Very Quick to Exclude Conditions

Out of 10

I've held policies with other pet insurance companies, andup until today, I was happy with Embrace. I adopted my
dog, Sugar, last August, and I knew that she was almost
blind. My veterinarian was concerned about possible
SARDS, and so, I quickly had Sugar seen by an
opthalmologist at Purdue University. They did NOT
diagnose her with SARDS, but instead with PRA --
Progressive Retinol Atrophy. This is a irreversible
disorder, but except for the blindness, Sugar should have
no other symptoms and/or complications. So, I forgot
about it. PRA is not serious, and Sugar has adapted well
to her blindness.

Then, last month, she had a corneal ulcer, which prompted
Embrace to review her records. They saw that my
veterinarian was concerned about SARDS last year, and
immediately informed me in an email that SARDS was added
as an exclusion to my policy. Of course, I am fighting
them on this, since they didn't even bother checking to
see if Sugar saw a specialist, because if they did, they
would know that she doesn't have SARDS.

Even still, I am angry. This is a demonstration that
Embrace is just following the other pet insurance
companies -- i.e. they are just looking for easy,
convenient ways to exclude conditions. I am confident
that I will win, but I am still very disappointed.
Shame on you Embrace.

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

Leave a comment

Enter the characters shown in the image.
Posted: 06/09/2009

Let me get this straight. You obtained insurance for a pet with an eye problem & you are mad at Embrace for questioning a claim. Shame on you for posting such a ridiculous rant. You are lucky they insured your pet to begin with.

Posted: 02/17/2010

Jan, I'm a Vet researching these companies. Your statement makes no sense. There are a multitude of eye problems and the eye problem this dog had is not serious,progressive, or cause other eye problems such as corneal ulcers. The dog was taken to Purdue and was NOT diagnosed with SARDS. If I read the post correctly, the regular Vet also did not make a diagnosis of SARDS, he only suspected it. I am assuming(I know, bad idea) that Purdue like every Vet School I know of requires a referral. If Embrace reviewed this dogs records they should have seen that the referring vet had not made a diagnosis and that the dog had been referred to Purdue. It would be entirely reasonable for Embrace to contact the owner and request records from Purdue before they ruled on any claim as I'm sure Embrace did not have access to records at Purdue, nor would Purdue release them without the owner's consent. I am a little uneasy with Embrace simply saying this dog had SARDS and that was excluded and also making the not necessarily logical step to saying the corneal ulcer was caused by SARDS. Reviews such as this one are valuable to me as I want to be able to recommend an insurance company without hesitation. I will contact Embrace but if not for this review by Mary, this would not have come up and I probably would never have thought to ask about Embrace's policy regarding referral institutions

Posted: 07/09/2010

Will an Embrace rep please comment on this situation?Thank you.