Out of 10

They are claiming a condition pre-existed when I had insurance 2 months before my dog went into surgery for a "mole" to be removed. Then during surgery they VET found lumps. So, now I am not getting reimbursed due to Pet Best saying the condition preexisted. How am I supposed to know my dog has lumps when they were internal and not showing. I have paid Per Best almost over $150 for insurance and now I had to pay $1,200 for VET fees that will not be reimbursed now! What a horrible experience with this company. I am out a lot of money but I thought I was covered and safe.

Did you find this review helpful?
Claim Amount
Over $1000


Age of Pet
Over 8 years

Leave a comment

Enter the characters shown in the image.
Posted: 07/08/2011

Hi there, we hope your dog is recovering quickly. Pre-existing conditions aren’t covered by any pet insurance company. Any illness or injury that begins before your policy is effective, or during your waiting period, will be considered pre-existing. Even if your pet had no signs or symptoms and wasn’t diagnosed, some conditions can still be considered pre-existing because they take weeks or months to develop. There isn’t enough information here for us to contact you, but if you call Customer Care at 877-738-7237 we’ll be happy to review your claim with you in more detail.

Posted: 10/12/2011

Sorry but this response is a bit weak sounding to me.
"Even if your pet had no signs or symptoms and wasn’t diagnosed, some conditions can still be considered pre-existing because they take weeks or months to develop"

I am shopping pet insurance and so am reading customer comments on the companies I am considering. This makes me think twice about this company and others for that matter.

The way pet insurance companies are rating "pre-existing" conditions is a bit scary to me and very convoluted. It sounds a bit shady honestly.

If the doctor had no diagnosis or notes otherwise - pet had history of good preventative care - meaning the pet was well cared for and taken to a vet for check ups and visits for care of various illnesses or conditions, then an insurance company should not be denying the care the consumer has paid premium to cover if the pet was not diagnosed with something.

There can be no justice in saying that a pet that was deemed free of disease or illness, should be denied for kidney issues, diabetes or cancer - just because it can take months or weeks to develop.

If they had check ups and were deemed clear of it then and it develops later, then they should have the benefit paid - after all that is what people buy insurance for. Otherwise don't offer illness coverage.

Preexisting should be limited to the period of 14 - 30 days (whatever the company states)before insurance is purchased. It should be cut and dry to prevent issues with consumers. If the pet was not diagnosed yet had care, then they didn't have it.

There is not true way to prove it otherwise - especially since they were not physically examined by a the insurances own doctor. Everything else is hearsay and unfair to the very consumer that pays the bills to keep the company alive.

I can understand if the pet had a history or condition previously diagnosed but un-diagnosed means your company pays its own vets and lawyers to decipher potential illnesses and loopholes to declare something that finally does get diagnosed (officially under policy) as potentially pre-existing (all via paperwork - in the name of not needing to pay). Therefore technically you don't have to pay out. This is of course without examination of the pet....

It just doesn't sound justifiable.