Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe NowThe 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a ruling for an insurance company that chose to save an injured show horse’s life despite its owner’s wishes.
Horse owner Julie Greenbank invested $500,000 when she purchased a gelding horse named Thomas, aka “Awesome at This,” that she had hoped to show in athletic competitions. That dream quickly ended when the young horse became gravely ill and sustained injuries that prevented him from being able to get up or down.
Veterinarians hired by Greenbank suggested to Thomas’ insurer, Great American Assurance Company, that the horse may need to be euthanized. Great American declined to do so and retained its own team to provide treatment for Thomas.
To do so, Great American relied on a component of Thomas’ horse insurance policy that allows it to take control of his medical care if the horse becomes ill.
Great American’s veterinarians determined that Thomas suffered from a deep lung abscess and severe laminitis. They noted that although the euthanasia recommendation wasn’t completely unreasonable due to his declining health, they wanted to try treatment first.
After a treatment for the lungs and subsequent surgery on his leg, Thomas had a “remarkable” recovery. Within one year after surgery, the horse gained back his weight and returned to trotting, bucking, running and galloping.
Although Thomas lived, he could no longer compete, prompting Greenbank to sue Great American. She alleged that the insurer failed to provide mortality coverage for Thomas and breached the insurance policy.
Greenbank’s policy for Thomas had expired in September 2018 and she was denied a renewal of coverage after Great American cited Greenbank’s failure to meet several conditions, including providing it with immediate notice of Thomas’s illness in February 2018.
In her suit, Greenbank also claimed that it acted in bad faith by “unreasonably withholding consent” for Thomas’s authorized humane destruction, opting instead to perform a tenotomy that destroyed Thomas’ use as an athletic show horse. She also alleged that Great American’s continued care and control over Thomas, long after the policy terminated, constituted conversion and theft.
Senior Judge Sarah Evans Barker of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana sided with Great American, and the 7th Circuit affirmed Tuesday in Julie Greenbank v. Great American Assurance Company, 21-2622.
Members of the appellate panel concluded that Greenbank failed to show that Great American breached the insurance policy by failing to provide mortality coverage and by denying medical coverage for two treatments Thomas received while under care of the vet Greenbank hired.
“As for the first problem, Thomas saw three veterinarians over a period of five months, and during that time, no veterinarian suggested that Thomas needed to be euthanized, let alone certified that fact to Great American,” Circuit Judge Candace Jackson-Akiwumi wrote. “… As for the second problem, there is similarly no evidence that Great American expressly agreed to euthanize Thomas and nothing in the policy required it to.
“… Greenbank appears to take the position that because Thomas lost his use as a show horse, Great American should have provided authorization for Thomas’s humane destruction,” Jackson-Akiwumi continued. ” But we reject that proposition because nothing in the contract says that Great American was expected to protect Thomas’s use as a show horse. We are thus unconvinced that Great American unreasonably withheld its express consent in the absence of a veterinarian’s authorization.”
As for Greenbank’s other claims, the 7th Circuit noted it was “hard pressed” to understand how Great American acted in bad faith by not considering Thomas’ athletic ability, his use as a show horse or Greenbank’s interests.
“Greenbank made it clear that she never approved of Thomas’s tenotomy. But just because Great American did not choose the medical route Greenbank desired, or otherwise resolve the claim to her liking, does not mean Great American acted in bad faith,” Jackson-Akiwumi wrote.
On Greenbank’s argument that Great American’s refusal to return Thomas to her after the policy terminated constitutes theft, common law and statutory conversion, the 7th Circuit noted that it was unusual that the horse was still being controlled by Great American.
“Greenbank, however, has failed to demonstrate that Great American’s control of Thomas falls within the bounds of common law conversion, because of a very important fact—she never demanded Thomas, and she has failed to show that any demand for Thomas would have been futile,” the opinion concluded.
Judges also found no evidence exists for a jury to determine that Great American knowingly or intentionally exercised unauthorized control over Thomas, debilitating her statutory conversion and theft claims.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.