Not An Honorable Company

1
Out of 10

My first pet insurance experience was with this company; I was in part lured in by the ASPCA endorsement. I was concerned that the policies offered for my 2 cats and one dog were not particularly good but decided to give it a try. I did understand that every renewal was treated as a new application and coverage for illnesses occuring within the previous year would not be covered. I also understood the limits of coverage per illness. What angers me the most however is not that Hartville offers poor policies (after all I did purchase the policies) but that they did not reimburse fairly even given the limits of the policies. The reimbursement schedule is very low; three animals, three cities, 5 vet clinics- always the reimbursement was 60% after deductibles and co-pays (not the promised 80%). What they consider reasonable isn't. The adjusters also look for every reason to deny reimbursement. Part of a claim was denied for "timely filing" although they only want one claim per illness (how does that work?). They tried denying a claim for an emergency visit for my acutely ill cat claiming that it was due to his chronic mild liver inflammation. The cat died three days later of acute leukemia. I did finally receive some payment but only after repeated calls and many weeks. The renewal policy for the dog listed "ingestion of foreign bodies" as a pre-existing condition that would not be covered. Since when is one accidental ingestion a chronic condition? (That incident only cost them $40- a fraction of the premium- the dog was entirely healthy otherwise)
In short, Hartville offers poor policies and then doesn't even honor their side of the contract. After extensive research I have been able to find better policies elsewhere for the same or only slightly more money. The ASPCA should be ashamed to partner with a company like Hartville.

Did you find this review helpful?
Injury/illness
Claim Amount
Breed
Age of Pet

Leave a comment

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.
Posted: 03/10/2009
By:  

You're lucky you got 60% back. This is a complete ripoff. They get the "reasonable cost" they use probably by going to farms in places where there are 2 goats and a horse. I wish i could find a vet that charges what they say "reasonable cost" is on what they've paid me back. This company does above and beyond what it takes to NOT pay. All i can say is sue sue and sue...if you file in your state for small claims court they have to show up with representation legally..trust me they'll pay you first.

Posted: 04/05/2011
By:  

I agree with you; they work hard looking for ways not to pay! After fighting (and winning) about a pre-existing condition, they then reduced the benefit with the Reasonable and Customary clause. One of my dogs had a disc injury and I tried to avoid surgery, because of his age, so we treated with medication and crate rest. It worked for a short time, but then surgery was called for. Now, we're into the renewal and it's pre-existing so they didn't have to pay.