Casualty & General Insurance Company (Europe) Ltd · DRN-6236156

The complaint Mr C’s complaint is about a claim he made on his Casualty & General Insurance Company (Europe) Ltd (‘C&G’) pet insurance policy, which was declined. Mr C says C&G treated him unfairly. What happened I issued a provisional decision in which I said: “I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. Having done so, I intend to depart from the investigator’s findings and not uphold Mr C’s complaint. I’ll explain why. The starting point is the policy terms. They exclude cover for: “Any accident, illness or condition which has happened or has signs or symptoms in the last 24 months before taking the policy out.” “Illness” means “…any disease, sickness, infection or any change to your pet’s normal healthy state, which is not caused by an injury.” In this case Mr C’s pet was seen in Apil 2024 for blood in its urine which his vet said followed a history of his diet being changed the week before and building work going on next door. The pet’s vet said the pet was treated symptomatically with meloxicam for stress induced cystitis symptoms and clinical signs resolved as he was not seen back. Mr C took out the policy with C&G in November 2024. In May 2025 his pet was seen by its vet for a partially blocked bladder which required unblocking. C&G argue that the condition the pet was treated for in November 2025 was pre-existing and that it related to stress which is not covered by Mr C’s policy because further cover was required for this and the insurance excludes: “Costs arising from any behavioural treatment, training or therapy. Corrective Behavioural Treatment is covered by selecting the Health Booster optional cover”. On the other hand, Mr C says there’s nothing to support that the bladder blockage his pet was treated for was related to the first incident in April 2024. I’ve thought about what both parties have said and considered the evidence carefully. Having done so, I think that C&G have in this case established that the condition Mr C’s pet was treated for in May 2025 was likely a repetition of the earlier problem. I say so for a number of reasons. In April 2024 Mr C’s vet advised Mr C to monitor his pet for signs of a blocked bladder. The implication was that if the pet was not improving following medication,

-- 1 of 3 --

this was the likely progression. In May 2025 the pet’s clinical notes record similar symptoms to those noticed in the pet in April 2024 and that the pet saw a fox in the garden and wasn’t fond of it. There was also a reference to the pet’s food being changed again this time to weight reduction food but of the same brand. I think that these matters were recorded as possible causes of the problem and although no specific evidence has been provided by Mr C’s vet to identify the specific cause of the May 2025 blockage, the contemporaneous references to both a change in food and something that might have caused the pet alarm do appear to be the same as those in April 2024. So, I think it was reasonable for C&G to conclude that the condition was essentially a repetition of what the pet experienced in April 2024 for very similar reasons. I can see that in May 2025 Mr C’s pet was also advised to change the pet’s diet to a stress metabolic diet. In addition, I have noted that in October 2024 there is a further reference to the pet getting too stressed to attend 6 monthly health check so instead attends one annually. Taken together with the other information contained within the clinical notes, I think that C&G have established that on balance Mr C’s pet did have a history of stress and diet related urinary problems and that this remained the case in May 2025. Because of this I think it was reasonable for them to treat the problem as pre-existing. I’m not however convinced that the problem would fit neatly into the exclusion C&G have quoted for behavioural issues, but this makes no difference to Mr C’s claim in this case so I’ve not considered that exclusion further. In her view the investigator explained that we take into account a customer’s knowledge about pre-existing conditions when considering whether they ought reasonably have known the problem the pet was previously treated for could reoccur. I appreciate that the pet’s urinary problem did resolve after treatment in April 2024. But I don’t think this means that Mr C ought necessarily have thought it couldn’t reoccur. From the evidence I’ve cited in October 2024, Mr C was aware his pet was sensitive to stress, to the extent that he couldn’t visit the vet every six months and had reduced this to annually instead. At the end of the April 2024 episode, Mr C was also told to monitor his pet for bladder blockages. I appreciate that might have related to the immediate problems it was presenting with, but I don’t think it would be wrong to imply that this could also relate to the future. Given the problem appeared to arise from stress, the pet was known to become stressed by visiting the vet and that it could for any reason become stressed again, either by external circumstances or a change in diet, I think it was reasonable for Mr C to be open to the possibility the problem could reoccur. As such I don’t think it could be said that Mr C had no reason to believe the problem might not present again. For those reasons I don’t think our approach to reasonable knowledge means Mr C’s claim should be covered by C&G.” I asked both parties to provide any further comments or evidence for me to consider. Both C&G and Mr C have now responded. C&G has accepted my findings. Mr C has expressed his disappointment with my provisional decision but says he will not be disputing my findings. What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. Having done so and given what both parties have said as well as the absence of any further evidence to persuade me otherwise, I remain of the view that Mr C’s complaint should not be upheld.

-- 2 of 3 --

My final decision For the reasons set out above, I don’t uphold Mr C’s complaint against Casualty & General Insurance Company (Europe) Ltd. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr C to accept or reject my decision before 16 April 2026. Lale Hussein-Venn Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --