Embrace seems to be oblivious to the fact that dogs that swim sometimes develop ear problems that have nothing to do with allergies, and making that category of ear issues a preexisting condition for unrelated skin issues makes no logical sense whatsoever. They also don't seem to understand the difference between notes and a diagnosis.
Let me state up front that I have no problem with the "preexisting conditions" clause, as long as it's truly a preexisting condition. What I am referring to here is the Embrace taking a very long stretch to tie things together that are not true preexisting conditions, and then using that as an reason to not pay claims.
In May 2013 my vet noted a mild irritation in my flatcoated retriever's ears. He never received any diagnosis or treatment, and I corrected it by cleaning his ears. No problem.
In April 2014 my dog developed an infection on one leg and an irritated place of unknown origin on another foot, which we treated. When I submitted the claim Embrace first rejected it because of the note about an ear irritation in 2013, which had nothing at all to do with what was going on this past April.
The vet had to write several letters to Embrace that were very clear that the ear irritation in 2013 and the infection and irritation on the foot were unrelated, and Embrance eventually paid off on the infection but not on the unknown irritation.
Now Embrace has "reset the calendar" on ANY skin or ear problems. Anything that hap