PetBest is really PetWorst - A True Scam Artist

Out of 10

My dog has been marking his territory by urinating on objects since he was a puppy. After my dog reaches 8.5 years old, I decided to get him pet insurance as a safety net. I placed a call to the vet scheduling an appointment, and I inquired what the typical symptoms the UTI are. When I submitted my claim for the pet visit, the claims department suggested that it was a pre-existing condition based on that one call placed to the vet (which i didn't get to speak to the vet since she was not available). The decision was that since I called about UTI, it means he was already suck hence does not entitle to receiving medical reimbursement. The vet even completed a medical history questionnaire stating that my dog does NOT have any pre-existing condition pertaining to UTI prior to that visit, but Pet Best still refuses to accept that response. I am currently submitting appeals paper work. A filing with the Better Business Bureau will soon take place as well. I don't think they deserve the name "pet best".

Did you find this review helpful?
Claim Amount
Age of Pet

Leave a comment

Enter the characters shown in the image.
Posted: 07/29/2008

Well, if Pets Best does not cover pre-exsisting conditions and you called the vets office about something before the pet was covered why would you think they would cover that. If I remember right, don't they ask you if the pet has been ill, injured or had any symptoms before? If you signed up with them then you should have answered that with a yes, but I guess you think you are above the rules and should get better treatment than all others. You saw something wrong with your pet, called the vet to get advice about it, then got insurance and expected them to cover what you already saw as an issue before getting a policy. It sounds like you are the idiot and not them!

Posted: 08/19/2008

To carry your response to its logical conclusion, all policy holders would have to insure their pet at the moment of birth. If they wait a week after birth, then the insurance company could deny many claims on the basis the the condition originated in that one week of non-coverage, or in any time period prior to the start of the policy no matter how long or short it was.
This would mean that all claims for treatment of an illness could be rejected. About the only thing that would have to be covered are accidents and mishaps (such as a dog swallowing a big pieve of rubber). The ins companies don't have to be right, they just need an excuse to not pay.

When companies write policies for pets, it is totally unreasonable of them to expect that an animal won't have some 'condition' at the time the policy starts. In fact, I'm sure they know this and count on it to justify denying claims. They do the same with people.

Also, is a genetic disposition a pre-existing condition? An English Setter is prone to a hearing disorder. If I insure one and it turns out to have this disorder, is it covered? Because I know it is genetically predisposed to this problem does this mean that I knew of a pre-existing condition and lied on my policy application?

Am I an idiot for applying for insurance for a dog that is pre-disposed to have hearing problems and then expecting the insurance company to honor the claim when I have it treated by a vet?