Prudent Pet | Pet Insurance Review

Rebecca was patient and explained things well. Very easy to talk with.

I like the kindness and courtesy.I receive

Spoke with two reps in the last week as I have many questions on my first ever claim to submit for my cat. I was hoping not to have to submit any claims for many years as I have fairly young cats, 5 and over 1. My 5 year old was diagnosed with crystals, so here I am about to submit my first ever claim. I want to express how wonderful Maddy and Cathy/ Kathy were on the call with me. Maddy helped me with additional questions I had and gave me great information when submitting a claim I was not aware of. She was fantastic and very professional and pleasant to talk with. Cathy/ Kathy I should've grabbed the spelling of her name, my apologies was just as amazing and helpful with my questions. She even put me on hold to make sure she was providing me with the correct information. Both reps were very kind and professional. It makes the process of the pet owner on the other side of it a more relaxed and have some relief they have this support. Thank you ladies for your great customer service.

My dog required dental treatment, and I submitted a pre‑authorization request and supporting veterinary records. The claim was denied on the basis that the condition was “pre‑existing.” However, a March 7, 2025 veterinary record clearly documents: “Oral Cavity: Teeth are free from excessive tartar, no gingivitis present.” This is a clinical finding recorded during a hands‑on wellness exam. Despite this written medical record showing no gingivitis at that time, the insurer stated they contacted the veterinary clinic and were told that no oral exam was performed. When I contacted the clinic directly, they informed me they have no record of being contacted by the insurer and confirmed that the oral cavity findings in the chart reflect the veterinarian’s observations. I requested documentation from the insurer showing who they spoke with at the clinic, when the conversation occurred, and what was documented, since this alleged conversation contradicts the written medical record. The insurer declined to provide that information while continuing to rely on it to deny the claim. The insurer also took 9 days to provide an initial pre‑authorization response for a dental procedure involving extractions for active dental disease. I have now filed a formal complaint with the Washington State Office of the Insurance Commissioner regarding the claim handling and use of evidence in this denial.

Was not paid for operation because there were no pre existing vet visits. To me that means no pre-existing problems. Canceled my coverage after receiving no help. Would not recommend this company.