actual right to a penny.
		
Click to expand...




Regandal said:



			If the owner had cared that much for the horse, they would have put a decent contract in place.  As Pidgeon says, if the horse had died in their care, they would be looking at zilch anyway.
		
Click to expand...

What they said ^^

I loaned a horse many years ago, NFU knew I was loaning but the owner didn't want to insure him, so I did, thank god. Saved her and me £5000 vet's fees with a dead horse at the end of it. The cheque for his market value was sent to me. I could have kept the lot, legally and morally, IMO because the insurance was mine, I had paid out for it plus all of his costs since I'd had him on loan. As it happened, I paid her everything that was left after the insurance excess was paid, plus a bouquet for the fabulous lady who transported him to the RVC for us. I had made a sensible valuation, shame it was about a third of what she paid for him, she unfortunately was duped by a rather nasty dealer type when she bought him.


----------



## be positive (5 April 2014)

Theocat said:



			For those of you saying the money should go to the owner, would you expect the loaner to pay the market value to the owner if they didn't have insurance?  I'm just curious - there seem to be two slightly separate issues here.
		
Click to expand...

If I ever loaned one out I would expect it to be insured, not for the monetary value but so that it would have veterinary care if required with no restrictions, I do not usually insure mine but I can make that choice, if it was fatally injured I would expect the insurance payout to come to me, if it had a bad injury that required expensive treatment and time off I would expect the treatment to be paid for but the horse could come back to me to recover or retire if needed and the loan could end so the loaner would be free to find another horse. 
If they did not take out cover they would be in breech of contract so in theory could be sued for market value and any expenses such as disposal or vets fees.


----------



## YorksG (5 April 2014)

Pidgeon said:



			For those saying the loaner never paid for horse so should not benefit from its death please explain why the owner who never paid for the insurance should benefit from it?
		
Click to expand...

Because the horse belonged to the owner. If I lend my friend my pearls and the string breaks and she looses the pearls, should she replace them, or should I stand the loss? I know what I would expect and what I would do if I was the person who borrowed something which I could not replace.


----------



## Illusion100 (5 April 2014)

Honey08 said:



			Because they're borrowing your property and aren't returning it???  It doesn't matter how the horse died, its not being returned and anyone with half an ounce of decency would recognise that not profit from it.  And you could say the owner was naïve in thinking people would do the decent thing not irresponsible.  You are basically saying that anyone who has a horse on loan and insures it is only doing it so that they make money.
		
Click to expand...

No, that is not what I'm saying at all! 

The OP is NOT deliberately profiting from the poor horses death but may receive a return for the Policy Premiums THEY solely have paid for. 

The owner appears to have NOT put a contract in place regarding the immediate, short-term or long-term welfare of this horse. Unacceptable!

If I loaned a horse to a home where it's needs were catered to, insured and loved for numerous years, without putting a contract in place, not financially helping, I would feel like scum asking for money back if the horse died through accident/illness/injury.


----------



## Queenbee (5 April 2014)

I can't comment on the actual subject of the thread because I'm utterly 'head spinned' by it.  However, as an owner, all I can say is I will be approaching any loan situation I may experience in the future from a completely different view point after this, and paying for insurance myself.


----------



## Pidgeon (5 April 2014)

So if the loaner had not insured the horse would you expect them to have paid the owner for the loss of the horse then?


----------



## Illusion100 (5 April 2014)

be positive said:



			My thoughts exactly, if the horse is insured for a high value the insurance co will start to ask questions, want to see proof of purchase or have a valuation done to get the market value, I expect it will be less than £5k as over that they want a vets cert usually, it may be that the owner has discovered that the payout is potentially high and feels aggrieved that they signed away their rights so it could be about the money as the OP suggests, you never expect a horse to die suddenly and most insurance is to cover vets fees, they may have thought that is what they were signing over not the value if it died.
		
Click to expand...

No, proof of purchase isn't vital, same as vet cert (assume you mean 5 stage vetting?, not 2 stage?)


----------



## Cowpony (5 April 2014)

Pidgeon said:



			So if the loaner had not insured the horse would you expect them to have paid the owner for the loss of the horse then?
		
Click to expand...

Er.....yes!


----------



## Illusion100 (5 April 2014)

Pidgeon said:



			So if the loaner had not insured the horse would you expect them to have paid the owner for the loss of the horse then?
		
Click to expand...

Absolutely not!!!


----------



## YorksG (5 April 2014)

Pidgeon said:



			So if the loaner had not insured the horse would you expect them to have paid the owner for the loss of the horse then?[/QUO
Given that the OP was eventing the horse at the time of its death, I presume it is fairly high value animal and yes she should pay if she is asked to, as she can no longer return it to the owner.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Tiddlypom (5 April 2014)

Pidgeon said:



			So if the loaner had not insured the horse would you expect them to have paid the owner for the loss of the horse then?
		
Click to expand...

Fair question, and this is exactly why there should be a robust loan agreement in place from the off. Both parties should know exactly where they stand.

The BHS have a good loan template which covers most eventualities, and which you can fine tune to individual requirements. So why on earth don't people use it??


----------



## Honey08 (5 April 2014)

I have loaned horses out in the past, but certainly wouldn't after this thread!  

And Illusion100 its strange that you would feel like scum asking for insurance money to replace a horse yet wouldn't feel like scum walking away with a good few thousand because a horse you were loaning died.  Just because you've looked after it well and insured it doesn't make it yours and it doesn't mean that the owner hasn't looked after it well previously to the horse being loaned out.

The owner in this case has only asked for half, and that was probably prompted by watching the rotters who had loaned it walking off with a good few thousand when they'd left her with nothing!

Anyway, am bowing out of this now, glad to see there are a few others brought up to respect other people's property around.


----------



## Doublethyme (5 April 2014)

Tiddlypom said:



			Fair question, and this is exactly why there should be a robust loan agreement in place from the off. Both parties should know exactly where they stand.

The BHS have a good loan template which covers most eventualities, and which you can fine tune to individual requirements. So why on earth don't people use it??
		
Click to expand...

Exactly


----------



## Spring Feather (5 April 2014)

Pidgeon said:



			So if the loaner had not insured the horse would you expect them to have paid the owner for the loss of the horse then?
		
Click to expand...

Yes I would if it were my horse they were borrowing, because as I said previously I'm all for people borrowing my belongings but if they break them then they pay for them, as I paid for them in the first place.  Now if the horse were in my sole care and possession and the person riding the horse had an accident whilst on my property then that would be different and I would swallow the cost of the lost horse.  But if a horse of mine is taken to live somewhere else, in someone else's care (even if only for a week) then they are fully responsible for that horse and if they break it they need to either pay to have it fixed or refund the value of the horse if they totally break it and it dies.


----------



## nuttychestnut (5 April 2014)

Sorry I just wanted to add, saying that the OP has but 5 years of hard work into the horse, potentially increasing the horses value. Whilst the horse was in a saleable condition the owner could have sold the horse and the OP would have ended up with receiving none of the horses value. 
It would be easier for the OP and the owner to discuss this matter with a solicitor, as we are only assuming what has been said and agreed. 
As a previous poster stated their OH is a solicitor and the OP could be taken to court by the owner to reclaim the cost of her assets.
OP think extremely carefully before you keep any money, you could find it costs you more in the long run. Also if the money was used to purchase a horse, could this be seen as using the proceeds of crime and be sized? I'm not a solicitor but it would make the situation even worse!


----------



## Cowpony (5 April 2014)

Illusion100 said:



			Absolutely not!!!
		
Click to expand...

So Illusion100 can I borrow your horse? I'll take it eventing, which is a high risk sport, but if anything happens I'll just shrug and walk away, OK?


----------



## Illusion100 (5 April 2014)

Honey08 said:



			I have loaned horses out in the past, but certainly wouldn't after this thread!  

And Illusion100 its strange that you would feel like scum asking for insurance money to replace a horse yet wouldn't feel like scum walking away with a good few thousand because a horse you were loaning died.  Just because you've looked after it well and insured it doesn't make it yours and it doesn't mean that the owner hasn't looked after it well previously to the horse being loaned out.

The owner in this case has only asked for half, and that was probably prompted by watching the rotters who had loaned it walking off with a good few thousand when they'd left her with nothing!

Anyway, am bowing out of this now, glad to see there are a few others brought up to respect other people's property around.
		
Click to expand...

Agree to disagree then, nothing wrong with that!


----------



## Goldenstar (5 April 2014)

Pidgeon said:



			For those saying the loaner never paid for horse so should not benefit from its death please explain why the owner who never paid for the insurance should benefit from it?
		
Click to expand...

Because that's the deal I made when I allowed the horse to go on loan .
And what I agreed with the owner of the horse I loaned for my OH .


----------



## Illusion100 (5 April 2014)

Cowpony said:



			So Illusion100 can I borrow your horse? I'll take it eventing, which is a high risk sport, but if anything happens I'll just shrug and walk away, OK?
		
Click to expand...

How did you know I Event?! Very perceptive of you!! If I chose to loan my horse, I'd have a detailed contract in place, that ok with you? It's just I wouldn't want to sign a document stating one thing, then changing my mind when money is involved!


----------



## Cowpony (5 April 2014)

Illusion100 said:



			How did you know I Event?! Very perceptive of you!! If I chose to loan my horse, I'd have a detailed contract in place, that ok with you? It's just I wouldn't want to sign a document stating one thing, then changing my mind when money is involved!
		
Click to expand...

Exactly! You, like most of us I suspect, would want something to say that if the loaner couldn't return the horse for any reason you would be compensated. Unfortunately that wasn't the case here, and we only have the OPs word for it that the owner said she could keep the insurance money. That is a bizarre thing to agree to and is contradicted by the owner's subsequent request for half the money, which suggests that she didn't actually agree to the OP keeping the money. Regardless of what was or wasn't agreed the OP has sustained no financial loss and what she was insuring was not the loss of the horse, which wasn't hers to insure, but her liability to compensate the owner if she couldn't return the horse.


----------



## Gloi (5 April 2014)

nuttychestnut said:



			Sorry I just wanted to add, saying that the OP has but 5 years of hard work into the horse, potentially increasing the horses value.
		
Click to expand...

Or you could say that the horse was 5 years older potentially decreasing its value.


----------



## Mince Pie (5 April 2014)

Could it be that letter was for the OP to forward on the insurance company in order for them to pay out for the loss of the horse, as the OP is not the owner?


----------



## JenJ (5 April 2014)

Very interesting thread.

Essentially there are two elements, the insurance claim and the loan.

The OP chose to pay for insurance that included payment on death. If the insurance company are happy to pay despite the OP not being the owner, great. OP gets some money.

However, OP had the horse on loan ie the owner *lent* OP the horse. Let's call the horse '£5000' for example. The OP therefore owes the owner '£5000', yes? If the 'loan' cannot be repaid in the original form, then monetary compensation should be due, surely?


----------



## Cowpony (5 April 2014)

JenJ said:



			Very interesting thread.

Essentially there are two elements, the insurance claim and the loan.

The OP chose to pay for insurance that included payment on death. If the insurance company are happy to pay despite the OP not being the owner, great. OP gets some money.

However, OP had the horse on loan ie the owner *lent* OP the horse. Let's call the horse '£5000' for example. The OP therefore owes the owner '£5000', yes? If the 'loan' cannot be repaid in the original form, then monetary compensation should be due, surely?
		
Click to expand...

Yes!


----------



## Marydoll (5 April 2014)

The owner didnt insure the horse, the loaner did so imo the money belongs to the loaner. When i took the horse i had on loan, i insisted the owner pay insurance and topped up to LOU as i wanted to xc with the horse, as it is he's mine now as ive bought him but id anything had happened when i was competing him id have been gutted, if the then owner had lost her horse with nowt to show for him.


----------



## martlin (5 April 2014)

exactly!
If I lose my own tenner, that's my problem, but if I lend you a tenner, I want it paid back, whether you spent it or lost it. So, the OP insured the horse to save forking out its value from their own pocket.


----------



## Illusion100 (6 April 2014)

Cowpony said:



			Exactly! You, like most of us I suspect, would want something to say that if the loaner couldn't return the horse for any reason you would be compensated. Unfortunately that wasn't the case here, and we only have the OPs word for it that the owner said she could keep the insurance money. That is a bizarre thing to agree to and is contradicted by the owner's subsequent request for half the money, which suggests that she didn't actually agree to the OP keeping the money. Regardless of what was or wasn't agreed the OP has sustained no financial loss and what she was insuring was not the loss of the horse, which wasn't hers to insure, but her liability to compensate the owner if she couldn't return the horse.
		
Click to expand...

Think you may have crossed wires here regarding replying to each others posts! I'm on OP's side atm regarding this, not the owners.


----------



## Fides (6 April 2014)

Illusion100 said:



			Think you may have crossed wires here regarding replying to each others posts! I'm on OP's side atm regarding this, not the owners.
		
Click to expand...

But yet you say that if you were loaning your horse you would expect the loaner to pay you...


----------



## Illusion100 (6 April 2014)

Fides said:



			But yet you say that if you were loaning your horse you would expect the loaner to pay you...
		
Click to expand...

Could you quote me on that? Wasn't aware I stated I would expect a loaner to pay for the loan of the horse and/or fully or even partly reimburse me of the loaners insured Policy value of a horse I loaned out without a specific and detailed contract in place before the horse exchanged hands?


----------



## chorro (6 April 2014)

I have a pony out on loan I don't insure him his loaner does.  If anything were happen to him I would not expect the money.  They have had him a number of years and I have paid nothing for him in that time


----------



## Rosiefell (6 April 2014)

A few years ago I had a horse on winter loan from a riding stables, the owners didn't insure their horses as due to numbers it wasn't economically viable.  However I did insure her as she was effectively a business asset and if anything had happened in the time I owned her they would have had to replace her and I didn't want them to be out of pocket.   
I also loaned another mare recently and when I insured her Pet Plan required the owners details. Any claim for vet's fees would have been paid to me and in the event of the horse's death the value to the owner.


----------



## conniegirl (6 April 2014)

Illusion, I wouldnt lend you so much as a pen if that is how you treat other peoples property.

Its stories like this that completely put me off loaning any horse or pony ever again.
I had a gorgeous 12.2hh perfect 1st or second pony, he did everything from tiny tots lead rein to eventing for pony club teams! he was worth his weight in gold. When my sister, my cousin and I alloutgrew this pony he was put out on loan,not because we didnt care but because we did! The pony was happiest in a job, doing something but was hopeessly outgrown and we did not want to lose control of his future.
He gave many young girls great joy as very few people can afford or find a pony like him, but it is loaners like you that eventualy ment he sat in our field doing nothing for the best part of 8 years as we couldnt trust Loaners with our precious pony!

If something is lent to you then you must return it when asked to. As the OP can no longer return the horse then she must return the horses value.

People are forever bemoaning the fact that there are no good loan horses/ponies available or that the animals owners are crazy/controlling/idiots (take your pi of the colourful names I've heard given to horse owners who loan thier animal out) but is it realy suprising no one is willing to loan out horses when the attitude of loaners tends to be of wanting everything for nothing! by loaning a horse you are not helping the owner, they are helping you!


----------



## Patterdale (6 April 2014)

I wish the people who loaned my horse had thought like most of you. 
All I got was a dead horse, (who'd been competing at 2* worth approx 25k) and a 5 figure vet bill. Not so much as a thank-you, never mind a bouquet! :rolleyes3:

Taught me some valuable (but very expensive) lessons. 

- never take anyone's word for anything
- never mix business and friends
- and kindness rarely gets you anywhere

So as I say, legally, the OP can take the money. 
Morally, I think she's being a ****. 

Not that it matters, as I suspect that the whole thing was a work of fiction designed to advertise the blog in OPs username :rolleyes3:


----------



## OldNag (6 April 2014)

I am loanee and loaner. 
In both cases i pay the premiums. If anything happened to the pony i loan out  I would expect to receive the money.
For the horse I loan, I would pass the money on to his owner. He belongs to her. I didn't buy him and I do not own him so why would I expect to keep the payout.

in this case there is an agreement though so I would expect that to stand.


----------



## OldNag (6 April 2014)

Pidgeon said:



			For those saying the loaner never paid for horse so should not benefit from its death please explain why the owner who never paid for the insurance should benefit from it?
		
Click to expand...

Because they own it. I take the view that a loaner takes on all running costs  but they do not own the animal


----------



## OldNag (6 April 2014)

Pidgeon said:



			So if the loaner had not insured the horse would you expect them to have paid the owner for the loss of the horse then?
		
Click to expand...

Yes


----------



## Fides (6 April 2014)

Patterdale said:



			Not that it matters, as I suspect that the whole thing was a work of fiction designed to advertise the blog in OPs username :rolleyes3:
		
Click to expand...

What a clever blooming troll!!

Though this is a topic dear to my heart and something I have been trying to raised peoples' awarness of for a while. 

I guess the moral of the tall tale is that if you loan a horse out, make sure that you insure the horse yourself - judging by the morals of some people on here the post could have been very, very real...

Edit - but at least now we have a list of members that we _won't_ be loaning horses to


----------



## OldNag (6 April 2014)

Must say it has really surprised me. My pony I loan out, I was carrying on with premiums while we were on trial period and loaner was going to take over. Now I think I will carry on paying!


----------



## Sare (6 April 2014)

jemima*askin said:



			Loaner has to be in a position to return the horse. Loaner therefore insures horse so that in the event of the loss of the horse, and thus their no longer being able to return it, they can return the value of the horse. It's quite easy! Loaner insures for vets fees because as a loaner they are responsible for vets fees and they want to have any unexpected bills covered, completely different issue.

Owner, according to OP, paid for the £900 saddle which is going back to them as, of course, it should - they paid for it!
		
Click to expand...

This!


----------



## blitznbobs (6 April 2014)

Legally - the horse has to be returned - but it is an animal that died of natural causes ... Which it would have done anyway. So you could return the dead horse (ie it's corpse ) at which point legally the money is yours - if you haven't returned the corpse (which would be quite costly to do, ) you owe them all the cash... Or if you really wNt to argue the toss - the cost of the carcass - which is of course it's meat value .


----------



## EstherYoung (6 April 2014)

So basically, the learning point here is that it all needs sorting out from the beginning of the loan, with a proper contract in place, which the insurance need to have sight of, otherwise you can end up in a right mess. 

I've done a quick Google. 

Allianz insurance require a written statement from the owner stating that the loaner is at a financial loss from the death before they pay out to a loaner rather than an owner. I've just had a look at NFU s small print too and that says they will only pay out death benefit to the owner. I would imagine other insurance policies are similar.


----------



## Sheep (6 April 2014)

I think she is real, I googled the name and it brings up a twitter account which mentions the horse, has pictures etc from a month or so ago.

I too wonder if the letter was needed by insurance company to authorise the payout - and misconstrued - perhaps the owner didn't realise they were signing their rights to it away, and thought that it was just a means of speeding up the claim? No idea, someone else suggested it and worded it better!


----------



## wench (6 April 2014)

I know my insurance has small print in it that says death money only paid to owner; it would appear most others do as well.

So does the insurance company know the horse is on loan? If they believe op owns the horse they would be well within their rights to get any monies paid out to op, as details given at time of taking out policy would be incorrect. 

Also if insurance are paying out for death, they generally want to see evidence of market value, and ownership. Ie a recipt. How is op going to supply one of those?

And if it was my horse, and worth a reasonable amount of money (£2k. +) I'd definatly be going to a solicitor and taking advice about getting my money back


----------



## MotherOfChickens (6 April 2014)

last year when I applied for a humane death request from Petplan I had to submit proof of purchase and his original vetting-horse was 11, vetted as a 4yo. I do so hate it when I'm told my experience didn't happen..


I had a loan horse last year, owner kept insurance, I paid the premiums to her and we had a contract that detailed what would happen in event of illness, injury and death (it was only to be a 6 month loan). I wouldn't either loan or loan out without insurance-even if I didn't usually insure.

its been an interesting thread though!


----------



## Evie91 (6 April 2014)

So shocked by some of the opinions expressed on this thread - is it a reflection of the something for nothing society we are purported to be living in?!

I am so grateful for my loan - I was unable to afford a horse at the time, but could afford the running costs. Essentially I see it as a huge favour. I got to ride (and now keep) my horse of a life time. My loaner did not want to sell as she wanted to ensure the horses future- NOT because she couldn't be bothered to care for it (as has been suggested why people loan and not sell).
I could have sent the horse back it was my choice not too. A horses value my increase or decrease (how many horses of high value have ended up having a career ending injury then been deemed to be worth very little). Regardless of how much a horse is worth you still have to pay the running costs. I've have years of fun without the initial outlay. 

The money is the owners. 

I sometimes ride other peoples horses - I also have rider only insurance. Not because I have been told to but because I think it's the right thing to do and gives me peace of mind.
Potential loaners please don't be put off. I will be looking for another horse in the future (again probably on loan) and would hate to think people have been put off loaning from this thread. There are still honest and trustworthy people out there!


----------



## honetpot (6 April 2014)

I think all of us must have been googling insurance small print last night. Most seem to want the loan declared, proof of purchase, and the owner is informed of the death and claim. Insurance companies love to wiggle out of paying so in the end they may not pay out.I found only one that paid the claim to the loaner
http://www.seisinsurance.co.uk/assets/pdf/SEIS Policy Document 7306-5.pdf
 This is the time of year when loads of horses and ponies are put out on loan, many are family friends that are passed from child to child and go out on loan because there is a gap and are loaned to other children whilst the owners younger child are big enough to ride them. The attitudes of some people on this topic will reduce even further the willingness of people to loan, and in future there will be a clause in my loan agreements that will cover this.


----------



## Feival (6 April 2014)

Fides said:



			This is why as an owner I would always pay the insurance myself when loaning. The owner has no comeback unfortunately  it is a horrible situation  the owner is the one that has lost the financial side of the horse but the loaner gets the money  you legally get to keep the money but morally, I think it is wrong 

Click to expand...

Bang out of order!


----------



## honetpot (6 April 2014)

The Polo Bear said:



			Bang out of order!
		
Click to expand...

Lets hope you never need to loan.


----------



## greenroof (6 April 2014)

Surely, morally if not legally, the loaner is responsible for the health and well being of the horse and should be able to return it in good condition, or pay the full market value of the horse to the owner. The loaner should keep the insurance money and re-pay the owner whatever the horse was worth before it was killed/died. If the insurance money more than covers the value of the horse, they have had a windfall. If it doesn't cover the value of the horse, they should make up the difference.


----------



## Archangel (6 April 2014)

I leased a mare and insured her.  If she had died during the period the money would have gone to the owner, I would never even have thought it would come to me.


----------



## Capriole (6 April 2014)

Never in all my days have I heard of (or read of, insured or otherwise) a loaner paying the purchase price of a loan horse back to the owner on it's death for whatever reason.  So it's interesting to read these posts saying that owners should get the value of the horse from the loaner.  Genuinely didn't know that was expected.

Likewise I've heard of, and read of on here or anywhere else,  many broken horses being returned to their owner with never a mention of the person who was in control of the horse a the time of it's injury making up the shortfall in value between healthy horse and broken horse.

Moral of the story for me is, if you loan out your horse, insure it yourself.


----------



## Polos Mum (6 April 2014)

Capriole said:



			Moral of the story for me is, if you loan out your horse, insure it yourself.
		
Click to expand...

This is most certainly the learning point from this thread!!


----------



## Shutterbug (6 April 2014)

This whole thing just shows how very very important it is to have a solid agreement in place.  The OP states that the owner was quite happy for payment to go to the loaner in the event of the horses death when she took the insurance policy out so surely the owner should stick to that agreement and not change her mind. If owners want to remain in control then all insurance premiums should remain the responsibility of the owner, who should pay the premiums and deal with any claims. When we had a horse on short term loan recently, the owner kept the insurance up to date and would have made any claims were it necessary.


----------



## Frumpoon (6 April 2014)

My two pence worth - I'm with nfu and you don't get a choice about whether you insure for death on humane grounds or not, it's part and parcel of the insurance package


----------



## kez81 (6 April 2014)

The owner may not insure her current horses as she accepts that they are her responsibility and she alone would have to deal with any finances. In your case its reasonable that the owner would expect you to be able to meet all the financial needs of the horse whilst in your care including compensating her for any loss of use or death. I would pay out half the money as requested and end things on a good note. Bank the rest and start saving towards a new horse or why not looking at loaning from a sanctuary so you won't have to shell out to buy a new horse and you will have proper loan agreement to protect you from situations like this? There are plenty of damn good neddies in need of new homes in rescue centres all over UK.


----------



## Wagtail (6 April 2014)

This is one of the most thought provoking threads I have ever read on here. I really can sympathise with both sides of the argument. It does seem odd that a loaner who is loaning because they cannot afford to buy a horse themselves, can actually benefit financially so that they are able to buy their own horse, from the death of a loan horse. That does not seem right. On the other hand, the owner signed to say they would not want the money should a death payment be made if the horse died, and the OP has been the one shelling out for the insurance premiums. For me, it would make a difference what the owner normally did regarding their horses' insurance. As if they do not normally insure, why should they benefit from an insurance premium that someone else is paying? They have loaned the horse out for 5 years. Why is that? Presumably they do not wish to keep the horse themselves but also don't want to sell it. So they have found a home where all the expenses and care of the horse are met by someone else. 

It would also depend, for me, on the cause of death of the horse. Was it being over exerted? Had it had regular health checks? That kind of thing. 

For the record, I have insured 2 loan horses and the money for the death of the horse would have been paid to me. I would then have passed it on to the owners. In both cases, the owners normally insured the horse. I think the difference here is that the owner agreed that in the event of the horse's death, the pay out should go to the OP. I think that therefore they should honour that agreement.


----------



## Greylegs (6 April 2014)

Not read all the replies here, so sorry if this has already been said ... but maybe the owner signed the letter saying the loaner could keep the insurance payouts, never thinking that the horse might actually die whilst with on loan. If they only did that thinking that any insurance would recompense the loaner for any vets fees incurred if the horse were injured or ill, then the loaner would only be getting back from the insurance what they'd had to pay out in costs, which is totally fair enough. 

The owner chose not to insure the horse, and so they would have been left with nothing when the animal died, wherever it was living at the time. As it was the loaner (OP) who paid for insurance cover during a long loan period, I think a fair solution for both parties would be for the loaner to offer to halve any payout resulting from the claim, but deduct from the owner's share of that, the total cost of the insurance premiums paid out over the 5 year period. After all, it was the very fact that the insurance was in place which has resulted in there being any money to argue over at all. Had it not been for OP taking out the insurance, both parties would have a deceased horse and nothing more.

(Sorry if that sounds heartless OP ... I'm truly sorry you've lost your horse and for the mess you now find yourself in, but you need to resolve this and move on asap. If this means you need to find additional funds to replace this horse with another one, then so be it ... or look for another loan from elsewhere.)


----------



## little_critter (6 April 2014)

Here's a thought. If the horse hadn't been insured (and the owner was happy with that), when the horse died would you expect the loaner to pay the owner the equivalent of the insurance payout? ( out of their own pocket)


----------



## burtie (6 April 2014)

It's not hard. I have previous loaned horses out, kept the insurance in my name, made sure the loaners details are with the insurance company so they can deal with them for Vets fees. I have then sent a copy of the insurance to the loaner and charged them the premiums as a condition of loan.

As for the payout, I can't see how it could be paid to anyone but the owner. You can't insure anything you don't have a financial interest in.


----------



## Love (6 April 2014)

little_critter said:



			Here's a thought. If the horse hadn't been insured (and the owner was happy with that), when the horse died would you expect the loaner to pay the owner the equivalent of the insurance payout? ( out of their own pocket)
		
Click to expand...

Think this was mentioned earlier with varying views on the answer


----------



## Mince Pie (6 April 2014)

Yes, I would. IMO you break it you fix or replacing e it whether its a horse/car/laptop etc. You hear stories of loaner breaking horses then sending them back, I would think that the owners in such cases would be able to successfully take them to court but many don't bother.
As for those who pay the insurance premiums but then claim back from the loaner, I ask again what is the difference between that and the loaner taking out the policy themselves, either way the loaner is still paying...
I also reiterate that the letter may have been to give permission for the insurance company to pay out to the loaner as the policy was in her name, not the owners as many have said that they would not otherwise. Whether the owner insures or not is irrelevant, her money/asset and her choice. Who knows, if this was an event horse she may well have insured him as he is/was valuable, the other horses may be young or retired and not worth insuring in the owners view, but we don't know this so cannot say for certain. What we do know is she wouldn't be benefiting from the payout, she would be recouping her losses for the initial, original outlay for the horse. The only way i would say the loaner is entitled to _some_ of the money is if she added significant value of the horse whilst she had it on loan.


----------



## putasocinit (6 April 2014)

Simples, pay the owner pay out on death, deduct premiums and get another horse loan or buy.


----------



## magicmoose (6 April 2014)

Capriole said:



			Never in all my days have I heard of (or read of, insured or otherwise) a loaner paying the purchase price of a loan horse back to the owner on it's death for whatever reason.  So it's interesting to read these posts saying that owners should get the value of the horse from the loaner.  Genuinely didn't know that was expected.

Likewise I've heard of, and read of on here or anywhere else,  many broken horses being returned to their owner with never a mention of the person who was in control of the horse a the time of it's injury making up the shortfall in value between healthy horse and broken horse.

Moral of the story for me is, if you loan out your horse, insure it yourself.
		
Click to expand...

This!

Both times that I have loaned my horses out, I have continued to pay the vets fee and LOA insurance. The NFU were quite happy to remove the third party element of the insurance, and it was part of the loan agreement that the loaner would cover this and accept liability for the tack.

It is my horse, my loss if anything goes wrong, why would I not continue to protect my property?


----------



## khalswitz (6 April 2014)

Fides said:



			OP doesn't feel she should have to an says the owners are trying to make money out of her??



OH is a solicitor and says that unless there is a clause in the insurance (which you can do) stating the the financial interest is in the owner not loaner, there is nothing the owner can do to claim off the insurance. He has also said that if the insurance ask for a bill of receipt and loaner cannot provide one the insurance will not pay out TO EITHER PARTY. Both lose out. OP it is in your best interests to speak with the owner as you may get nothing!

Further he has said that if the horse had not been insured and had died there would be no route of recompense to the owner BUT as the loaner has profited from the death, the owner is within rights to take the loaner to the small claims court for the full value of the horse (not the payout less excess).

OP think very carefully before you try and swindle the owner! You are morally wrong and you may find yourself out of pocket with legal bills to pay too...

Plus who on earth is going to loan you a horse now with this thread online? Good luck in finding another loan - I don't think anyone on here would loan you theirs, I certainly wouldn't!
		
Click to expand...

Why are more people not discussing the points made by Fides' solicitor OH? 

The point about expecting recompense for a horse if no insurance was involved would only be enforceable really with a clause in the loan contract. However because the OP is profiting from the death (profiting because they never purchased the horse in the first place) then the owner could take them to small claims - loaner would be left worse off due to legal fees etc.

That's if the insurance even pays up without proof of ownership.


----------



## YorksG (6 April 2014)

If this was originally intended to benefit the OP by giving publicity to her blog, I think it may have backfired, let's face it no one will loan to her again if they read this!


----------



## Mince Pie (6 April 2014)

Having looked at her blog it's no wonder she can't afford to buy a horse if she is buying over £100 worth of beauty creams! Problem is that now, anyone who has looked at her blog will know her name, location and even occupation, this is a far reaching forum and she may struggle to get another loan now...


----------



## Fides (6 April 2014)

Broke_But_Happy said:



			Having looked at her blog it's no wonder she can't afford to buy a horse if she is buying over £100 worth of beauty creams! Problem is that now, anyone who has looked at her blog will know her name, location and even occupation, this is a far reaching forum and she may struggle to get another loan now...
		
Click to expand...

She's not far from me so I have already warned my friends on Facebook not to loan to her...


----------



## CBAnglo (6 April 2014)

khalswitz said:



			Why are more people not discussing the points made by Fides' solicitor OH? 

The point about expecting recompense for a horse if no insurance was involved would only be enforceable really with a clause in the loan contract. However because the OP is profiting from the death (profiting because they never purchased the horse in the first place) then the owner could take them to small claims - loaner would be left worse off due to legal fees etc.

That's if the insurance even pays up without proof of ownership.
		
Click to expand...

Because there are issues with his advice.  If the insurance company asked me for a bill of sale for any of my horses I wouldn't be able to give them (have no idea where they are) but I do have passports.

The point of insurance is the mitigation of risk; if x happens you get paid y.  In this case the loaner has insured the horse and has/will be paid out.

The contract that she had with the owner was to loan the horse for a period and them return it.  She is now unable to return the horse so should pay the owner the value of the horse (how that is assessed is a different issue).

I have drafted a number of loan agreements and mainly the obligation to insure the horse falls to the loaner but we set out what happens on career ending injury / death etc including any insurance payouts.  Where the horse has been valuable (over £100k) the owner has insured (need special insurance).


----------



## khalswitz (6 April 2014)

CBAnglo said:



			Because there are issues with his advice.  If the insurance company asked me for a bill of sale for any of my horses I wouldn't be able to give them (have no idea where they are) but I do have passports.

The point of insurance is the mitigation of risk; if x happens you get paid y.  In this case the loaner has insured the horse and has/will be paid out.

The contract that she had with the owner was to loan the horse for a period and them return it.  She is now unable to return the horse so should pay the owner the value of the horse (how that is assessed is a different issue).

I have drafted a number of loan agreements and mainly the obligation to insure the horse falls to the loaner but we set out what happens on career ending injury / death etc including any insurance payouts.  Where the horse has been valuable (over £100k) the owner has insured (need special insurance).
		
Click to expand...

But your name in the passport will be a kind of proof of ownership without bill of sale though surely? Whereas the loaner would have to actively commit fraud and claim to falsely be the owner to receive the payout??

May have been grabbing the wrong end of the stick with your reply so bear with me, I'm no legal eagle.


----------



## Honey08 (6 April 2014)

little_critter said:



			Here's a thought. If the horse hadn't been insured (and the owner was happy with that), when the horse died would you expect the loaner to pay the owner the equivalent of the insurance payout? ( out of their own pocket)
		
Click to expand...

Personally, no, its the issue of the loaner making a profit out of the horse's death and going off to buy themselves a swanky new horse with the proceeds rather than offering to replace the lovely horse that someone was kind enough to loan them.  The OP seems to only think about themselves.  Shame they've not come back on here to answer a few  questions.

I would never borrow anything from anyone without replacing it if I broke it, and when I loaned a pony a few years back, I had much more insurance cover for that pony than any of my own animals, just so that I would be able to replace it if anything happened.  Seems that only about 50% of people on here think that other people's property is worth anything, and that if they'd looked after a horse well for five years it somehow means that they should get  the proceeds as the owner obviously doesn't care.


----------



## EstherYoung (6 April 2014)

In terms of an uninsured loan horse, I'd say with human nature being what it is, it's highly unlikely that an owner would 'come after' a loaner for money when the horse had died, if the owner was quite 'happy' (for want of a better word) with the circumstances of death. In most cases I know of, it's not an emergency situation and the owner has been fully involved in any decision making anyway. But if the owner wasn't happy with the circumstances, I can see that things could get icky and want reimbursing for the horse.

All the more reason to thrash out all the eventualities in a formal contract before the loan starts.


----------



## Roasted Chestnuts (6 April 2014)

So another thought. The horse is uninsured, horse dies or has to be PTS, who deals with cremation/disposal costs? By all your reckonings the carcass belongs to the owner, so owner would have to pay for removal/cremation etc as loaners commitment ended when the horse hit the floor by the reasoning that some people have put above.

How many of you stating payments/carcass has to be returned once horse is dead believe the above is the responsibility of the loaner??

If you loan out a horse long term and you dont have it insured under your name then why the hell should you be paid out upon death of a horse that you havent had anything to do with for five years? You havent been paying monthly keep, you have basically had the right to say 'thats my horse' in all honesty. I put my horse on loan and I paid his insurance for my peace of mind, I didnt have to claim on it thank god but it was there.


----------



## YasandCrystal (6 April 2014)

Personally I would total up the insurance premiums paid out by yourself over the period of loan and if this amounts to the same or less than the payout for death of the horse I would not feel guilty. As someone has said yes the owner lost a horse, but equally you have paid for and looked after the horse for a long period, so the loss will have hit you just as much.


----------



## khalswitz (6 April 2014)

Black Beastie said:



			So another thought. The horse is uninsured, horse dies or has to be PTS, who deals with cremation/disposal costs? By all your reckonings the carcass belongs to the owner, so owner would have to pay for removal/cremation etc as loaners commitment ended when the horse hit the floor by the reasoning that some people have put above.

How many of you stating payments/carcass has to be returned once horse is dead believe the above is the responsibility of the loaner??

If you loan out a horse long term and you dont have it insured under your name then why the hell should you be paid out upon death of a horse that you havent had anything to do with for five years? You havent been paying monthly keep, you have basically had the right to say 'thats my horse' in all honesty. I put my horse on loan and I paid his insurance for my peace of mind, I didnt have to claim on it thank god but it was there.
		
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter how long the loaner has been paying for it - it's still the owners horse. 

 I have this argument regularly with my sister - her borrowing items of my clothing whilst I was away at uni, despite her looking after them and cleaning them and me not noticing they've disappeared for four years until I her wearing them does NOT make them hers, and if she ruins them I expect a replacement.


----------



## YasandCrystal (6 April 2014)

You know legally one can take life insurance out on anyone. You don't have to be married or dependant on that person, you just pay the premiums and you take the benefit if the person dies - simples.  The loan agreement should be specific in the type of cover the loanee is to take. When I loaned out in the past - I insisted on the loanee taking veterinary cover, if the loanee benefitted from the death of one of mine that would not have been an issue to me.  Presumably any excess for insurance claims made has been paid for by the OP  and loaner and not the owner.


----------



## be positive (6 April 2014)

Black Beastie said:



			So another thought. The horse is uninsured, horse dies or has to be PTS, who deals with cremation/disposal costs? By all your reckonings the carcass belongs to the owner, so owner would have to pay for removal/cremation etc as loaners commitment ended when the horse hit the floor by the reasoning that some people have put above.

How many of you stating payments/carcass has to be returned once horse is dead believe the above is the responsibility of the loaner??

If you loan out a horse long term and you dont have it insured under your name then why the hell should you be paid out upon death of a horse that you havent had anything to do with for five years? You havent been paying monthly keep, you have basically had the right to say 'thats my horse' in all honesty. I put my horse on loan and I paid his insurance for my peace of mind, I didnt have to claim on it thank god but it was there.
		
Click to expand...

The owner may have not had much to do with the horse for 5 years but the loaners had the use of a horse without the initial purchase price, which was paid by the owner, the fact that they kept it for 5 years and paid expenses does not mean they get compensation if it dies, the insurance in the main will have covered vets fees not mortality which is only a small % of the premium and meant that the loaners were not in a difficult position if something had gone wrong requiring a lot of expensive treatment.
The assumption that the owner did not care or failed the horse by loaning and not insuring amazes me, they loaned rather than sold which implies they did have the horses interests at heart, the only real fail was to have a proper contract in place, although it is likely we will never here the rest of the story from the OP or the owners side.


----------



## Roasted Chestnuts (6 April 2014)

khalswitz said:



			Doesn't matter how long the loaner has been paying for it - it's still the owners horse. 

 I have this argument regularly with my sister - her borrowing items of my clothing whilst I was away at uni, despite her looking after them and cleaning them and me not noticing they've disappeared for four years until I her wearing them does NOT make them hers, and if she ruins them I expect a replacement.
		
Click to expand...

Has your sister been paying monthly costs of over 200 quid to wear your clothes?? Poor example to use im afraid and certainly not relevant in the slightest to the above.


----------



## Roasted Chestnuts (6 April 2014)

be positive said:



			The owner may have not had much to do with the horse for 5 years but the loaners had the use of a horse without the initial purchase price, which was paid by the owner, the fact that they kept it for 5 years and paid expenses does not mean they get compensation if it dies, the insurance in the main will have covered vets fees not mortality which is only a small % of the premium and meant that the loaners were not in a difficult position if something had gone wrong requiring a lot of expensive treatment.
The assumption that the owner did not care or failed the horse by loaning and not insuring amazes me, they loaned rather than sold which implies they did have the horses interests at heart, the only real fail was to have a proper contract in place, although it is likely we will never here the rest of the story from the OP or the owners side.
		
Click to expand...

If I'd had a horse out on loan for five years, not insured him/her and he died, no way would I be chasing the loaner for money. They had cared for and loved the horse more than I had, covered costs that I hadnt etc, also if my horse who is just back from loan had died in his loaners care and wasnt insured would I HELL be chasing them for his worth, Honestly talk about money grabbing.

Nobody who has said they would be chasing for the money has commented on my lack of insurance carcass ownership scenario??? Interested to see what people think about that, carcass/horse belongs to owner so is owners responsibility to dispose of IMV.


----------



## khalswitz (6 April 2014)

Black Beastie said:



			Has your sister been paying monthly costs of over 200 quid to wear your clothes?? Poor example to use im afraid and certainly not relevant in the slightest to the above.
		
Click to expand...

I disagree. My sister has incurred dry cleaning costs that are part of the day-to-day of wearing clothes in the same manner that the loaner incurs day-to-day costs of keeping a horse. Doesn't affect ownership in either case, whether a horse costs more or not.


----------



## Roasted Chestnuts (6 April 2014)

khalswitz said:



			I disagree. My sister has incurred dry cleaning costs that are part of the day-to-day of wearing clothes in the same manner that the loaner incurs day-to-day costs of keeping a horse. Doesn't affect ownership in either case, whether a horse costs more or not.
		
Click to expand...

Pahahahahaha ok then its totally the same based on a box of soap powder great example 

anyway Im done as nobody seems willing to contemplate the example above, most are happy just to cry on behalf of an owner who has had her horse looked after and paid for for all these years.

For the price of some very expensive dry cleaning might it add


----------



## khalswitz (6 April 2014)

Black Beastie said:



			Pahahahahaha ok then its totally the same based on a box of soap powder great example 

Click to expand...

Legally it is. It's the care of property. You don't take ownership because you are paying for care and upkeep of borrowed property. Same principle in both cases. Just one involves more money (which if the loaner isn't prepared for they shouldn't be loaning...)

Also dry cleaning costs on nice pieces of clothing are MUCH more than a box of washing powder... as my sister often tells me...


----------



## teabiscuit (6 April 2014)

Not read the whole thread. 
What if it were a car you'd loaned? You'd still need to put petrol etc in it. 
Doesn't make it your car.


----------



## Fides (6 April 2014)

Black Beastie said:



			Nobody who has said they would be chasing for the money has commented on my lack of insurance carcass ownership scenario??? Interested to see what people think about that, carcass/horse belongs to owner so is owners responsibility to dispose of IMV.
		
Click to expand...

Disposal is (usually) covered by the insurance...

I have just had to pay disposal costs due to not checking a policy. Situation was that the horse was gifted to me but as the previous owner had insured for a full year she said I could finish the terms of the insurance. Unfortunately the policy excluded removal so I had to pay £350 to have his body removed. With hindsight I should have checked the smallprint...


----------



## risky business (6 April 2014)

Black Beastie said:



			If I'd had a horse out on loan for five years, not insured him/her and he died, no way would I be chasing the loaner for money. They had cared for and loved the horse more than I had, covered costs that I hadnt etc, also if my horse who is just back from loan had died in his loaners care and wasnt insured would I HELL be chasing them for his worth, Honestly talk about money grabbing.

Nobody who has said they would be chasing for the money has commented on my lack of insurance carcass ownership scenario??? Interested to see what people think about that, carcass/horse belongs to owner so is owners responsibility to dispose of IMV.
		
Click to expand...

I agree with this.

Owners signed a letter to say they were happy for this to go ahead money wise too. Was hardly done without consent and sneakyness.


----------



## FfionWinnie (6 April 2014)

They owned the horse therefore purchased it. You paid the premiums presumably to cover the vet bills. To me the death benefit goes to the owner not you. It wasn't your horse and you never invested the money in buying it. I think the owner is being rather generous in saying half!

If I lease a car I have to insure it, if I crash it and write it off who gets the money, not me!


----------



## Gasper (6 April 2014)

Wow,  what an easy way to get enough cash to buy a horse I can't afford !  Take a very expensive horse on loan,  have horse put to sleep for a spurious reason and cash in on insurance.  Then replace horse with one which belongs to me - result ! 

I know this is extremely facetious however that's how the OP comes across.   Not that I'm insinuating the poor animal lost its life with the intention of the loaner profiting from its loss but the whole situation is as distasteful .

The owner has lost out and should be recompensed .  Full stop .


----------



## Evie91 (6 April 2014)

Disposal costs are usually covered by insurance.

You wouldn't expect to rent a house for five years and if it burned down get the insurance money, why so with a horse.

It makes no difference whether you have paid for the upkeep of the horse for five years - that's what a loan is!!!! If you don't want to do that, then buy a horse instead!!

I also think its harsh to say owner didn't care because horse is out on long term loan - there are many reasons horses are loaned, mainly because the owners care what happens to the horse in the future. Those that don't care sell - to dealers or sales!


----------



## Arizahn (6 April 2014)

RIP horse.


----------



## cptrayes (6 April 2014)

Haven't read it all, sorry.  Was there a reasonable belief by the OP that the loan was to be permanent?  If so, it completely changes the picture as to whether it is ethical for her to have the money, as it is now needed to buy a replacement if she can't, as is likely, find a similar permanent loan.

I actually find it odd that after five continuous years of loaning to the same person, the owner would want to be paid for the horse. How likely is it that they would ever have taken the horse back and sold it?  It doesn't seem to me that they have lost any money they were ever going to get.

Quite the reverse, they have lost the possibility of having a sick or elderly horse returned to them to cost them money.

While the person who loaned the horse is almost certainly going to face expense to replace it.

The loaner is perfectly entitled to insure her potential replacement cost if someone will take her premiums. If the owner wanted cover, they should have insured for themselves.


----------



## Elsiecat (6 April 2014)

You don't get a payout when your horse dies unless it is insured. It isn't a 'right' of horse ownership. The OP paid to insure this horse. The owner chose not to. Why should the OP hand over the premium on an insurance policy she paid for? If the owner wanted this cover, she should have paid for it herself.

And people comparing it to writing off a leased car - it's a legal requirement to pay for insurance on a car. You'll also have signed something to say that any premium belongs to the leasing company. The OP chose to insure for LOU. There is no requirement. It was an extra on her behalf.


----------



## melbiswas (6 April 2014)

What an interesting thread. I am really on the fence with this one, swayed by every good point!

I have been following it on my iPad sitting with my husband and son , with an endless flow of football on the telly. They can't believe I am " still on THAT FORUM!", so I gave them the outline of it Even they had to admit it's an interesting one.


----------



## Greylegs (6 April 2014)

melbiswas said:



			What an interesting thread. I am really on the fence with this one, swayed by every good point!

I have been following it on my iPad sitting with my husband and son , with an endless flow of football on the telly. They can't believe I am " still on THAT FORUM!", so I gave them the outline of it Even they had to admit it's an interesting one.
		
Click to expand...

Well ... Anything but the footy .... ARGH! But I had the same discussion with my OH while we were walking the dog this morning. 

To me, the point isn't who actually owned the horse, it's who bothered to insure it and pay the premiums. As I said earlier, the loaner should pay the owner the 50% they've asked for! ... but deduct from that the premiums they've paid over the 5 years. Without them, everyone would be out of pocket. At the end of the day, it was not OP's fault the horse died. 

I had my horse on loan for 6 months before buying him from someone who is still a good friend. I'm going to ask her about this out of interest ...


----------



## OldNag (6 April 2014)

Greylegs said:



			But.... unless there was no vet fees cover, the premiums wouldn't have been just for payout on death, they would be for vets' fees.
Usually the loaner is responsible for vets fees etc so I don't think the loanee should expect to reclaim premiums.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Shutterbug (6 April 2014)

risky business said:



			I agree with this.

Owners signed a letter to say they were happy for this to go ahead money wise too. Was hardly done without consent and sneakyness.
		
Click to expand...

Twice I have mentioned this and twice it has been ignored - the OP states that the owner agreed to let her keep the money from the insurance claim and this was agreed in writing. Doesnt appear to be any uproar about owner going back on original agreement though


----------



## teabiscuit (6 April 2014)

Personally I'd feel morally obliged to repay the owner. 
Each to their own.


----------



## Illusion100 (6 April 2014)

conniegirl said:



			Illusion, I wouldnt lend you so much as a pen if that is how you treat other peoples property.

Its stories like this that completely put me off loaning any horse or pony ever again.
I had a gorgeous 12.2hh perfect 1st or second pony, he did everything from tiny tots lead rein to eventing for pony club teams! he was worth his weight in gold. When my sister, my cousin and I alloutgrew this pony he was put out on loan,not because we didnt care but because we did! The pony was happiest in a job, doing something but was hopeessly outgrown and we did not want to lose control of his future.
He gave many young girls great joy as very few people can afford or find a pony like him, but it is loaners like you that eventualy ment he sat in our field doing nothing for the best part of 8 years as we couldnt trust Loaners with our precious pony!

If something is lent to you then you must return it when asked to. As the OP can no longer return the horse then she must return the horses value.

People are forever bemoaning the fact that there are no good loan horses/ponies available or that the animals owners are crazy/controlling/idiots (take your pi of the colourful names I've heard given to horse owners who loan thier animal out) but is it realy suprising no one is willing to loan out horses when the attitude of loaners tends to be of wanting everything for nothing! by loaning a horse you are not helping the owner, they are helping you!
		
Click to expand...

'....loaners like you...'???. Assume much, eh?!!! Never loaned a horse off anyone in my life, but I have loaned a horse to others with a detailed contract in place (responsible owners do this, you know).


----------



## Amymay (6 April 2014)

Shutterbug said:



			Twice I have mentioned this and twice it has been ignored - the OP states that the owner agreed to let her keep the money from the insurance claim and this was agreed in writing. Doesnt appear to be any uproar about owner going back on original agreement though
		
Click to expand...

Quite simply, this.


----------



## Elsiecat (6 April 2014)

Teabiscuit - 'repay' them for what? You don't put a horse on loan to gain a financial profit. Usually there would be none. The owner chose not to insure horse for LOU. OP chose to insure horse. Owner also signed to say they agreed any premiums would be OPs as they had opted to pay for LOU - something that they didn't have to do. What exactly does the OP owe the owner?


----------



## LadyGascoyne (6 April 2014)

I think this thread sums up the difference between legal and ethical correctness.

Legally, I'd agree- her insurance, her payment. It will, of course, hinge on the terms of her policy and her right to insure the horse in the first place.

Ethically, huuugge grey area. Personally, I'd return the money and find a new loan- with a properly written agreement. It doesn't seen ethically sound to benefit from the tragic loss of someone else's horse.

Two other things which stuck out for me; firstly, loaning a horse is not (usually) the same as borrowing. It's a business agreement where money changes hands.

Secondly, having loaned the horse, the owner could always choose to sell it, if he or she hit a financial bump. So there is still a financial loss to the owner.

I think the big takeaway here is to get a proper loan agreement and have all this sort of thing in writing.


----------



## Elsiecat (6 April 2014)

LadyGascoyne said:



			I think this thread sums up the difference between legal and ethical correctness.

Legally, I'd agree- her insurance, her payment. It will, of course, hinge on the terms of her policy and her right to insure the horse in the first place.

Ethically, huuugge grey area. Personally, I'd return the money and find a new loan- with a properly written agreement. It doesn't seen ethically sound to benefit from the tragic loss of someone else's horse.

Two other things which stuck out for me; firstly, loaning a horse is not (usually) the same as borrowing. It's a business agreement where money changes hands.

Secondly, having loaned the horse, the owner could always choose to sell it, if he or she hit a financial bump. So there is still a financial loss to the owner.

I think the big takeaway here is to get a proper loan agreement and have all this sort of thing in writing.
		
Click to expand...

The owner CHOSE to take the financial risk of not insuring the horse. They CHOSE to risk losing out in terms of any future monies from selling the horse in case of LOU. 
Why is everyone questioning OP's ethics and not the ethics of the owner who has gone back on her word and expects to benefit from someone elses payment of LOU insurance?


----------



## Shutterbug (6 April 2014)

Elsiecat said:



			The owner CHOSE to take the financial risk of not insuring the horse. They CHOSE to risk losing out in terms of any future monies from selling the horse in case of LOU. 
Why is everyone questioning OP's ethics and not the ethics of the owner who has gone back on her word and expects to benefit from someone elses payment of LOU insurance?
		
Click to expand...

Exactly! Owner has gone "oh yeah you can insure the horse and pay the monthly premiums, and if anything happens you can keep the money from any claim" this constitutes an agreement.  And then when horse has died she has promptly changed her mind and asked for half the money - this small fact is being overlooked in favour of everyone getting on their moral high horses and lambasting the OP without taking into consideration all the facts of the original post


----------



## DEEDEE83 (6 April 2014)

OP's money paid for the insurance - I get and agree this.

Owner didnt take out insurance, therefore can not expect to be given the payout - to a degree I get this.

Owner loaned OP a horse worth x amount of money that horse is now dead an OP has lost out financially so whats right to me is OP gets her insurance payout as owner agreed and owner then bills OP for financial loss.

Horse died at an event, collapsed after a jump and died shortly after. Sadly horses are easily broke but OP was aware she was borrowing property belonging to someone else that one day would be required to be returned.

The fact that OP paid for horse for 5 years tbh has no relevance to me. Also just for clarification the horse could not of been insured twice so owner could not  of insured horse.

OP for me would or should of took out insurance to cover this very situation to make sure if anything happened to the horse the debt to owner was covered.

If you was to go get a vehicle on hire tomorrow kept it for a year crashed it into a wall would you expect the leasing company to just let you off paying them for the vehicle you are leasing because you put petrol in it, taxed it, got it mot'd and changed its tyres? 

Yes she might not have to give owner the payout but she needs to reimburse owner the financial loss of her asset


----------



## Elsiecat (6 April 2014)

DEEDEE83 said:



			Yes she might not have to give owner the payout but she needs to reimburse owner the financial loss of her asset
		
Click to expand...

I've never heard of a loan where you have to pay the owner the value of the horse upon the horse's death. Unless it was agreed (which I don't think it was) then this is simply not the case.
I wouldn't dream of asking someone for the value of my horse if the horse died whilst they had it on loan. My risk. My problem. If I wanted to have the chance of getting the horses value back in the event of the horse's death then I would have insured it for LOU.


----------



## Shutterbug (6 April 2014)

DEEDEE83 said:



			If you was to go get a vehicle on hire tomorrow kept it for a year crashed it into a wall would you expect the leasing company to just let you off paying them for the vehicle you are leasing because you put petrol in it, taxed it, got it mot'd and changed its tyres?
		
Click to expand...

If I had an agreement in place which said I could, yes I would.  And this is the crux of the matter - the owner said the OP could keep any monies received from a claim and agreed to this in writing - something most people responding are choosing to completely ignore.


----------



## Honey08 (6 April 2014)

As for who pays for disposal, obviously the horse's owner does.  Its her horse.  

Of course the loaners have paid for the horse for the past five years - that's what you do when you have a horse on loan!!

When I've loaned horses out previously I've not insured the horse as I've expected the loanee to cover all bills as they would for a horse they owned, this includes the insurance, it doesn't mean I've given them the horse.  Luckily, we never crossed this bridge where the loaners could have gone off with his value if he'd died.  I would never have even thought someone could be so hard and selfish.  

I've had a horse out on loan to one family for five years, I rarely saw it because I was happy with how it was looked after and didn't want to be an annoying owner (and I was friends with half the instructors locally, who regularly let me know how he was).  When the horse got old and ill he was returned to me and I paid his vets bills and the cost of having him PTS and disposed of when the time came.  

It does highlight the need for a massively watertight contract if you loan a horse out, or even that its not worth bothering loaning one unless you are prepared to write it off and let someone else take the money.


----------



## Elsiecat (6 April 2014)

Honey08 said:



			It does highlight the need for a massively watertight contract if you loan a horse out, or even that its not worth bothering loaning one unless you are prepared to write it off and let someone else take the money.
		
Click to expand...

The owner signed a contract that stated the OP got the value of any potential premiums from the insurance...


----------



## Wagtail (6 April 2014)

DEEDEE83 said:



			Horse died at an event, collapsed after a jump and died shortly after. Sadly horses are easily broke but OP was aware she was borrowing property belonging to someone else that one day would be required to be returned.
		
Click to expand...

How do you know this? Did OP say?


----------



## DEEDEE83 (6 April 2014)

Sorry cant quote but from the OPs blog it took me to her instagram page and it stated on there he died at at an event. Collapsed just after a fence, I feel for the OP she genuinely appeared to love the horse. He was in great condition and was a beautiful looking animal but its tainted (for me


----------



## Fides (6 April 2014)

It isn't just the OP who I now wouldn't loan a horse to - the list is growing... I will now be using this thread as a point of reference if I ever advertise mine for loan.


----------



## Honey08 (6 April 2014)

Elsiecat said:



			The owner signed a contract that stated the OP got the value of any potential premiums from the insurance...
		
Click to expand...

So the OP said, although hasn't come back to expand or clarify on this, so am not even convinced they did.  Owner may not have realised what they were signing, or that it was for death value, not vets bills.   They seem a pretty easy going, trusting owner that let the loaner get on with things.  Perhaps people started to tell them they were being ripped off and OP was claiming a lot of money on their horse without thinking of giving a penny to them?  It would pee me off enough to chase them too.

Horse had done two BE80s.


----------



## Elsiecat (6 April 2014)

Fides said:



			It isn't just the OP who I now wouldn't loan a horse to - the list is growing... I will now be using this thread as a point of reference if I ever advertise mine for loan.
		
Click to expand...

So you agree with an owner going back on an agreement? The list of people I wouldn't loan from is growing.


----------



## Elsiecat (6 April 2014)

Honey08 said:



			So the OP said, although hasn't come back to expand or clarify on this, so am not even convinced they did.  Owner may not have realised what they were signing, or that it was for death value, not vets bills.   They seem a pretty easy going, trusting owner that let the loaner get on with things.  Perhaps people started to tell them they were being ripped off and OP was claiming a lot of money on their horse without thinking of giving a penny to them?  It would pee me off enough to chase them too.

Horse had done two BE80s.
		
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but we only have OP's version of events to form opinions from. 
If the owner had paid for their own insurance or had made a different agreement with the loanee regarding LOU payout - then my opinion would be entirely different. But based on the agreement that OP says was in place - and based on presuming both parties would be true to their 'word' - then in my opinion, the OP is in the right. I think posters are basing what they think should happen with the payout on what agreement they would put in place during a loan - not what agreement WAS in place.


----------



## Tiddlypom (6 April 2014)

Elsiecat said:



			I've never heard of a loan where you have to pay the owner the value of the horse upon the horse's death.
		
Click to expand...

It is in my case, assuming that the 21 yo mare I have on loan died an accidental death (ie not from illness). She is insured by me, through SEIB, on their veterans plan, and they know she is a loan horse. It is all detailed in the loan agreement. I would get the payout and then forward it to the owner.

If she dies or has to be pts from illness, there would be no insurance payout and the owner does not get any money from me. (The mare has Cushing's and is therefore very difficult to insure for illness). Owner is fine with this.

A detailed, watertight loan agreement from the off is essential.


----------



## Shutterbug (6 April 2014)

Honey08 said:



			So the OP said, although hasn't come back to expand or clarify on this, so am not even convinced they did.  Owner may not have realised what they were signing, or that it was for death value, not vets bills.   They seem a pretty easy going, trusting owner that let the loaner get on with things.  Perhaps people started to tell them they were being ripped off and OP was claiming a lot of money on their horse without thinking of giving a penny to them?  It would pee me off enough to chase them too.

Horse had done two BE80s.
		
Click to expand...

And perhaps the owner realised there was money to be made and started changing their minds and its the owner who is now being awkward - as we have not heard from the owner we can only base opinions on the information we have from the OP and should not fabricate possible back stories to justify an outlashing of anger towards the OP (not aimed at you btw just saying in general)


----------



## DEEDEE83 (6 April 2014)

Her Instagram page which is linked to her blog stated he went funny on his legs carried her over a jump and collapsed. Within ten mins he had died.

I feel for the OP emotionally, it appeared she loved him a lot.

I feel for the owner both emotionally and financially.

I remain on the side that would feel I would owe owner the value of the horse that id loaned off them.

The definition of loan is very clear and straight forward


----------



## Honey08 (6 April 2014)

Don't you think if the owner had been just after money they would have asked for the full value?  They're asking for half, which sounds like a compromise to me.  Its the OP who wants the full amount to themselves without compensating the owner at all for the loss of their horse, OP won't be able to buy a decent horse to event without the money - something they couldn't have done without the owner and the horse anyway.  A pretty gross way to make money for a horse IMO.

If  OP actually bothered to come back and comment on some of the many replies and expand it would be a lot easier to understand/forgive her.  At the moment its not..


----------



## Elsiecat (6 April 2014)

This thread really highlights the importance in having a water-tight agreement in place so that both sides are protected. Definitely an eyeopener to how situations can be interpreted differently from person to person.


----------



## Shutterbug (6 April 2014)

Honey08 said:



			If  OP actually bothered to come back and comment on some of the many replies and expand it would be a lot easier to understand/forgive her.  At the moment its not..
		
Click to expand...

Yes, it would be nice to have a response and further explanation however, reading some of the horrible replies on here based on assumptions and which are quite clearly ignoring the information in the original post, I wouldnt expect her back anytime soon.  Lets just hope it works out for them both


----------



## risky business (6 April 2014)

I'm not surprised the op hasnt bothered coming back with folk possibly insinuating the horses death may have happened for gain. Making jips about what make up or products she spends her money on and questioning her lying over the agreement the owner gave.. Big surprise. 

The owner chose to loan the horse, op clearly looked after and cared well for the horse or they wouldn't of had him for 5 years. Owners didn't take an insurance policy out, loaners did and paid premiums for it.. Owner agreed they didn't want the money from said insurance. So why is op the evil party, the money had clearly been discussed before and owner said they could keep it.


----------



## khalswitz (6 April 2014)

I don't think either op or owner deserve the payout. Owner obviously waived her rights to it with the signed letter, and OP I would be surprised if they can legally claim the payout due to not owning the horse (I'm sure this has to be insurance fraud if they do!) - and if they do I'm sure owner could take to court for financial gain over destruction of their loaned property. Since Neither deserve it legally, the sensible thing would be to split it half and half.


----------



## Arizahn (6 April 2014)

My little guy is insured. If I have read my policy correctly then in the worst case scenario I would receive an amount equal to the yearly premium, which is considerably less than his current market value, and also less than what I paid for him. It would not be enough to purchase another. I'm not sure what the amount that the OP is expecting to receive is, but I do wonder if it will be as much as they expect. Just a thought. I have no opinion on who is right.


----------



## cptrayes (6 April 2014)

Is there anyone on here who can reliably identify any horse which has been loaned out to one person for five whole years which has then been taken back by the owner and continued in full work with the owner??

What, exactly, did the owner lose in this case?????? As far as I can see they lost only a liability which might be returned to them at any time because it was to old or  ill to continue to do what the person loaning it wanted it for.


----------



## cptrayes (6 April 2014)

khalswitz said:



			I don't think either op or owner deserve the payout. Owner obviously waived her rights to it with the signed letter, and OP I would be surprised if they can legally claim the payout due to not owning the horse (I'm sure this has to be insurance fraud if they do!) - and if they do I'm sure owner could take to court for financial gain over destruction of their loaned property. Since Neither deserve it legally, the sensible thing would be to split it half and half.
		
Click to expand...


Would it be insurance fraud if your mother received a payment on your father's life insurance if he died?

Where exactly is there fraud?  The money is required to provide a replacement. This is no different from insuring the life of someone you depend on, or insuring your own jewellery.


----------



## Fides (6 April 2014)

cptrayes said:



			What, exactly, did the owner lose in this case?????? As far as I can see they lost only a liability which might be returned to them at any time because it was to old or  ill to continue to do what the person loaning it wanted it for.
		
Click to expand...

The horse was competing BE so hardly likely...For a fit and well horse to suddenly die? A horse competing at BE80 is likely to come with a 4-5k price tag so hardly worthless


----------



## PollyP99 (6 April 2014)

cptrayes said:



			Is there anyone on here who can reliably identify any horse which has been loaned out to one person for five whole years which has then been taken back by the owner and continued in full work with the owner??

What, exactly, did the owner lose in this case?????? As far as I can see they lost only a liability which might be returned to them at any time because it was to old or  ill to continue to do what the person loaning it wanted it for.
		
Click to expand...

I loaned mine for3 years, he has been back with owner and is happy and healthy so yes loads will be loaned go back and still be healthy.  Bit of a strange statement depends on age of horse.

I'm with the thoughts of insurance always ask who owns the horse, if not the insured they ask for details of owner for the purpose of paying out On LOU or death, never heard fit any other way, wonder what OP said to this question?  It's this question which will relate to fraud.


----------



## teabiscuit (6 April 2014)

What a depressing thread. When you loan a horse out I'd expect the loaner to know it was on loan, tbh I'd never loan mine out, even more so after reading the attitudes of lots on here.


----------



## cptrayes (6 April 2014)

PollyP99 said:



			I loaned mine for3 years, he has been back with owner and is happy and healthy so yes loads will be loaned go back and still be healthy.  Bit of a strange statement depends on age of horse.

I'm with the thoughts of insurance always ask who owns the horse, if not the insured they ask for details of owner for the purpose of paying out On LOU or death, never heard fit any other way, wonder what OP said to this question?
		
Click to expand...

3 years is a university course, four might be.  Now can you answer the question?  Are you aware of any horse which has been loaned out to one person for five whole years and returned to the owner to stay in full work with the owner, still worth significant bucks????

I can't for the life of me see that the owner on this case has lost anything but a liability, money wise.


----------



## cptrayes (6 April 2014)

Fides said:



			The horse was competing BE so hardly likely...For a fit and well horse to suddenly die? A horse competing at BE80 is likely to come with a 4-5k price tag so hardly worthless
		
Click to expand...

The horse has no monetary value to the owner unless they intended either to take it back after such a long time, or sell it.

I cannot see that the owner ever intended to sell this horse, or take it back to ride, and therefore need to finance a replacement.


----------



## khalswitz (6 April 2014)

cptrayes said:



			Would it be insurance fraud if your mother received a payment on your father's life insurance if he died?

Where exactly is there fraud?  The money is required to provide a replacement. This is no different from insuring the life of someone you depend on, or insuring your own jewellery.
		
Click to expand...

Different legal situation. Life insurance is to insure against lack of income to support the wife in the case of death - not for replacement of property not even owned.

The loaner never owned the horse, so there is no replacement to pay for.


----------



## cptrayes (6 April 2014)

Fides said:



			The horse was competing BE so hardly likely...For a fit and well horse to suddenly die? A horse competing at BE80 is likely to come with a 4-5k price tag so hardly worthless
		
Click to expand...

It's worth no money to the owner unless they intended to take it back or sell it.  If you don't think that a BE80 horse can break down and be sent back to its owner as a liability that eats vets fees, you haven't been around horses enough


----------



## be positive (6 April 2014)

I know of one that was leased, they paid an annual fee, insured it for £10k, also bought all of the tack and rugs when starting the lease, kept for 5 years then it went on to be leased by another family on similar terms, it was 9 at the start is 16 now, it is only 14 hands so not a horse but has done BE, PC champs etc. the owners chose to lease rather than sell to get the investment back, after 10 years of leasing it will have been "paid for" and will return home when it needs to retire if it does not die in the meantime, if it does the insurance money goes to the owners.


----------



## vikkiandmonica (6 April 2014)

Having read the thread, I do understand both sides of the argument, however surely they're a bit invalid given that the OP said that the owner wrote them a letter saying that any money would be paid to them...

One thing, those of you who are saying that the insurers will ask for proof of ownership, could the OP not show the letter from the owner saying that any payment would go to them, or is this not valid proof?


----------



## cptrayes (6 April 2014)

khalswitz said:



			Different legal situation. Life insurance is to insure against lack of income to support the wife in the case of death - not for replacement of property not even owned.

The loaner never owned the horse, so there is no replacement to pay for.
		
Click to expand...


Yes there is. The loaner now has no horse. A permanent loan of a BE80 horse will be very difficult to come by. She is entitled to insure for that loss, just as you are entitled to insure for the loss of a husband.

You do realise that employers can take a life insurance policy against any of their workers, no matter how insignificant they are to the organisation, do you?

Insurance is simply a gamble, no more, no less. If the other party will accept the gamble, you can insure ANYTHING.


----------



## honetpot (6 April 2014)

cptrayes said:



			Is there anyone on here who can reliably identify any horse which has been loaned out to one person for five whole years which has then been taken back by the owner and continued in full work with the owner??

What, exactly, did the owner lose in this case?????? As far as I can see they lost only a liability which might be returned to them at any time because it was to old or  ill to continue to do what the person loaning it wanted it for.
		
Click to expand...

 I have a 14.2 that has been loaned out for the past 12 years, admittedly not to the same family, he usually stays with a family about 2-3 years before the child out grows him. Lots of PC ponies are loaned out and when I first started loaning our pony he was worth £2-3000, but I wanted to be in control of his future and had I had any grandchildren they would be learning to ride on him now. I would be absolutely livid claimed compensation for his death no matter how much they had spent on him when they had a quality animal for no outlay and what ever the owner signed I could not keep the money. To assume that because an animal has been loaned for a long period of time the owner has no financial interest or responsibility is rubbish, you may be a breeder that are loaning out a mare that returns to be a brood mare
 When you loan you are getting a good deal, if there a problem it goes back, if it's ill its not you long term responsibility. I had a pony die on loan, I paid for its removal. As to return of premiums, does the owner also have to refund the livery? The insurance was a running cost.
 When you rent a horsebox or a car you pay insurance to cover damage and replacement, the vehicle remains the property of the rental company if there is a claim and its written off they get the money. I do wonder why the owner signed her rights away when it was obviously a good quality animal and when the poster didn't buy it if she had so much invested in it?


----------



## twiggy2 (6 April 2014)

cptrayes said:



			Would it be insurance fraud if your mother received a payment on your father's life insurance if he died?

Where exactly is there fraud?  The money is required to provide a replacement. This is no different from insuring the life of someone you depend on, or insuring your own jewellery.
		
Click to expand...

my daughters first pony has been on loan for 4 yrs, if we had a young person in the family she would come back to us to be worked, she will never be sold so I can control her future homes if there is ever a need for her to be re-homed.


----------



## cptrayes (6 April 2014)

twiggy2 said:



			my daughters first pony has been on loan for 4 yrs, if we had a young person in the family she would come back to us to be worked, she will never be sold so I can control her future homes if there is ever a need for her to be re-homed.
		
Click to expand...

And are you insured to replace her if she dies?


----------



## Illusion100 (6 April 2014)

Once you loan a horse and the moment it is placed on transport to the loaner, it can die. Same as it could have died the night before it was due to be transported. 

If you didn't insure your asset, don't expect your money back. Especially not when you waiver monetary insurance rights to it in the first place.


----------



## khalswitz (6 April 2014)

cptrayes said:



			Yes there is. The loaner now has no horse. A permanent loan of a BE80 horse will be very difficult to come by. She is entitled to insure for that loss, just as you are entitled to insure for the loss of a husband.

You do realise that employers can take a life insurance policy against any of their workers, no matter how insignificant they are to the organisation, do you?

Insurance is simply a gamble, no more, no less. If the other party will accept the gamble, you can insure ANYTHING.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, that will be hard to come by. But so is an Olympic horse - doesn't mean that the rider of an Olympic horse would get the insurance money to replace it, the owner would!! They did not own the horse, and replacing a loan horse with another loan (like for like as insurance loves) costs nothing, so why should they receive a payout?

And life insurance is a whole different ball game - not really comparable. Rules and regs are totally different to insuring property.


----------



## Kaida (6 April 2014)

Mm. I have loaned out my pony (10.3hh) because she is a perfect first pony who can bring small children a lot of happiness, but I wanted to know that she would have somewhere good to retire where I could be certain of her future. 15 years on she is back with me now  I presently loan a horse I am hoping to affiliate (BD) this year. In both cases full loan agreements are drawn up including the fact that the loanee must pay for insurance to cover loss of use and death and to what value - for the purpose of compensating the owner.

In this scenario I think the owner was foolish not to have an agreement and legally has no leg to stand on. Morally I'd give her the money the horse was worth when the loan started, translated to present amounts. This is why I agree a value at the time of the agreement - if this horse was very green, difficult, unschooled or had vices, and it's the 5 years of work which had brought him to the present state then it would be totally different to her loaning a horse who was ready to go, in terms of value at the start of the agreement. 

Morally, I too would give the owners the money. It would be interesting to know more about the original case.


----------



## cptrayes (6 April 2014)

khalswitz said:



			Yes, that will be hard to come by. But so is an Olympic horse - doesn't mean that the rider of an Olympic horse would get the insurance money to replace it, the owner would!! They did not own the horse, and replacing a loan horse with another loan (like for like as insurance loves) costs nothing, so why should they receive a payout?

And life insurance is a whole different ball game - not really comparable. Rules and regs are totally different to insuring property.
		
Click to expand...

I am pretty certain that the rider of an Olympic horse could find an insurance company willing to insure for the replacement value of the horse were it to die in competition, even though they do not own the horse. You do not have to own something, necessarily, to insure against losing the use of it.

Employers insure against losing staff, film makers insure against losing actors part way through a film, organisers of fetes insure against rain.    It's just a bet you make with an insurance company. There are no 'rules'  - you can insure whatever an insurance actuary will take your bet on.


----------



## twiggy2 (6 April 2014)

cptrayes said:



			And are you insured to replace her if she dies?
		
Click to expand...


no but my post was in response to the following...



cptrayes said:



			The horse has no monetary value to the owner unless they intended either to take it back after such a long time, or sell it.

I cannot see that the owner ever intended to sell this horse, or take it back to ride, and therefore need to finance a replacement.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Elsiecat (6 April 2014)

Interestingly, teabiscuit, I find it more depressing that people would side with an owner who has gone back on her own word regarding an agreement. If the horse hadn't been insured she'd have got no money when it died. OP decided to ensure it. Owner decided to waive any rights to the premiums. Owner chose not to take out their own insurance policy.  
Whether you agree with someone who didn't buy a horse getting the LOU payout for said horse is irrelevant. The OP insured against that risk. The owner didn't. If the OP had decided not to insure for loss of use had the owner not signed the rights to the premiums over to her, then there would be no payout anyway. It was an extra on behalf of the OP's expense that the owner agreed would be the OPs should a payout ever be made.  
I find it very typical of HHO how people are posting things like "I'd never loan after reading the attitudes of some people on here". Yes, let's belittle everyone into having the same opinion mwahahaha. Very sad, but not surprising.


----------



## Honey08 (6 April 2014)

Find it as typical as you like Elsicat.  I wouldn't loan a horse out again particularly after reading this thread, I wouldn't have liveries again after reading a lot of threads on here (and from my own experiences).  The more I read on here, the more convinced I am that its best to keep yourself to yourself in the horse world and not get too involved with other people as they often are a huge let down.  This whole thread has left me feeling quite down.


----------



## Elsiecat (6 April 2014)

Deleted. 
I've made my point and I hope OP and the owner can reach an agreement. RIP Horse.


----------



## Illusion100 (6 April 2014)

Elsiecat said:



			Interestingly, teabiscuit, I find it more depressing that people would side with an owner who has gone back on her own word regarding an agreement. If the horse hadn't been insured she'd have got no money when it died. OP decided to ensure it. Owner decided to waive any rights to the premiums. Owner chose not to take out their own insurance policy.  
Whether you agree with someone who didn't buy a horse getting the LOU payout for said horse is irrelevant. The OP insured against that risk. The owner didn't. If the OP had decided not to insure for loss of use had the owner not signed the rights to the premiums over to her, then there would be no payout anyway. It was an extra on behalf of the OP's expense that the owner agreed would be the OPs should a payout ever be made.  
I find it very typical of HHO how people are posting things like "I'd never loan after reading the attitudes of some people on here". Yes, let's belittle everyone into having the same opinion mwahahaha. Very sad, but not surprising.
		
Click to expand...

I agree with you.

Just wanted to say that LOU, or Loss Of Use relates to an injury, illness or condition that prevents the horse from being able to carry out the purpose it was originally insured for (meaning the horse is still alive). 

LOA, or Loss Of Animal relates to a horse that is destroyed in relation to the policy agreement that fulfils the BEVA Guidelines, which also covers 'accidental death', as what happened with the horse the OP describes.


----------



## Andi_ (7 April 2014)

I read through this whole thread (broken leg.. not much else to do! lol) and I find myself very on the fence.. I can see arguments for both sides.

On one hand, IF the insurance company does indeed pay out to people loaning a horse (or leasing as we would say here), then OP has the legal right to the payout as she paid the premiums. Even more so if the horse's owner did actually sign a document stating that the lessee was entitled to any payout should the horse die. I also do not think that the owner should necessarily get the money since they had not insured the horse in the first place and are benefitting from the lessee paying for insurance. And she DEFINITELY is wrong to go back on her word, if that is the case.

On the other hand... I can see why many would feel the OP morally obligated to pay the owner what the horse was worth in some way, as she did not own the horse and should not be remunerated for something to which she had no ownership. It would make sense to me that, as the horse was not hers and was expected to be returned to the owner, that she should be compensated for the loss of that asset.

I don't know what is right or what is wrong.. I think there is a huge grey area and it could go either way. All I know is, before entering any type of loan/lease, proper documentation is absolutely necessary, and both parties made a huge mistake on that front. It should have been clear from the get go. If I were to lease a horse, I would have it in writing IF the horse were to be insured, who would receive the money. If I owned the horse, I would want to get the money back... but that being said, if I made the mistake of not getting that in writing or insuring the horse myself... I guess it's a hard lesson learned.

If I were in the OP's position, what I would probably do is take the payout (assuming I were actually legally entitled to it) and then pay the owner whatever the horse's worth was at the beginning of the 5 years... if it had been a $5000 then and I had improved it to be a $10,000 horse, then maybe I'd get a little something out of it to chuck in the bank and save for a future horse... however if the horse has lost value, then I'd probably walk away exactly where I started when I first started leasing, and I'd look for a new loan horse!


----------



## MerrySherryRider (7 April 2014)

Gosh, 28 pages of discussion. Answer is pretty straight forward though.
 Loaner insured the horse and therefore gets the insurance pay out. 
Owner choose not to insure, therefore does not get a pay out.


----------



## EstherYoung (7 April 2014)

The OP said that the letter gave permission for the pay out to "go to" them (ie as a name on the cheque, in the first instance, as a vehicle to get the pay out paid). Not that the owner gave them permission to keep the money. With emotions running high it is easy for both parties to miscommunicate, which I think is what has happened on both sides.

I know the thread has gone a bit off track, but I do feel for both parties here as they have both lost a horse that they clearly cared about.

Nb We loaned Spud for the first couple of years before we bought him. His old owner cared deeply for him, and although she deliberately didn't interfere when we loaned him, I know that even now, ten years on, she would be devastated if anything happened to him.


----------



## _jac_ (7 April 2014)

Sad situation  I loan a pony for my daughter, in our contract it states we must have insurance for vet fees, but I also insure her for what she is worth. 

In the unimaginable event that we lost her I would pay that sum to her owner, anything else seems morally wrong to me.


----------



## risky business (7 April 2014)

Honey08 said:



			Find it as typical as you like Elsicat.  I wouldn't loan a horse out again particularly after reading this thread, I wouldn't have liveries again after reading a lot of threads on here (and from my own experiences).  The more I read on here, the more convinced I am that its best to keep yourself to yourself in the horse world and not get too involved with other people as they often are a huge let down.  This whole thread has left me feeling quite down.
		
Click to expand...

Next you will be saying you don't want to leave the house after watching the news and seeing all the terrible things that go on. 

Come on now there's good and bad with every situation you just have to use your common sense and make sure you cover yourself when things like this occur.


----------



## teabiscuit (7 April 2014)

Elsicat whether I loan mine out or not is my business, as are my reasons


----------



## redmone (7 April 2014)

I'm another who does not see this a complicated predicament.

OP took out insurance for loss of value of horse - payout goes to her.

OP "owes" horse owner the value of their lost "asset" (that's WHY she took insurance out in the first place!)

OP therefore receives payout to compensate owner for their lost property - and passes this on to the owner who now no longer has a horse to sell or loan out again.  There should be no profiting in the case of the OP - that's not how insurance works.  Insurance is there to compensate for the unexpected - not a savings plan.

Therefore if I was the owner (scrap of paper agreement or not) I would be presenting OP with a bill equal to the value of the horse.  If OP was not forthcoming, I would firstly contact insurers directly to question this, and secondly pursue through small claims court.

The only grey area to me is the value of the horse (did it depreciate or appreciate in value during it's stay with OP) but as an insured value would have been decided with the insurance company, I would deem that to be the value.

I can imagine this thread alone has put a few people off loaning.  But it's like all financial transactions - contracts are king.  Everything needs to be nailed down very very tightly when money is involved.  Don't be put off people - just cross your "T"s and dot your "I"s and try to keep a little faith in humanity!

Morals and ethics go out the window when you work in the financial world - that's why solicitors are so rich!!

RIP horsey, and I'm sorry to have spoken rather clinically about you. x


----------



## cptrayes (7 April 2014)

I am intrigued how many people believe that insurance is solely to compensate for the loss of an asset.

It's not.

It's very often  to provide the money to obtain a replacement.  The proof of that is that many insurance companies will insist that they provide you with replacements for your stolen items, they do not just pay out for jewellery, for example.

In this case, the loanee needs a replacement, the loanee insured to obtain a replacement, the loanee paid the premiums * and the loan provider agreed to that*

Where is the moral problem here that people are so outraged about?

The only immorality here is the loan provider going back on their word.


----------



## Patterdale (7 April 2014)

cptrayes said:



			Yes there is. The loaner now has no horse. A permanent loan of a BE80 horse will be very difficult to come by.
		
Click to expand...




khalswitz said:



			Yes, that will be hard to come by. But so is an Olympic horse - doesn't mean that the rider of an Olympic horse would get the insurance money to replace it, the owner would!!.
		
Click to expand...

Totally agree khalswitz!
OP has not 'lost' a horse in legal terms - as she never HAD one. 



cptrayes said:



			I am pretty certain that the rider of an Olympic horse could find an insurance company willing to insure for the replacement value of the horse were it to die in competition, even though they do not own the horse.
		
Click to expand...

Erm, you might be searching a while. 
Having owned a top eventer for a rider, and with many friends who both own and compete at the top, I can tell you categorically that this does not happen. 

And aside from that, you can only insure something once. Be it car, horse, whatever. So even if the rider WERE to insure the horse - the owner would then be unable to.


----------



## cptrayes (7 April 2014)

Patterdale said:



			Erm, you might be searching a while. 
Having owned a top eventer for a rider, and with many friends who both own and compete at the top, I can tell you categorically that this does not happen. 

And aside from that, you can only insure something once. Be it car, horse, whatever. So even if the rider WERE to insure the horse - the owner would then be unable to.
		
Click to expand...

Who has ever tried?  I can't see a niche insurers turning down the premiums on a multi million pound horse if asked, but I'll bet no one ever has, precisely because of your second point.

To which my reply again is THE OWNER AGREED TO THE ARRANGEMENT.


----------



## cptrayes (7 April 2014)

Patterdale said:



			Totally agree khalswitz!
OP has not 'lost' a horse in legal terms - as she never HAD one. 
.
		
Click to expand...


She has lost the use of a horse, and if that horse was a permanent loan, the value of that horse to her is the amount of money she is going to have to pay to replace it.

She wisely insured for that, got the owner to agree to that in writing, and for her foresight is now being called immoral by good old HHO.  There's yet another sensible and honest poster who'll probably never come near the forum again


----------



## Cowpony (7 April 2014)

risky business said:



			I'm not surprised the op hasnt bothered coming back with folk possibly insinuating the horses death may have happened for gain. Making jips about what make up or products she spends her money on and questioning her lying over the agreement the owner gave.. Big surprise. 

The owner chose to loan the horse, op clearly looked after and cared well for the horse or they wouldn't of had him for 5 years. Owners didn't take an insurance policy out, loaners did and paid premiums for it.. Owner agreed they didn't want the money from said insurance. So why is op the evil party, the money had clearly been discussed before and owner said they could keep it.
		
Click to expand...

I've just re-read one of my posts and realise that it may well have come across as suggesting the OP might have been lying about the agreement.  This wasn't my intention at all and OP, I am sorry for my clumsy wording and the upset this must have caused.  What I meant was that maybe the owner and the loaner interpreted the letter differently, and therefore there has been a mis-communication about what both parties intended.  My earlier post is a perfect example of how words can be meant one way but read another!


----------



## khalswitz (7 April 2014)

cptrayes said:



			She has lost the use of a horse, and if that horse was a permanent loan, the value of that horse to her is the amount of money she is going to have to pay to replace it.

She wisely insured for that, got the owner to agree to that in writing, and for her foresight is now being called immoral by good old HHO.  There's yet another sensible and honest poster who'll probably never come near the forum again 

Click to expand...

Yes, she had use of, but she had no financial claim over. Replacing a loan horse with a loan horse costs nothing, so why would the insurance pay out? Buying a new one isn't replacing like for like as she didn't buy the first horse. Like my car for instance - my mother owns it, but I insure it and run it. There's no hire fee etc, but it doesn't belong to me, so in the event of a write off the replacement money can't go to me, even though it's me who will no longer have use of a car, the insurance company seems it loss of owners property not my lose of use of a car, despite me paying the premiums!

I will agree in this instance the owner has signed her rights away it seems, but I would watch out for the insurance company wriggling out of this one if she claims she has to replace a loan animal not belonging to her... She has use of, but doesn't own...


----------



## Tiddlypom (7 April 2014)

I've posted previously on this thread re my experiences of insuring the elderly mare that I have on loan, including having a very detailed loan agreement. I did not get embroiled in the details of the OP.

However, assuming that the OP indeed has a signed letter allowing her to keep the payout (and it would be interesting to know the exact wording of this letter), then the owner has indeed signed away her entitlement to the money. She may now be regretting doing that.

All the ifs and buts and shoulds mean nothing if that has happened, so OP is perfectly entitled to keep all of the payout.

A loan agreement can include or exclude any number of things, but as long as both parties agree to and sign the agreement, then the conditions within it should stand. There was no formal loan agreement in this case, but the letter (was it signed before or after the death of the horse, we don't know) seems binding re the allocation of the payout.

The OP, IMHO, has brought upon herself some of the criticism that she has attracted. She appears to whinge about having to return the tack to the owner (why mention that the saddle is worth £900 and has just been altered) and accuses the owner of embarking on a money making exercise. Had she stopped before making those comments, I think that people would have had a lot more sympathy for her.

ETA There is a lot of confusion whether the OP can legally keep the payout as she did not own the horse. Yes she can. I get the payout if my loan mare dies from an accident. My loan agreement states that I then reimburse the owner. I would not dream of keeping the payout, but had the agreement been worded differently, then I would be entitled to keep it. 

Reiterate yet again, get a robust loan agreement in place from the off!

www.bhs.org.uk/~/media/BHS/Files/Word Documents/British Horse Society Sample Loan Agreement.ashx


----------



## Lynsey&Smartie (7 April 2014)

The only reason that there is any payout at all is because the loaner paid the insurance premiums. If she had not done so there would be no payout for the owner to attempt to claim.

The payment is a return on the premiums paid for the insurance product purchased and therefore belongs to the person who paid the premiums. If the owner wanted to insure the horse for death she should have done so and paid the premiums herself leaving the loaner to pay for insurance for vets fees etc.


----------



## MerrySherryRider (7 April 2014)

FGS. The loaner gets the money from the insurance. 

Those who say otherwise can witter on endlessly, but there is no debate on the outcome.


----------



## Arizahn (7 April 2014)

Tiddlypom said:



			I've posted previously on this thread re my experiences of insuring the elderly mare that I have on loan, including having a very detailed loan agreement. I did not get embroiled in the details of the OP.

However, assuming that the OP indeed has a signed letter allowing her to keep the payout (and it would be interesting to know the exact wording of this letter), then the owner has indeed signed away her entitlement to the money. She may now be regretting doing that.

All the ifs and buts and shoulds mean nothing if that has happened, so OP is perfectly entitled to keep all of the payout.

A loan agreement can include or exclude any number of things, but as long as both parties agree to and sign the agreement, then the conditions within it should stand. There was no formal loan agreement in this case, but the letter (was it signed before or after the death of the horse, we don't know) seems binding re the allocation of the payout.

The OP, IMHO, has brought upon herself some of the criticism that she has attracted. She appears to whinge about having to return the tack to the owner (why mention that the saddle is worth £900 and has just been altered) and accuses the owner of embarking on a money making exercise. Had she stopped before making those comments, I think that people would have had a lot more sympathy for her.

ETA There is a lot of confusion whether the OP can legally keep the payout as she did not own the horse. Yes she can. I get the payout if my loan mare dies from an accident. My loan agreement states that I then reimburse the owner. I would not dream of keeping the payout, but had the agreement been worded differently, then I would be entitled to keep it. 

Reiterate yet again, get a robust loan agreement in place from the off!

www.bhs.org.uk/~/media/BHS/Files/Word Documents/British Horse Society Sample Loan Agreement.ashx

Click to expand...




Andi_ said:



			I read through this whole thread (broken leg.. not much else to do! lol) and I find myself very on the fence.. I can see arguments for both sides.

On one hand, IF the insurance company does indeed pay out to people loaning a horse (or leasing as we would say here), then OP has the legal right to the payout as she paid the premiums. Even more so if the horse's owner did actually sign a document stating that the lessee was entitled to any payout should the horse die. I also do not think that the owner should necessarily get the money since they had not insured the horse in the first place and are benefitting from the lessee paying for insurance. And she DEFINITELY is wrong to go back on her word, if that is the case.

On the other hand... I can see why many would feel the OP morally obligated to pay the owner what the horse was worth in some way, as she did not own the horse and should not be remunerated for something to which she had no ownership. It would make sense to me that, as the horse was not hers and was expected to be returned to the owner, that she should be compensated for the loss of that asset.

I don't know what is right or what is wrong.. I think there is a huge grey area and it could go either way. All I know is, before entering any type of loan/lease, proper documentation is absolutely necessary, and both parties made a huge mistake on that front. It should have been clear from the get go. If I were to lease a horse, I would have it in writing IF the horse were to be insured, who would receive the money. If I owned the horse, I would want to get the money back... but that being said, if I made the mistake of not getting that in writing or insuring the horse myself... I guess it's a hard lesson learned.

If I were in the OP's position, what I would probably do is take the payout (assuming I were actually legally entitled to it) and then pay the owner whatever the horse's worth was at the beginning of the 5 years... if it had been a $5000 then and I had improved it to be a $10,000 horse, then maybe I'd get a little something out of it to chuck in the bank and save for a future horse... however if the horse has lost value, then I'd probably walk away exactly where I started when I first started leasing, and I'd look for a new loan horse!
		
Click to expand...




redmone said:



			I'm another who does not see this a complicated predicament.

OP took out insurance for loss of value of horse - payout goes to her.

OP "owes" horse owner the value of their lost "asset" (that's WHY she took insurance out in the first place!)

OP therefore receives payout to compensate owner for their lost property - and passes this on to the owner who now no longer has a horse to sell or loan out again.  There should be no profiting in the case of the OP - that's not how insurance works.  Insurance is there to compensate for the unexpected - not a savings plan.

Therefore if I was the owner (scrap of paper agreement or not) I would be presenting OP with a bill equal to the value of the horse.  If OP was not forthcoming, I would firstly contact insurers directly to question this, and secondly pursue through small claims court.

The only grey area to me is the value of the horse (did it depreciate or appreciate in value during it's stay with OP) but as an insured value would have been decided with the insurance company, I would deem that to be the value.

I can imagine this thread alone has put a few people off loaning.  But it's like all financial transactions - contracts are king.  Everything needs to be nailed down very very tightly when money is involved.  Don't be put off people - just cross your "T"s and dot your "I"s and try to keep a little faith in humanity!

Morals and ethics go out the window when you work in the financial world - that's why solicitors are so rich!!

RIP horsey, and I'm sorry to have spoken rather clinically about you. x
		
Click to expand...

These sum up my thoughts on the matter. Tragic thing to happen for all involved, and I hope the parties affected reach an amicable resolution soon.


----------



## ihatework (7 April 2014)

OP I'm sorry you have lost your horse. OK you may not have had ownership, but the horse will have been a part of your life for 5 years and I'm sure it feels as though they were yours.

I have no doubt OP entered into the insurance policy with every intention it was correct and as agreed with owner.

I am however flabbergasted that they actually managed to get insurance with a payout direct to them. I have been involved in both loaning out and at having loaned horses - and in every single case the insurers (of which there have been 3 different companies) have all insisted that the owner and loaner are named in the policy and that death payout goes to the owner.
That said the fact the horse is on loan has always been declared up front. If this wasn't declared the insurers would be none the wiser and I suppose any payout is between loaner and owner.

OP I appreciate you have paid the premiums, but to be fair the bulk % of premiums is for vets fee cover. I'd say go 50/50 on the payout with owner and be done with it. Is it really worth the extra grief when in fact you may end up worse off?


----------



## Wagtail (7 April 2014)

Lets look at this slightly differently. What if the horse got ill and was PTS? In most cases, when a horse is ill or lame and PTS it does not meet the BEVA guidelines and therefore does not qualify for an insurance payout. For example, a horse with repeated attacks of laminitis, but no bone rotation, or navicular or arthritis where its destruction does not meet the guidelines. Would the owner be asking the loaner to pay for half the value of the horse?


----------



## hairycob (7 April 2014)

The thing is we don't know what the loan agreement said & we don't know what the letter said - only the OPs interpretation of it.
The insurance may or may not have been a requirement of the contract. We just don't know.
The owner may have been talking about the admin of the claim as in - you collect the money & then pay me the value of the horse. We just don't know.
The letter re insurance may have been referring specifically to Vet fee cover, disposal costs etc. We just don't know.
We only have one side of the story. If we heard the owners side we may come to a completely different view.
I just know that if I was the OP I couldn't live with myself if I banked the money for the loss of a horse that someone had kindly lent to me. Having been in the situation where a horse I had on loan died (we had only had it 3 months, had arranged for it to go back as unsuitable & it fell ill a couple of days before return - most likely due to something that had happened before we took it on.) I felt mortified. It was owners choice to pts on welfare grounds, vet had been called out immediately, nothing else I could have done but I felt so bad. To have held on to any insurance payout - no couldn't have done it.


----------



## Wagtail (7 April 2014)

Why are so many people questioning that an insurance company would pay out to someone who does not own the horse? Insurers pay out to the POLICY OWNER not the horse owner. I could take out life insurance on anyone of you for example. I do not have to be related to you or be a financial dependant. It is how insurance works. Insurance companies do not care who the owner is or what they do with the money, except for home contents insurers who often insist on direct replacement of goods.


----------



## wench (7 April 2014)

Because most horse insurance will only pay death value to owner... Not policy holder


----------



## khalswitz (7 April 2014)

Life insurance and property insurance are two very different things!!


----------



## Lyle (7 April 2014)

Well I'm one who thinks the OP should pay put the owner, although it seems they could get off lightly by paying the owner half.

Saying you have paid for keep of the horse for five years doesn't fly with me, you don't assume ownership because you are looking after the property you have been allowed to use. I would have thought that taking out insurance is a smart idea, it's to cover YOURSELF in the unfortunate event resulting in You not being able to return the horse to the owner, in the condition it left in.

of course we don't know the full story regarding the signed agreement, but it's clear who has lost a large asset. The OP can take on a new loan, and continue on as normal ( although apparently quite a bit heavier in the pocket) while the owner has to now try and replace the horse, out of their own pocket. I honestly have no idea how the OP has managed to insure the horse without the owner being the beneficiary.


----------



## cronkmooar (7 April 2014)

Wagtail said:



			This is not true.  You have to have an insurable interest.

However, in the context of this particular scenario the insurer does have an insurable interest and should receive the insurance payment

Example being, horse insured by loaner, vet fee claim - payment does not go to the owner.

You can put a caveat on the policy that the owner is to receive any payment relating to death - however the owner revoked their right to payment in writing.  

This letter was probably required by the insurance company when the policy was taken out
		
Click to expand...


----------



## doriangrey (7 April 2014)

It's straightforward enough for me.   If I were to loan out one of my horses and wanted to recoup the value upon its death (if it happens whilst on loan), I would continue to pay the insurance because I still own the horse.  If I decided that I didn't want to pay for insurance then I wouldn't have lost out as it would have been my choice not to recoup the value on death whether the horse was on loan or not.  If the loanee wanted to 'invest' in insurance to replace a lost ride that's their perogative and I would not expect payment for a horse that I had already decided (by not insuring) I would get nothing for on its demise.


----------



## Wagtail (7 April 2014)

wench said:



			Because most horse insurance will only pay death value to owner... Not policy holder
		
Click to expand...

I have insured several loan horses with different insurers. There was no clause to that effect, only that it would be paid to the policy holder.


----------



## wench (7 April 2014)

My insurance would not pay death value to loaner only owner. Someone also has some research a few pages back and can only find one that will pay death value to loaner


----------



## Cowpony (7 April 2014)

Wagtail said:



			Why are so many people questioning that an insurance company would pay out to someone who does not own the horse? Insurers pay out to the POLICY OWNER not the horse owner. I could take out life insurance on anyone of you for example. I do not have to be related to you or be a financial dependant. It is how insurance works. Insurance companies do not care who the owner is or what they do with the money, except for home contents insurers who often insist on direct replacement of goods.
		
Click to expand...

Actually you couldn't.  This is from the Prudential (sorry, can't cut and paste it so this is a quote):
"The doctrine of insurable interest states, broadly speaking, that in order to have a valid policy of insurance/assurance the policyholder must:
(1) gain a benefit from the continued existence of the item being insured; or
(2) suffer a loss on its destruction
This concept applies to all forms of assurance and insurance, not just life assurance."

It goes on to quote the Life Assurance Act 1774, which says that it is not lawful to make an insurance policy without inserting the name or names of the person(s) interested in the life or event.


----------



## ihatework (7 April 2014)

Wagtail said:



			Why are so many people questioning that an insurance company would pay out to someone who does not own the horse? Insurers pay out to the POLICY OWNER not the horse owner. I could take out life insurance on anyone of you for example. I do not have to be related to you or be a financial dependant. It is how insurance works. Insurance companies do not care who the owner is or what they do with the money, except for home contents insurers who often insist on direct replacement of goods.
		
Click to expand...

Have you actually tried taking out insurance on a loan horse? Because I have. And ALL 3 Insurance companies I have dealt with request to pay out to the owner irrespective of who pays the premiums. With the added Caveat that the insurance company is informed the horse is on loan.


----------



## Wagtail (7 April 2014)

Cowpony said:



			Actually you couldn't.  This is from the Prudential (sorry, can't cut and paste it so this is a quote):
"The doctrine of insurable interest states, broadly speaking, that in order to have a valid policy of insurance/assurance the policyholder must:
(1) gain a benefit from the continued existence of the item being insured; or
(2) suffer a loss on its destruction
This concept applies to all forms of assurance and insurance, not just life assurance."

It goes on to quote the Life Assurance Act 1774, which says that it is not lawful to make an insurance policy without inserting the name or names of the person(s) interested in the life or event.
		
Click to expand...

I stand corrected. 

I have heard of people insuring the lives of famous people though if they are, for example, a lookalike and it is their occupation. 

In the case of the OP, then the conditions you quoted would apply, even though they are not the owner.


----------



## khalswitz (7 April 2014)

Wagtail said:



			I stand corrected. 

I have heard of people insuring the lives of famous people though if they are, for example, a lookalike and it is their occupation. 

In the case of the OP, then the conditions you quoted would apply, even though they are not the owner.
		
Click to expand...

But then they have an interest, don't they, as their occupation relies on the life of that person...


----------



## Cowpony (7 April 2014)

Wagtail said:



			I stand corrected. 

I have heard of people insuring the lives of famous people though if they are, for example, a lookalike and it is their occupation. 

In the case of the OP, then the conditions you quoted would apply, even though they are not the owner.
		
Click to expand...

Yes I think in the situation of lookalikes etc the person would have an insurable interest, because they gain a benefit from the continued existence of the celebrity.  Similarly concert promoters etc can probably insure a singer in case they couldn't appear and the promoter lost out on all the expenses they had incurred, whilst having to return the ticket money to disappointed fans.

In the case of the OP her insurable interest is likely to be the risk that she has to reimburse the owner for the fact that the horse can't be returned.  But as a lot of people have said, we don't have all the facts so we can't say anything for sure.


----------



## wench (7 April 2014)

Also point to note, if insurance says will only pay death value to owner, and owner sends letter to insurance company saying pay all death value to loaner, I doubt the insurance company would do it. 

In theory, although the owner is mentioned in the insurance contract, IMO the owner does not have privity of contract and therefore no rights to alter the terms of the contract


----------



## Spot_the_Risk (7 April 2014)

This thread has certainly made me think.  We have had a loan horse for a couple of weeks,loan agreement in place etc, owner only wanted the horse insured third party.  Today I have taken out death insurance (through accident, illness etc) through SEiB, it cost £106 and I know there are cheaper out there but reputation was more important to me than cost.  I have the peace of mind that the owner will not be out of pocket if the horse should die.


----------



## Wagtail (7 April 2014)

ihatework said:



			Have you actually tried taking out insurance on a loan horse? Because I have. And ALL 3 Insurance companies I have dealt with request to pay out to the owner irrespective of who pays the premiums. With the added Caveat that the insurance company is informed the horse is on loan.
		
Click to expand...

I have taken out insurance on three loan horses. Two with Aims and one with Petplan. I am not 100% sure on the Petplan insurance as I didn't read the small print, but certainly with the AIMS, it specified 'the policy holder' on all terms of payment. As it happened, the insurance was a condition of the loans, but I would have paid any death benefit to the owners as that was part of the reason they were insured IMO. However, the owner of the horse in the OP specifically put in writing that all payments would be for the OP to keep and therefore I think they should stand by their agreement.


----------



## Jsye (7 April 2014)

When I had my current horse on loan (before I bought him) the payout if he died would have gone to his owner even though the policy was in my name and I paid the premiums. I didn't ever expect to be paid out on a horse that I didn't own - I feel that would be wrong.

He was only insured 3rd party before I got him and I chose to have him insured for vets fees and death/straying etc. It was more for my peace of mind for his then owner if anything happened to him. Obviously the vets fees cover was for my benefit.


----------



## ihatework (7 April 2014)

Wagtail said:



			I have taken out insurance on three loan horses. Two with Aims and one with Petplan. I am not 100% sure on the Petplan insurance as I didn't read the small print, but certainly with the AIMS, it specified 'the policy holder' on all terms of payment. As it happened, the insurance was a condition of the loans, but I would have paid any death benefit to the owners as that was part of the reason they were insured IMO. However, the owner of the horse in the OP specifically put in writing that all payments would be for the OP to keep and therefore I think they should stand by their agreement.
		
Click to expand...

I've done Petplan, KBIS and NFU - and although each policy refers to 'policyholder' in the small print (standard wording no doubt) - they each specifically mention the loan situation within the policy specifics.

It's a sorry situation for the OP because I'm sure they thought they were just doing the right thing. The owner is as much to blame.


----------



## khalswitz (7 April 2014)

Wagtail said:



			I have taken out insurance on three loan horses. Two with Aims and one with Petplan. I am not 100% sure on the Petplan insurance as I didn't read the small print, but certainly with the AIMS, it specified 'the policy holder' on all terms of payment. As it happened, the insurance was a condition of the loans, but I would have paid any death benefit to the owners as that was part of the reason they were insured IMO. However, the owner of the horse in the OP specifically put in writing that all payments would be for the OP to keep and therefore I think they should stand by their agreement.
		
Click to expand...

Petplan:

"If your horse is on loan to you, we will not make any claim payment until we receive evidence of the horse&#8217;s legal ownership and a copy of the loan agreement, signed by both parties.
The claims settlement will be paid to you and not to the horse&#8217;s legal owner, regardless of any arrangements stated in the loan agreement."

So they will pay direct to the loaner, but only on seeing a loan agreement and proof of legal ownership. So in OP's case the owner could in theory stop the loaner receiving a payout by not cooperating... 

This stresses the importance of a watertight loan contract.


----------



## Goldenstar (7 April 2014)

What's coming out of this is if you send a horse on loan the best thing to do is insure the horse and then get the person taking the horse to pay you if the agreement you have made is that the person taking the horse is to pay the insurance costs.


----------



## Wagtail (7 April 2014)

khalswitz said:



			Petplan:

"If your horse is on loan to you, we will not make any claim payment until we receive evidence of the horse&#8217;s legal ownership and a copy of the loan agreement, signed by both parties.
The claims settlement will be paid to you and not to the horse&#8217;s legal owner, regardless of any arrangements stated in the loan agreement."

So they will pay direct to the loaner, but only on seeing a loan agreement and proof of legal ownership. So in OP's case the owner could in theory stop the loaner receiving a payout by not cooperating... 

This stresses the importance of a watertight loan contract.
		
Click to expand...

Thank you. On all three occasions where I have been loaning a horse and insuring it, the insurers have requested a copy of the loan agreement and passport BEFORE agreeing to the insurance. The OP states that there was no loan agreement, though reading through the lines, I wonder if the owner provided a letter confirming the loan for the purpose of the insurance?


----------



## montanna (7 April 2014)

I think this is a hard one, I can totally see both sides of the story. I would split the money!

I do feel I have to comment on the attacking posts directed towards the loaner - they are quite frankly disgusting IMO! Quite why she is labelled a 'bad' loaner, having her social media/beauty blogs/twitter accounts trawled through, being bad mouthed on social media and slated JUST FOR querying the details outlined in the agreement where the owner stating she could KEEP the payout is just unbelievable. 

She does have a valid point in that she has paid the premiums and therefore has a legal right to the payout, as the owner has AGREED in writing. There is no argument on this legally surely?

I am totally on the fence on the morality side of things - I must say the last paragraph of the OP just doesn't sit right with me - the owner could have taken the horse back at any time before he died, leaving the OP with no payout and no money for another horse anyway so I am unsure how that is relevant?! 

Therefore I think the OP should split the money with the owner, leave things amicably, and go their separate ways. A few months without a horse (livery and eventing costs) would soon tot up and you would have enough to buy one anyway.


----------



## Wagtail (7 April 2014)

Goldenstar said:



			What's coming out of this is if you send a horse on loan the best thing to do is insure the horse and then get the person taking the horse to pay you if the agreement you have made is that the person taking the horse is to pay the insurance costs.
		
Click to expand...

Completely agree. It has been a useful thread, though obviously a very sad one too.

I can quite understand why a loaner would need money to replace the horse. There are not very many useful loan horses out there. I had one a few years ago. He was worth his weight in gold. If I were to replace him it would take me years to find one as safe, and suitable for my novice husband, as well as being able to go out and win at dressage. I am looking for another loan now as I could not afford to buy such a horse having just lost my mare (was PTS for and exception so no pay out) and bought my filly, but could give such a horse a 5 star home for life. It is not that easy to find a really good loan horse, and so I am prepared to wait years if necessary. The OP probably wants to get one much sooner and therefore buying would be the only realistic option.


----------



## BBoutiqueBlog (7 April 2014)

I would just like to say thank you to all who have replied to this thread. I was a little overwhelmed by the amount of responses. I know for a lot of people it is a straight forward answer... One half obviously saying money should go back to owner and the rest understanding my position. The horse had been loaned most of its life to various people. The amount that will be payable ( if the full amount is awarded) is just a few hundred more than what we had paid on the premium. We would be looking at only £1500 to then get another horse and saddle if it was to be split. I had been burned before i got this loan horse and we lost money on a crazy thoroughbred with a split personality. The loan horse had previously been through a tough time and had become depressed where he was before which was definately not his nature. He was with us and had the BEST home we could have given him. He was loving life and the owners said they hoped they would get more years out of him which hurt us because he was at peak fitness at 16 doing BE eventing! 

I hope this clears somethings up for people and they understand my view a little better. Again thank you for all your responses!


----------



## BlackVelvet (7 April 2014)

montanna said:



			I think this is a hard one, I can totally see both sides of the story. I would split the money! I do feel I have to comment on the attacking posts directed towards the loaner - they are quite frankly disgusting IMO! Quite why she is labelled a &#39;bad&#39; loaner, having her social media/beauty blogs/twitter accounts trawled through, being bad mouthed on social media and slated JUST FOR querying the details outlined in the agreement where the owner stating she could KEEP the payout is just unbelievable. She does have a valid point in that she has paid the premiums and therefore has a legal right to the payout, as the owner has AGREED in writing. There is no argument on this legally surely? I am totally on the fence on the morality side of things - I must say the last paragraph of the OP just doesn&#39;t sit right with me - the owner could have taken the horse back at any time before he died, leaving the OP with no payout and no money for another horse anyway so I am unsure how that is relevant?! Therefore I think the OP should split the money with the owner, leave things amicably, and go their separate ways. A few months without a horse (livery and eventing costs) would soon tot up and you would have enough to buy one anyway.
		
Click to expand...

	Agreed.
	I read some pretty awful comments which were aimed at the OP, at the end of the day its never nice losing a horse whether you loaned it or owned it.
	The best was done for the horse by the loaner in the five years they had taken care of the animal, by paying insurance ensured this. The money in my opinion is completely irrelevant. I know recieving the cheque when I lost my horse was just upsetting, he had paid for himself 100 times over so although the cheque ended up paying for his cremation and left over vets bill maybe calling it quits and splitting the money would be for the best, even if just for an easy life.


----------



## RunToEarth (7 April 2014)

Moral feelings aside - this highlights the importance of having very clear agreements in place. 

A landlord letting a building would require the tenant to insure their contents in the same way an owner loaning a horse should require the loaner to insure against vets fees/public liability. The building insurance is the Landlord's responsibility, as the insurance of the horse for loss is the Owners. 

I'm not sure what I would do in the OP's situation, I would feel a moral obligation to refund the monies paid to the owner as it was, after all, their property. I would perhaps feel begrudged I paid insurance premiums and give the insurance payout minus the premium back to the owner. But that is just me.


----------



## ester (7 April 2014)

Trouble is I don't think you can have 2 lots of insurance for one horse like that RTE?
It has certainly highlighted things I didn't know on this thread, when we loaned the owner paid insurance so wasn't a problem.


----------



## Elsiecat (7 April 2014)

RunToEarth said:



			I would perhaps feel begrudged I paid insurance premiums and give the insurance payout minus the premium back to the owner. But that is just me.
		
Click to expand...

I'd probably do the same.. Or if the premium wasn't too high - i'd probably be inclined to hand it over altogether.
But I think what is important is that OP doesn't want to hand over the payout and from what we've been told, I don't think they are oblidged to hand it over. She has every right to keep it IMO.


----------



## LadyGascoyne (7 April 2014)

Elsiecat said:



			The owner CHOSE to take the financial risk of not insuring the horse. They CHOSE to risk losing out in terms of any future monies from selling the horse in case of LOU. 
Why is everyone questioning OP's ethics and not the ethics of the owner who has gone back on her word and expects to benefit from someone elses payment of LOU insurance?
		
Click to expand...

I didn't question her; I said it's a grey area and I said what I would do. I also said legally, her policy, her money.

Clearly, the owner has not handled things correctly; there should have been an agreement, the horse should've been insured, and the owner made an agreement against their own interests. I'm not defending the owner at all.

But I wouldn't base my choices on what the owner has failed to do. I would do what I think is right, regardless of whether the other party has failed to adequately protect themselves. I'd like to think, that I would not choose personal gain over kindness.


----------



## flojo (14 April 2014)

This is all a very sad situation and I do feel every sympathy for the loaner.
But the horse wasn't theirs.

The owner would have expected the horse to be returned to them after the loan period ended (how ever long that may have been), any insurance should have been to enable the loaner to compensate the owner should this not be possible - as is the case.
The cost of the insurance is irrelevant to the owner, the horse belonged to them and they should be recompensed for their loss.

The loaner should give the owner what they are 'morally' owed and save up to buy themselves their own horse.



BBoutiqueBlog said:



			The amount that will be payable ( if the full amount is awarded) is just a few hundred more than what we had paid on the premium. We would be looking at only £1500 to then get another horse and saddle if it was to be split. !
		
Click to expand...

This is the part that makes me lose sympathy with the OP! What If the owner wanted to replace their horse they loaned to the OP? They are out of pocket for the value of the horse.


----------



## Goldenstar (14 April 2014)

I am not sure what the legality is but if legally the insurance should go to the owner , the ' agreement ' the owner made would void because you can't give up your rights in English law .


----------



## Wagtail (14 April 2014)

OP, have you decided what you are going to do yet?


----------

