Don't Bother with Petplan

2
Out of 10

I am really sorry that I purchased Petplan. My German Shepherd mix was hospitalized due to "possible ingestion of foreign substance." She had diarhea when we brought her home, probably because we acquired her from a dog pound in which the conditions were probably less than sanitary. Now if there is any gastrointestinal issue (including eating the inedible) they won't pay. We paid over $1000 out of pocket after shelling out money for this crummy insurance. Just like human providers: anything to get out of paying for a claim!

Did you find this review helpful?
Injury/illness

Gastritis/vomiting

Claim Amount
Over $1000
Breed

Mixed Breed

Age of Pet
1 - 8

Leave a comment

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.
Posted: 10/09/2011
By: Mary C.

I find it unconscionable that they have the gall to use the diarrhea a pet has shortly after adoption to preclude ANY possible future "gastrointestinal issue" (quite a broad term) from coverage.
First, many newly adopted/bought pets suffer from some kind of gastrointestinal issue be it diarrhea, constipation, vomiting, lack of interest in food, etc. when being relocated from one environment to another as it is a stressful event for them and their readjustment can take anywhere from days to weeks (especially if the new environment has other pets and/or kids).

Second, travel from one location to another is upsetting and can cause stomach upset, particularly if the pet is unaccustomed to vehicles and/or if the trip is lengthy.

Third, another source of gastrointestinal issues is the abrupt switch from one brand food to another rather than by gradually mixing decreasing amounts of the old food with the new brand over the course of a week. As some pounds/rescues rely on donated food and many volunteers, the adoption counselors are likely unaware what food (or mix of foods) the pet was eating so they can't advise the new owners of the brand.

All above mentioned stomach problems are temporary and quite common in newly adopted/bought dogs, yet since any responsible pet parent will bring their new charge to the vet within days of adoption/purchase, the "condition" will be noted in the pet's file.

But the most significant factor in the refusal of your claim is that the vet noted "possible ingestion of a foreign substance". If that is the case there should be evidence of a "foreign substance" in the dog's elimination. If it wasn't something visually apparent the vomit could have been tested for toxins.

Posted: 10/09/2011
By: Mary C. - addendum

I find it unconscionable that they have the gall to use the diarrhea a pet has shortly after adoption to preclude ANY possible future "gastrointestinal issue" (quite a broad term) from coverage.
First, many newly adopted/bought pets suffer from some kind of gastrointestinal issue be it diarrhea, constipation, vomiting, lack of interest in food, etc. when being relocated from one environment to another as it is a stressful event for them and their readjustment can take anywhere from days to weeks (especially if the new environment has other pets and/or kids).

Second, travel from one location to another is upsetting and can cause stomach upset, particularly if the pet is unaccustomed to vehicles and/or if the trip is lengthy.

Third, another source of gastrointestinal issues is the abrupt switch from one brand food to another rather than by gradually mixing decreasing amounts of the old food with the new brand over the course of a week. As some pounds/rescues rely on donated food and many volunteers, the adoption counselors are likely unaware what food (or mix of foods) the pet was eating so they can't advise the new owners of the brand.

All above mentioned stomach problems are temporary and quite common in newly adopted/bought dogs, yet since any responsible pet parent will bring their new charge to the vet within days of adoption/purchase, the "condition" will be noted in the pet's file.

But the most significant factor in the refusal of your claim is that the vet noted "possible ingestion of a foreign substance". If that is the case there should be evidence of a "foreign substance" in the dog's elimination. If it wasn't something visually apparent the vomit could have been tested for toxins. Were proof found I don't see how they can refuse payment as it is a case of injury caused by ingestion of a foreign or toxic substance rather than a pre-existing condition.