Poor kid :no:
http://www.ratemyhorsepro.com/news/kim-stewart-is-spellbound.aspx?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1#BOS
$100,000 for a horse that’s blind in one eye? :eek:
… Not only blind in one eye but they also paid before they had the vet check? And to top it off the vet check they first received was fraudulent? It reads like a soap opera… Really I’m so glad I’m in my own bubble of “don’t live in that $$$$ world” .
[QUOTE=gumshoe;7709298]
$100,000 for a horse that’s blind in one eye? :eek:[/QUOTE]
$100k for a horse that is blind in one eye AND lame, is how I read it. Crazy story.
It would seem that they were only aware of the blindness in one eye. Not the suspensory or navicular and whatever else was there when they paid for the horse. Crazy.
The worst in all this is the effect on the child. This is a young woman that could be severely scarred. It is not the money but the psychological consequences down the road. I wish these people would think twice before doing this.
Did you read the application for insurance? The Application asked for " any lameness, faulty conformation, evidence of founder/laminitis, or other abnormal condition?" The answer was “NA (not applicable)–the horse is in full work and showing.”
And the answer to the question about previous surgery was “Not to my knowledge”, as was the answer to the question about previous colic. Vet says that her relationship to the horse was “Prepurchase.”
Horse has a midline incision and the vet doesn’t know why, so “Not to my knowledge” is literally correct but misleading. The answer to the question about lameness, laminitis/founder is, I suppose, literally correct, since it was Not Applicable because the horse was in full work.
But the vet came as close to lying as possible, since she knew the horse was lame and had the signs of navicular changes. If the insurance company accepted the application, someone came perilously close to fraud.
Asshattery, to be sure, but you’please excuse me if I’m skeptical that “severely scarred” is applicable. Perhaps if her brother was killed in a drive by shooting, but not a botched horse sale.
On the insurance application should the vet not have mentioned the navicular and suspensory injuries that were noted in the pre-purchase?
Wasn’t this the same woman who sued Heritage?
How sad that we all agree with the mother. Talk about innocent until proven guilty.
If course I also think that the trainer and vet are probably guilty – so I am one of the ones who prejudges them. But that is because I have also been cheated by a trainer and so I believe that they deserve to have their reputation ruined. Sadly this will not happen because there is an unspoken collusion between/among the very people who are supposed to act as fiduciaries for their clients. Of course, there are exceptions but the honest ones are in the minority.
Out of all the parts of the story I think I am most appalled that said trainer left for pony finals (for at least a week) and left the pony LOCKED inside its stall.
That really shows a high regard for the pony [not] and a high degree of horsemanship [not]. To say NOTHING of what would happen to the pony if the barn were to burn down.
Possibly someone on the property had a key, but that person would not be there 24/7. The health and safety of this pony were secondary to keeping the trainer’s collateral on the property.
No not the same woman in the Heritage lawsuit.
I feel sorry for the child but I think there is probably more to the story (as always) and plenty of blame to go around. The parents owe the trainer somewhere between $200,000 and $25,000 and also found money was tight when it was time to finish paying for the horse. It doesn’t sound like either of them are innocents :no:
…And this would be why some equine mortality insurance companies now want to see a copy of the pre-purchase exam, if one was done, and not an abridged insurance vet certificate. If the buyer would have had a copy of this in writing, rather than taking somone’s word for it verbally, perhaps different choices would have been made.
It is very common when a trainer is informed that a client is leaving them, charges appear in your bill that were never discussed. Everything gets padded. it is called revenge. Every horse you sat on might appear as a lease (even if they were “catch rides”) lots of vet and other maintenance charges that were oh well forgotten. You can fight them, or pay them and move on. And of course, if you don’t, your belongings might be taken in lieu of payment, even your horse pad locked and the trail of gossip about not paying your bills, blah, and blah. But of course there is always someone else that will take you and it all begins again.
[QUOTE=Lord Helpus;7709530]
Out of all the parts of the story I think I am most appalled that said trainer left for pony finals (for at least a week) and left the pony LOCKED inside its stall.
That really shows a high regard for the pony [not] and a high degree of horsemanship [not]. To say NOTHING of what would happen to the pony if the barn were to burn down.
Possibly someone on the property had a key, but that person would not be there 24/7. The health and safety of this pony were secondary to keeping the trainer’s collateral on the property.[/QUOTE]
I don’t know anything about this particular case with this pony.
The one time years ago when I knew of a horse “locked” in his stall at WEF, everyone who worked at the barn had access to the key. The horse received the same excellent care he always did. The lock was in place when the owner came to ride in order to drive home the point that he needed to pay his very overdue bill if he wanted to ride his horse.
Doesn’t the vet have to sign off on the insurance papers? In Canada if you are insuring your horse above a certain amount the vet certificate is MANDATORY! Below they still sign but not the full PPE is needed! For example, after my horses injury when his renewal came up I had to get a new vet certificate sent let the insurance know he was back to full work and it was SIGNED by the attending vet…this all blows my mind that apparently these high $$$$ ponies are just being insured with no official backup!
I have to admit, I left a boarding barn last fall and was terrified on the morning of move, our horses would be locked in their stalls. Our bills were well-paid, but horse people are nuts.
I don’t know about this case, but you’d think a trainer of this caliber would look at that prepurchase and say “nope” for her client.
I wonder how the insurance company will handle this? No claim was made BUT clearly the vet misrepresented the horse. Will be interesting to watch…
The vet DID sign a “Veterinary Certificate of Examination For Mortality Insurance.” It’s on the website in the documents at the bottom of the page. That certificate is dated the same date as the PPE.
Note the language at the top of that document. The vet is supposed to examine the horse “outside of the stall” and that the horse “be made to move about to demonstrate soundness”.
Noting prior surgeries doesn’t mean the horse won’t be insured. It may mean that the part of the body that was operated on will be excluded in the policy. If it is known there was a colic surgery, the insurance company would, more likely than not, exclude colic surgery from your policy. Without knowledge of what the cause of the prior incision was for, the vet can’t say it was colic. The vet doesn’t know.
I would think that the vet would have to make a note of the incision on that document, though. The form asks for date and type of surgery. Where would that vet get that information? If not supplied by the current owner?
This whole thing stinks to high heaven. Someday those who put all their trust and decision making power in the hands of their trainer will wake the F up. Or maybe not.
[QUOTE=eclipse;7709709]
Doesn’t the vet have to sign off on the insurance papers? In Canada if you are insuring your horse above a certain amount the vet certificate is MANDATORY! Below they still sign but not the full PPE is needed! For example, after my horses injury when his renewal came up I had to get a new vet certificate sent let the insurance know he was back to full work and it was SIGNED by the attending vet…this all blows my mind that apparently these high $$$$ ponies are just being insured with no official backup![/QUOTE]
