AKC | Pet Insurance Review

We have had Grace covered from the trial period on. She is eight now and has had several occasions that required the use of her coverage. She just had TPLO surgery to repair a torn ligament and meniscus in her left knee. The coverage allowed us to choose this more expensive operation over a cheaper option that had less chance of success for her age and weight. Very happy with the service.

Oh, indeed! In fine print they squish CANCER to an "incident" and apply a "cap" of $5,000 to very costly coverage at max $13,000, an $8,000 gap they must know WELL is totally inadequate and deliberately constructed.

The AKC per my experience is the worst. They denied claims, very disorganized, has rude customer service, and does a total dis-service to the name AKC. Clearly the joke was on me. I have since cancelled the the AKC and moved over to Embrace who is an exceptional provider as my experience with each has "proven". I would never in a million years recommend the AKC for insuring your beloved pets. We purchase insurance to cover our beloved pets and the AKC doesn't provide coverage because the many fine print exclusions -- that has NOT been my experience with Embrace.

I am a big fan of pet insurance. We have had AKC for both of our dogs for six years. My company offered VPI at a discount so I switched one of our dogs to VPI to try it.In short, from VPI, the amount I spent on insurance would have easily covered my output for the dog bills. Bottom line, AKC has paid nearly every claim with little to no hassle. I am so sorry I switched. I would recommend AKC to everyone.

The insurer does a disservice to the AKC name. They work really hard at one thing . . . denying your claim. I recently submitted a claim for a visit to the vet resulting from my dog ingesting a foreign object that irritated and lacerated his esophagus/larynx. Luckily he passed the object. However, he was subsequently left with an irritated throat and cough. The claim was denied because the policy does cover "coughs" . . . . Umm, that was the result of the injury, not the symptom! Their response was to ask whether or not I filed a claim for reconsideration as if that is standard operating procedure. As this is the second time I've been forced to jump through multiple hoops, I'm guessing it is. Moreover, after talking with one of their representatives who admitted the error, I learned that had they adequately considered my claim initially it would have been denied because they only cover such injuries it the foreign object was actually removed surgically! My point is their policy is nothing but loop holes. I'm not wasting one more second dealing with these buffoons. If you like beating your head against a concrete and wasting copious amounts of time filing paperwork, then this is the policy for you!!!!