PetPlan listed 2010 revenue of $18.7 million with 40 employees. PetFirst Healthcare listed revenue of $3.3 million and 32 employees.

We are assuming that PetFirst is using its commission amount as revenue, while PetPlan is using its gross premium amount as revenue. For an apples to apples comparison, PetFirst should have about $11 million in gross premiums (using a 30% commission rate.)

If we further assume an average annual premium of $300 for each company, we would estimate that PetPlan has approximately 62,000 active policies, while PetFirst has approximately 37,000 . . . → Read More: 2 pet insurers listed on Inc 500]]> Demonstrating that the pet insurance market continues to grow in the down economy, two US based pet insurers were named to the 2011 Inc 500 list of fastest growing companies.

PetPlan listed 2010 revenue of $18.7 million with 40 employees. PetFirst Healthcare listed revenue of $3.3 million and 32 employees.

We are assuming that PetFirst is using its commission amount as revenue, while PetPlan is using its gross premium amount as revenue. For an apples to apples comparison, PetFirst should have about $11 million in gross premiums (using a 30% commission rate.)

If we further assume an average annual premium of $300 for each company, we would estimate that PetPlan has approximately 62,000 active policies, while PetFirst has approximately 37,000 active policies.

Highlights:

- they intend to acquire other pet insurance businesses in the US & the UK - over 60% of new policy sales came from the shelter channel - they are selling a lot of microchips; almost $2 million worth in . . . → Read More: Pethealth Inc 3rd Quarter Results]]> Pethealth Inc, commonly known as 24PetWatch, announced net income of $343,000 on revenue of $8.2 million for the 3rd quarter of 2010.

Highlights:

- they intend to acquire other pet insurance businesses in the US & the UK
- over 60% of new policy sales came from the shelter channel
- they are selling a lot of microchips; almost $2 million worth in the quarter

The reason the insurers don’t cover pets with pre-existing conditions is simple: pet owners would simply wait until their pet got sick and then buy pet insurance. And this would put every pet insurance company out of business within a year.

So it makes perfect sense that insurance companies do not cover pre-existing conditions.

There are a couple of additional details worth noting: 1) you can still get pet insurance if your pet has a pre-existing condition – your pet will still be covered for everything unrelated to the existing illness/condition; and 2) some insurance companies consider a pre-existing conditioned cured after a period of time (and will reinstate coverage for . . . → Read More: The Scoop on Pre-Existing Conditions]]> Every week I get at least one email from someone looking for pet insurance that covers pre-existing conditions. I tell them that no insurance company covers pre-existing conditions and explain it this way: if you got into a car accident and then tried to buy auto insurance the next day, would you expect the insurance company to pay for your accident? Of course not. Well, a pre-existing condition is basically an uninsured car accident.

The reason the insurers don’t cover pets with pre-existing conditions is simple: pet owners would simply wait until their pet got sick and then buy pet insurance. And this would put every pet insurance company out of business within a year.

So it makes perfect sense that insurance companies do not cover pre-existing conditions.

There are a couple of additional details worth noting: 1) you can still get pet insurance if your pet has a pre-existing condition – your pet will still be covered for everything unrelated to the existing illness/condition; and 2) some insurance companies consider a pre-existing conditioned cured after a period of time (and will reinstate coverage for that condition.)

Hard to argue with that logic. Similarly, if you are never going to get into a car accident, auto insurance is not worth it. Same goes with human health insurance: if you are healthy and won’t be requiring any serious medical treatment during your life, you may want to just skip on insurance altogether.

Not sure why many people don’t grasp that insurance is primarily a hedge against an unexpected occurrence. And pet insurance is best used by owners to avoid economic euthanasia – putting down a beloved pet because they can’t afford the vet costs.

But the author is certainly correct – pet insurance is not worth it if your pet is never going to . . . → Read More: Note to Fido: Just Stay Healthy]]> An author from New Zealand claims that “pet insurance [is] not worthwhile for healthy pets.” He notes that “if pets are healthy and do not require any major treatment or operation, then it is not worth going for an insurance plan.”

Hard to argue with that logic. Similarly, if you are never going to get into a car accident, auto insurance is not worth it. Same goes with human health insurance: if you are healthy and won’t be requiring any serious medical treatment during your life, you may want to just skip on insurance altogether.

Not sure why many people don’t grasp that insurance is primarily a hedge against an unexpected occurrence. And pet insurance is best used by owners to avoid economic euthanasia – putting down a beloved pet because they can’t afford the vet costs.

But the author is certainly correct – pet insurance is not worth it if your pet is never going to get sick.

Looks like the ball is now in the CA Department of Insurance’s court. I would expect Assemblyman Dave Jones to continue to pursue his goal of improved disclosure.

Our take: regardless of the law, improved disclosure about the benefits and limitations of pet insurance policies is a good idea. So I will be adding more info about coverage limits, benefit schedules, pre-existing conditions and other important policy details to . . . → Read More: Schwarzenegger vetoes Pet Insurance Bill]]> Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed bill 2411 which would have required greater disclosure from pet insurance companies. Schwarzenegger stated that existing law already allows the California Department of Insurance to regulate pet insurance, so this bill was not necessary.

Looks like the ball is now in the CA Department of Insurance’s court. I would expect Assemblyman Dave Jones to continue to pursue his goal of improved disclosure.

Our take: regardless of the law, improved disclosure about the benefits and limitations of pet insurance policies is a good idea. So I will be adding more info about coverage limits, benefit schedules, pre-existing conditions and other important policy details to this site.

The media cannot get enough of these pet related stories. Whether they involve kooky pet name contests, top reasons pets visit the vet on Christmas day or articles about dogs named after the SuperBowl teams, VPI has found a way to consistently keep its name in the press.

Someone at VPI deserves a bonus . . . → Read More: VPI’s PR department is crazy good]]> Google news is showing 102 articles about Ellie, the beehive eating Lab who won the Hambone award – VPI’s contest to find the most unusual pet insurance claim.

The media cannot get enough of these pet related stories. Whether they involve kooky pet name contests, top reasons pets visit the vet on Christmas day or articles about dogs named after the SuperBowl teams, VPI has found a way to consistently keep its name in the press.

Someone at VPI deserves a bonus this year.

Specifically, the bill would require insurers to disclose whether a policy excludes coverage for: preexisting conditions, hereditary disorders and congenital disorders. It would also require disclosing details on deductibles, waiting periods and policies limits. These items would have to be displayed on an insurer’s web site.

This would be a California law, but due to the size of the California market, every US pet insurer would be expected to comply.

Seems like a pretty reasonable bill. I can’t imagine any of the pet insurance companies getting upset over these requirements.

This is much different than Assemblymember Jones previous plan to require the insurers to cover pre-existing conditions. That was a terrible idea … and he correctly changed course.

Bill . . . → Read More: Info on California Pet Insurance Reform Bill AB2411]]> California Assemblymember Dave Jones (D-Sacramento) is pushing a bill that would try and make pet insurance policies more understandable to pet owners.

Specifically, the bill would require insurers to disclose whether a policy excludes coverage for: preexisting conditions, hereditary disorders and congenital disorders. It would also require disclosing details on deductibles, waiting periods and policies limits. These items would have to be displayed on an insurer’s web site.

This would be a California law, but due to the size of the California market, every US pet insurer would be expected to comply.

Seems like a pretty reasonable bill. I can’t imagine any of the pet insurance companies getting upset over these requirements.

This is much different than Assemblymember Jones previous plan to require the insurers to cover pre-existing conditions. That was a terrible idea … and he correctly changed course.

Bill AB 241