Embrace | Pet Insurance Review

We adopted our dog Bear about 5 years ago he was 9.5yrs old when we adopted him. He has had tummy issues and last weekend we thought he would not make it home. He was in the hospital all weekend and I knew that no matter the cost we had our pet insurance that would help cover his care, it really helps with keeping our senior dog healthy.

They were quick and great about reimbursing us until we met our deductible and filed a claim for over $1,000. Then they sent us a list of his ALLEGED pre-existing conditions which is BS and a long list of what they WILL NOT cover for 12 months because he's already been seen for them.

Kyle was very helpful to us with the submission of the claim for our cat. We have been very satisfied with this company over the many years we have had this coverage.

So far all of my claims have been manipulated to fall under the categories of the 2 conditions my dog was treated for prior to having insurance. So I’ve paid $825 for insurance….& over $1k in vet bills that I am going to continue to protest . I want my new puppy to be insured but this is not encouraging me. I understand the onset would secure coverage but modifying & extracting small details from a larger condition/visit to provide reason to NOT cover is horrible business.

Most of my claims have been denied due to being labeled as pre-existing conditions. For example, last November, my kitten had diarrhea due to a Giardia infection, but the claim was rejected as pre-existing because the kitten had multiple infections after being recently adopted. In June, now a fully grown cat, it developed a Clostridium infection, again with diarrhea as a symptom. This claim was also denied, solely because diarrhea was a common symptom between the two infections and they called diahhera (a symptom) a pre existing condition. Can you imagine ? It seems like a scam stay away! Update (09/17/2024): The company responded to my negative review on Trustpilot, citing the issue of a pre-existing condition. However, I’m still unclear about the distinction they make between a pre-existing condition and symptoms of a condition. Diarrhea is a symptom, not a condition itself, and in this case, the underlying condition is not pre-existing. Yet, they fail to recognize this or have structured their policy so that if two different conditions share the same symptom, they won’t cover it. I appealed their decision 24 hours ago and have yet to receive any response.