[QUOTE=sar2008;5520761]
But then again, you all that think giving back a lame horse is okay probably hoot and holler about paying insurance as well. 
[/QUOTE]
Nope, quite happy to have my insurance. I just don’t believe someone who signs on for four months of care of a horse should be on the hook for some potentially large/longterm vet bills if the horse hurts himself in turnout on the last day of the lease.
Perhaps they can come up with a compromise that, in the event the horse is hurt while on lease, after the lease is up, the person leasing will be responsible for the vet bills resulting from the injury but not to exceed $XXX
[QUOTE=sar2008;5520761]
But then again, you all that think giving back a lame horse is okay probably hoot and holler about paying insurance as well. flame suit on[/QUOTE]
This actually happened to me.
I was willing to FREE LEASE a $45,000 horse to a professional and the fact that I expected her to pay an insurance premium to cover any issues was a deal breaker for her.
Completely unwilling to take ANY responsibility for the horse whatsoever.
I can see both sides of this situation.
If the lessee is going to purchase insurance as a condition of the lease, (hopefully naming the lessor as the beneficiary) then I’d think easy solution is to arrange for the insurance policy to potentially cover a period beyond the short term lease period - if necessary.
I would think you can arrange it so that vet bills arising out of an injury/illness occurring during the lease are to be paid under that policy until the injury/illness is resolved. After all, most insurance policies will cover extended treatment even beyond the end of the policy term for some period of time, to cover situations where the horse gets hurt in the last week of the coverage period and requires treatment even after that term expires. The insurance companies do this so that they still meet their obligations to the insured - since the injury/illness happened while the horse was covered - while still allowing them to exclude that condition when the policy is renewed.
I would think that there could be a clause stating that in the event an injury/illness occurs during the lease period that requires treatment extending beyond the the term of the lease, the lessee agrees to keep the insurance policy in force to cover the related expenses for up to the end of the policy term (most policies are for a year term or shorter.)
That way, both parties are covered, the lessee has some responsibility to help fix the horse if they break it, but they know their exposure is limited to the amount of the insurance premium, rather than to the full extent of the vet bills. And the owner has the assurance of the insurance coverage as well, hopefully reducing or eliminating any concern about having to chase the lessee to cover vet bills after the lease is over, or arguing over what sort of $$$ treatment the horse receives in the event of a problem.
[QUOTE=Jheregvonmunch;5520575]
Ive leased horses before. 1 year. 1/3 all expenses the problem of lessee… standard wam bam thank you mam.
Well now I have one client doing a short lease to another for the board fee only. The owner wants a clause in the contract that states if the lessee injures the horse during the lease they have to pay the vet expenses. Fine. No problem there… but they also want a clause to say once the 4 months is over and the lease is ended if the horse is still off due to that injury they want the lessee to continue to pay the medical expenses. The owner has a 10K major medical insurance policy but Im still having a hard time allowing the clause to lock the lessee into still having to pay medical expenses months after the lease ends? I am trying to be neutral to both parties.
Thoughts anyone?[/QUOTE]
This is the part that’s going to be nearly impossible to prove in the event that it happens. If the clause is to be worded this way, the lessee would literally have to cause the injury to the horse. Like, go out riding on a skating rink, or let the horse loose on a road, or fail to close the trailer door on the way to a horse show, or some other grossly negligent act that would almost certainly lead to the horse getting injured. The way I read this, this clause has nothing to do with freak turnout injuries or common accidents that happen in this sport. This clause specifically says that the owner is asking the lessee to pay if the horse is injured as a direct result of something the lessee does.
I would sit down with the owner and clarify exactly what they are talking about in regards to the “lessee injuring the horse”. Do they mean if the horse is injured while in the lessee’s care (turnout accident, cast in stall injury, common sports injury, etc)? Or do they mean if the horse is injured as a result of some action the lessee took while the horse was in their care? Totally different clauses that result in totally different legal action at the end of the line…
The leasee carrying insurance is also pretty standard and I haven’t heard anyone saying otherwise. And I personally have never objected to carrying it on a leased horse for the entire period of the lease. So sar2008, no idea what you’re talking about.
And I don’t think anyone is advocating running around and breaking someone’s horse and giving it back. I mean really, prone to hyperbole much? The point is that in most lease contracts, unless the injury is caused by direct fault or negligence of the leasee, its not normal nor common to say the leasee has an indefinite responsibility to pay the horse’s medical bills (or carry insurance) for accidents that are not due to negligence or caused by direct actions of leasee.
It’s quite a leap to go from having issues with that to assuming people are advocating ruining someone’s horse 
If the person is really that concerned that the leasee is going to cause an injury due to negligence…than they shouldnt lease the horse out!!!
Seriously, injuries happen. They should opt to SELL horse or not lease it if that is the clause.
Leasee is not going to enjoy a lease if they are worried about constantly causing an injury to the horse.
Once the lease period is over so is the responsibility of the leasee. This is the risk the owner takes when they lease the horse.
If the horse injured himself in a paddock, for example: cut the muscles in his front leg while rolling, I don’t think the lessee is responsible for the horse past the end of the lease. What if the lessee was turning him out before a long trailer ride home at the request of the owner?
Actually I think the owner of the horse to be leased should be commended on their due diligence on the lease contract. Think of it this way. You have health insurance /workers compenation through your employer… you have an injury to your knee. The initial problem is okay but… 6 months later you change jobs… you’re still having problems with that knee. Your knee problems will (or might) still be covered under the former employer’s workers’ comp/or health insurance.
So I agree w/the owner to a point. Owner can aske Lessee to contribute to the horse’s insurance premium (or perhaps its included in the lease fee to make things simpler) second have the contract put date limits on types of injuries - certain lameness issues could go on for years and that’s crazy to expect someone to pay for that indefinitely. And certainly many injuries are not due to anyone’s fault - just dumb luck
Couple of Things…
First if I was that concerned that my horse I was about to lease out could possibly be injured intentionally. He wouldn’t be leased out! As the Lessor, you need to know where you horse is going, the trainer, the riders ability and decide if its a good situation or not for your horse. If not then don’t go though with it.
Second I have leased several horses before what the Lessor in this cause is asking for is not standard. Typically you ask the Lessee to cover basic/routine vet care while under the Lease, and to cover insurance fees while in their care. Most leases differentiate between basic and major vet care.
In this case as the Lesee I would under no circumstances sign a lease that held me responsible for a horses care beyond the length of the lease. Injuries happen to horses all the time, even with exceptional care. In the worst case scenario the horse gets injured and is unsound for life and I lease this horse for 4 months and now i’m stuck with a lifetime of bills. No Thanks!!
Also another way to look at this is if the Lessee, gets injured by the Lessors horse during the lease. Are they going to be responsible for their medical bills? And perhaps medical bills pertaining to that accident for that persons life. Also not a clause I would sign up for.
I’m not a lawyer, but I doubt that if one reviewed the lease with that clause in it, that they would advise a client to sign that, as is.
[QUOTE=Showhtr;5521152]
First if I was that concerned that my horse I was about to lease out could possibly be injured intentionally. He wouldn’t be leased out! As the Lessor, you need to know where you horse is going, the trainer, the riders ability and decide if its a good situation or not for your horse. If not then don’t go though with it.
Second I have leased several horses before what the Lessor in this cause is asking for is not standard. Typically you ask the Lessee to cover basic/routine vet care while under the Lease, and to cover insurance fees while in their care. Most leases differentiate between basic and major vet care.
In this case as the Lesee I would under no circumstances sign a lease that held me responsible for a horses care beyond the length of the lease. Injuries happen to horses all the time, even with exceptional care. In the worst case scenario the horse gets injured and is unsound for life and I lease this horse for 4 months and now i’m stuck with a lifetime of bills. No Thanks!!
Also another way to look at this is if the Lessee, gets injured by the Lessors horse during the lease. Are they going to be responsible for their medical bills? And perhaps medical bills pertaining to that accident for that persons life. Also not a clause I would sign up for.
I’m not a lawyer, but I doubt that if one reviewed the lease with that clause in it, that they would advise a client to sign that, as is.[/QUOTE]
Showhtr, you write much more clearly than I. Your logic, especially putting the “shoe” on the other foot was perfect way to explain my position.
I think that a clause like that is asking for problems - personally, I would not sign a contract with that language.
How do you determine if the person leasing the horse “causes” the injury. Is it assumed that if the horse gets injured during the lease that the person leasing the horse “caused” the injury. Perhaps I am the odd man out but in most instances that I know of where a horse was injured it was impossible to tell exactly when, where, why or how that injury occured. Sure, you could guess and maybe say most likely this happened because … but it was never an absolute.
These are two clients I am trying to formulate a contract for, Im trying to be fair to both sides and its really giving me a hard time 
The lessee wanted a whole year… if that had happened I would have forced her to have the insurance policy.
The owner did not want a year, she just wants someone to pay the board for 4 months because her daughter is busy. She already holds a 10k major medical policy.
The owner doesnt want to be responsible for any medical costs during or after. She will allow the Lessee to claim on her insurance.
I was thinking of putting : In the case of gross negligence the lessee is responsible for all medical expenses which are not covered insurance, even if those associated expenses continue past completion of the lease. In the case of unpreventable injury the lessee is responsible for all medical expenses which are not covered by the insurance but will not be responsible once the lease period ends.
Is this all a mute point if the owner hold major medical, isnt the insurance just going to cover it?
Unless the leasee specifically and deliberately caused caused the injury or it occured as the result of gross negligence? No, its the leasors horse and the leasee does not have to pay in perpetuity. When you lease a horse, you do so because you do not want to own one with everything that entails.
Why in the world would any leasee sign a contract locking them into any and all expenses occuring from any injury occuring to somebody else’s horse while in your care for the rest of it’s life???
I dunno, suspensories happen people. You might like to think you did something wrong that caused it but, like life in general, sometimes bad things happen to good people and horses.
I would not sign that lease.
[QUOTE=Jheregvonmunch;5521223]
These are two clients I am trying to formulate a contract for, Im trying to be fair to both sides and its really giving me a hard time
The lessee wanted a whole year… if that had happened I would have forced her to have the insurance policy.
The owner did not want a year, she just wants someone to pay the board for 4 months because her daughter is busy. She already holds a 10k major medical policy.
The owner doesnt want to be responsible for any medical costs during or after. She will allow the Lessee to claim on her insurance.
I was thinking of putting : In the case of gross negligence the lessee is responsible for all medical expenses which are not covered insurance, even if those associated expenses continue past completion of the lease. In the case of unpreventable injury the lessee is responsible for all medical expenses which are not covered by the insurance but will not be responsible once the lease period ends.
Is this all a mute point if the owner hold major medical, isnt the insurance just going to cover it?[/QUOTE]
I would never sign such an agreement as the lessee. Who would determine what constitutes “gross negligence” … or even “unpreventable injury”… ? (I think you mean preventable, actually … but it doesn’t matter. I wouldn’t sign either way.)
If the horse was severely injured and needed ongoing care for a long period of time, you could go through $10k of insurance in a heartbeat. A single surgical procedure could exceed that amount in a few hours.
The lessee could be paying on that kind of situation for YEARS. That is not a fair deal in any way, shape or form.
If the owner doesn’t want to be responsible for the horse’s costs during the lease - fair enough. They require the lessee to buy insurance coverage for that period.
If the issue of extended treatment is a huge concern and the lessee REALLY wants the horse, you can possibly ask the lessee to pay for a one YEAR policy (even though they are only getting a 4 month lease.) That is the most coverage ANYONE can get at one time and SHOULD cover the treatment of most illnesses and injuries that arise during the lease, even if the need for treatment continues for months after the lease itself is concluded.
No reasonable person is going to lease a horse for such a short period of time if they have to agree to be liable for the horses bills forever.
I always had a major medical exclusion in my lease contracts. On BOTH sides.
If that horse I owned had a major injury (not caused by negligence or gross misuse) I NEVER expected them to continue to pay on it and would take the horse back and refund as appropriate.
As a leasor, I would not expect to pay fuull fees on an unusable horse for the rest of the lease term.
As a 45 year horse owner, I insisted on those provisions as leasee and offered them as leassor. I realize others have different expectations and requirements. But I thought that fair.
But, honestly, on a friggen FREE lease??? I am not signing to be responsible for anything and everything that could happen to that horse for it’s lifetime on earth because it was allegedly caused by something while in my care.
It may only be for 4 months but you CAN insure that and that’s the way to go.
That leassor client needs to either sell it and relenquish complete control or keep it and assume all responsibility. Not expect somebody to assume all the costs and potential liability while not enjoying any of the benefits of ownership AND be on the hook for an assortment of expenses. I mean, if it had colic surgery the last 3 days they had it, would they have to pay for all the aftercare and check ups and, maybe, another colic surgery 6 months after they surrendered the horse to the owner???
My lease contract specifies that the lessee pays ALL the bills for any injury caused by their gross negligence. I’ve never had anyone bat an eye at that.
I think it’s pretty funny that some people apparently think that if they were to, say, put a horse in a trailer that they knew to have a bad floor to haul it back to the owner on the last day of the lease - well, they should only be responsible for the vet bill for THAT day.
“Gross negligence” is a legal term, by the way. It has a definition, and it’s decided by statutes and courts. There’s no “oh, gee, how do we define that?” going on.
If I thought that I could be 110% sure that every person I leased a horse out to would be absolutely perfect and I would never have to worry about anything they, their families, their trainers, etc might do, then I wouldn’t need a lease contract AT ALL. But these are humans, and while obviously I trust them and have done my own due diligence, I don’t feel like the risk of a lifetime’s vet bills because they caused permanent damage to my horse through wanton neglect. (And even the best insurance has limits and exclusions.)
Mind you, if my horse gets hurt in their (safe, appropriate) pasture, or in a wreck on the highway because someone cut them off, or even in the middle of a ride accidentally - in none of those cases would I (or my contract) expect them to pay past the end of the lease. We all know horses are a risk, and if I couldn’t accept that I wouldn’t own them. But if I am letting YOU use MY horse, I expect you not to be an idiot. And to pay for the damage you cause if you defy that expectation.
(I should add, by the way, that all the people I’ve leased to have been great! :yes:)
Kementari’s post is right on about gross negligence. But gross negligence aside, there’s no way to eliminate risk for either party in a lease. Yes, the horse could have an injury halfway through the lease and the person leasing the horse is stuck with paying a lease fee on a lame horse. Yes, the horse could have a career ending injury during the lease and be returned to the owner at the end of the lease permanently lame. You have to accept some risk when doing a lease.
The best way to handle it is to have the horse properly insured with major medical and mortality. If it is an unusually valuable or special horse, then “loss of use” insurance could be included as well. The clause about the person leasing the horse being responsible for expenses after the lease is up…well, most horse insurance policies should continue to pay for the medical bills related to the injury that occurred, that should be a moot point. When the lease is up, the responsibility of that person should end.
Personally, when leasing out a horse I specify very specifically the care the horse is to receive and the riding program that the horse can be used for. Also, I only lease horses out to situations where the care and riding program can be monitored–i.e. at my barn, or at the barn of a trainer I know well, etc. If the care and riding specifications are followed, then I recognize that the horse just as likely could have gotten hurt at my own farm being ridden by me. That’s just chance.
I see nothing wrong with being a little flexible though, to make both parties happy in the OPs situation. If the lease is otherwise a good value, perhaps add a clause that if the horse is unsound at the end of the lease term the person leasing the horse is responsible for up to $x in vet bills over the next x months if not covered by insurance.
To answer the original question? NO it is not normal to expect a 4 month (free) leasee-or a 1/3 value year leasee- to sign and agree to continue to pay medical expenses forever on that horse if the medical was not caused by gross misuse or negligence on their part.
Sh*t happens and it’s nobody’s fault. Again, I would not sign that kind of thing.
I think this part is extremely important. My lease contract spells out pretty specific parameters of how my horse is to be used and by whom, under the supervision of trainers _____ and _____, etc. Things like number of times per week horse is to be used in work over fences, number of shows horse can attend per month, who exactly is allowed to ride the horse (ie, not for use in lessons, not for use by friends of lessee to “learn to ride”), etc. I try to be as realistic as possible about these constraints, and they are all spelled out to lessee and trainer before anything is signed.
IME, spelling out these parameters kind of sets the standards for what you would consider irresponsible/inappropriate use of your horse. Ie, if you say “jumping permitted 2x per week at ____ height under the supervision of trainer ____”, then the lessee proceeds to jump 5 days a week, two feet higher than stipulated, without the supervision of said trainer, which then results in an injury, you’re covered and they’re on the hook. But if the lessee had a track record of following the contract’s parameters and the horse slipped in turnout, I’d consider it part of the risk of leasing out my horse. That kind of thing could have happened while he was sitting in my field getting fat.
If anything, making these parameters clear from the moment pen hits the paper spells out to the lessee that you mean business, and that wandering from your expectations of what “reasonable” is does indeed mean they’ve breached the contract.
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
