Insurance question

[Gill (sneakiefeline)]

sorry i give up bothering to reply......seea

[Millys Mum]

Kocka had loads of eye infections and was moved insurancewise with no problem.....think you excluded what else I wrote and what Helen has written!

I answered your reply to me gill 
I also wasnt implying axa were cheap and nasty and would 'get out of it' see

it can be excluded by any company offering insurance

Riley had one foot infection, it if happened several times in the same spot would it still be the same story?

If 'something' happens frequently then it can be considered existing, even idiopathic cystitis can even tho it has no physical condition causing it eg stones or infection

[Gill (sneakiefeline)]

Kocka had loads of eye infections and was moved insurancewise with no problem.....think you excluded what else I wrote and what Helen has written!

[Millys Mum]

i dont agree with that MM I think it would be paid but of course the best thing is to ask AXA or your vet......cos often its how the vet fills in the form.

AXA are not like the very cheap and nasty companies , or I would have agreed with you.

If hes had treatment for several eye infections then its quite feasible its the same problem each time, my friends cat has at some point had flu and when she gets stressed her eye flares up, IF Milos eye is down to having a a lurking virus it can be excluded by any company offering insurance.
If paying for a tube of cream isnt a prob id move him but as i said before worst case is the excluded eye prob resulting in an ulcer and removal, a one off cost that is maybe worth risking?

[Tiggy's Mum]

If you are worried you could ring Axa and fax them Milo's full clinical history, ie his vet notes, they can tell you whether they would cover the eye problems.

When I switched Riley to them he had been treated for a foot infection due to falling off the towel rail and his 'heart problems' (aka panting after da bird!) had been investigated.

They replied in writing that 'the problem with Riley's foot appeared to be a local infection that responded to anti-biotics and therefore not pre-existing' .

...and re the panting ' I can confirm Riley has been treated for a respiratory problem and that the treating veterinary surgeon found no relation to any heart problems, it was stated that the heart was normal. If future claims for respiratory problems were made, your veterinary surgeon would have to substantiate that the two conditions were not related for the condition NOT to be classed as pre-existing'. I'm not worried about any future respiratory issues being excluded as I know that there is/was nothing wrong with him, he was just getting over-exicted about da bird!

So as per the above Milo's eye issues could go either way!

[Gill (sneakiefeline)]

i dont agree with that MM I think it would be paid but of course the best thing is to ask AXA or your vet......cos often its how the vet fills in the form.

AXA are not like the very cheap and nasty companies , or I would have agreed with you.

[Millys Mum]

You probably wouldnt get claims paid if he went onto have an eye problem starting from infection, eg an ulcer and removal. However this is where i think petplan come up trumps, you can request they review a policy after so many months have passed without a problem.

[Gill (sneakiefeline)]

I would just move him as it does not sound like an existing condition.

[clarenmax]

Um, I would imagine the vets would have to declare that treatment had taken place for eye infections, even if you didn't claim.

However, if its just a small recurring infection, I'm not sure whether that would be classed as pre-existing conditions as such?

I'm not 100% sure to be honest 

[Leanne]

Both boys are insured with Direct Line, I've claimed previously for Jess but never for Milo.

I am thinking of moving Milo to Axa as them seems like a better policy (and Milo is only 2 - I think I've asked questions about this before actually), we have never claimed on insurance for Milo, but he has been to the vets for eye infections, would this be excluded in a new policy? Despite me having never claimed as it was under my excess?

Anyone have any thoughts of experiences of this?