[MHM]

AHF offering Free leases on some of their ponies. Is that part of her Initiative or something else?

That contest was about a year ago, long before this... situation.

[leyla25]

The free leases is part of the initiative to get rid off overheads.. and then sue you if the pony that could not lease or sell doesn't win. LOL

[WB Mom]

I am so glad none of my hard earned money goes to the USEF, nor will it ever, especially in light of their continued mishandling (or not handling at all) of serious events occurring at shows sanctioned by them.

Here is an idea, in a much more global context.
The department I work in is audited every 2 years by the auditing department. We hate the audit, but it makes our work processes better. As we implement changes, additional audits come up with less findings.

In a 'perfect world' members would demand that an outside organization (documented with no ties to USEF) completely audit the USEF on a regular basis and that the findings are incorporated into the rules. This organization could look at each rule and compare against other sporting bodies to determine where improvements should be made. They could also contact other entities/folks for information such as vets, lawyers, certain professionals, etc. Additionally, each audit could have some individual focus areas, as determined by recent events, or by the auditing organization. A follow-up audit could be performed by a different organization to determine if corrective actions have been implemented as appropriate.
Yes, it would be expensive, but I wonder how many folks wouldn't mind their dues being used for this?
It is unfortunate the USEF has not proactively adopted the practice of being independently audited on a regular basis to improve it's performance.

[BaroquePony]

I would love to see a truly professional organization for the horse industry, rather than the political, cliquish mess we have now.

[Purepony]

It is with great sadness that I share that el insider, on Diva, reported today that TT had announced on her page (since removed)that she settled with Great American insurance on EM's behalf for an undisclosed amount of money in compensation for the death of her pony at Devon. Humble Initiative, my Aunt Fanny. I feel like I'm in an episode of Fringe and not sure what plane of existence I'm on.

[Pennywell Bay]

^^^^disgusting. Guess the insurance hands are tied. In 2013, you'd think we'd be beyond killing your pony and getting the insurance money.

[leyla25]

Maybe the insurance company should here from this board.

[Long Spot]

UNBELIEVABLE.

Edited to add: I mean, I believe it. It's just....guh.

[SGray]

lawsuit expenses outweighed payout amount I assume

[alittlegray]

I also cannot believe she got PAID for killing her pony. Unbelievable. Isn't there a police report where she admits doing the deed flat-out? This just rocks my world.

[oliverreed]

I work for an insurrance company (disability income, not P&C) and the only reason for this that I can conceive of is that they are settling her claim in the context of either a lawsuit or a threatened one. Sometimes we have to make a business decision to pay someone SOMETHING, when we really don't think they are entitled to benefits, rather than spend hundreds of thousands of dollars litigating the case to a jury verdict. Juries don't like insurance companies.

Still stinks. Every time.

[Long Spot]

I work for an insurrance company (disability income, not P&C) and the only reason for this that I can conceive of is that they are settling her claim in the context of either a lawsuit or a threatened one. Sometimes we have to make a business decision to pay someone SOMETHING, when we really don't think they are entitled to benefits, rather than spend hundreds of thousands of dollars litigating the case to a jury verdict. Juries don't like insurance companies.

Still stinks. Every time.

EM threatening to sue someone?

Inconceivable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D58LpHBnvsI

[inca]

Holy cow. She ADMITS to "accidentally" putting the pony down yet collects on the pony's insurance. Unbelievable.

[MIKES MCS]

don't insurance companies routinely void policies due to gross negligence? I mean if you get into an accident in your car and you are drunk don’t they void your insurance? Wouldn’t his be the same thing? Otherwise aren’t we back to killing horses for insurance money, I mean it’s even easier now with all the drugs you can push to fast or to much and give the horse a heart attack or respiratory failure , drugs that go un -detected ect..

[Ponyhunterring]

well that would explain how she is funding this years winter circuits.

[oliverreed]

don't insurance companies routinely void policies due to gross negligence? I mean if you get into an accident in your car and you are drunk don’t they void your insurance? Wouldn’t his be the same thing? Otherwise aren’t we back to killing horses for insurance money, I mean it’s even easier now with all the drugs you can push to fast or to much and give the horse a heart attack or respiratory failure , drugs that go un -detected ect..

I don't think so. We have policyholders who were injured while drunk and if they are in fact disabled we pay them. Heck, being an alcoholic or a drug addict is considered an "illness," so you could receive disability benefits if you cannot control your addiction and that results in your ability to work. Crazy but true. Now you can't collect Social Security disability benefits anymore for being an addict, but that only changed in the 1990s.

[IronwoodFarm]

Holy cow. She ADMITS to "accidentally" putting the pony down yet collects on the pony's insurance. Unbelievable.

Another insurance person weighing in. The key is the claim of it being an accident. As awful as this situation was, I don't think she was deliberately trying to kill the pony.

On the gross negilgence -- that's confusing apples with oranges. Negligence pertains to liability; your responsibility for damages to third parties or others. It doesn't apply to your own things. Gross negligence means willful wanton action that is far out of the norm.

Mortality coverage is property coverage. Intentional acts that are aimed to damage one's own property are excluded. So if you torch your home, the insurance company isn't liable to pay the claim.

In any case, I am sure the insurance carrier would have denied the claim if they could have found a legitimate reason to do so. I'll also bet they will never write a policy for this person ever again based on the circumstances of this claim.

[MIKES MCS]

"On the gross negilgence -- that's confusing apples with oranges. Negligence pertains to liability; your responsibility for damages to third parties or others. It doesn't apply to your own things. Gross negligence means willful wanton action that is far out of the norm".

that's my point , The person in question is the trainer and therefore legally responible for the care of the animal , wouldn't the minimal definaition of this responsability be to do nothing to cause the animals death .. wasn't there an admission of quilt in this istance , wouldn't that admission hold one liable for the animals death, failing to act in a responsible manor.. IE: if one has no medical training and preforms a medical act in a non life threatening situation doesn't that make that person negligent ? just a question on my part...

[EAY]

My insurance policy specifically excludes death caused by "Any Medication or Substance unless administered by a licensed veterinarian(or experienced personnel directed by the veterinarian) and certified by the veterinarian to have been of a prophylactic nature or necessitated by accident, disease, or illness;"

[Long Spot]

My insurance policy specifically excludes death caused by "Any Medication or Substance unless administered by a licensed veterinarian(or experienced personnel directed by the veterinarian) and certified by the veterinarian to have been of a prophylactic nature or necessitated by accident, disease, or illness;"

I assumed most policies did as well. Seems like a no brainer?