Cat owner tries to blame insurer after fatal snake bite

A pet owner has lost a dispute over liability after his cat died after it was taken to a vet and treated for a suspected snake bite last summer.

The man, who held a policy with Hollard-owned PetSure, took his cat to a veterinary clinic on February 8 last year.

Veterinary records show the cat was suspected to have been bitten by a snake. Various treatments were undertaken, but they were not successful. The cat was euthanised five days after first entering the clinic.

Its owner said the clinic should have administered antivenom but did not, and the cat died because of the clinic’s negligence. He told the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) PetSure was liable as the clinic was its service provider.

PetSure denied the clinic was its service provider and said it did not employ or recommend veterinarians and that its policyholders could choose any registered veterinarian in Australia for treatment covered under the policy.

AFCA ruled it was not required to take further action.

“The insurer did not appoint the clinic to treat the complainant’s cat and did not direct it to perform or not perform any treatment,” AFCA said. “The clinic was not the insurer’s agent. The insurer is not liable for the actions of the clinic.”

The cat owner said the insurer was responsible for the actions of the clinic because it is the payee of the claim.

“This is not correct,” AFCA said. “The insurer is liable for the cost of some veterinary expenses incurred by the complainant, because these costs are covered under the policy. However, the insurer paying for veterinary expenses does not make the veterinarian the insurer’s agent, and does not make the insurer liable for the veterinarian’s negligence.”

The man took his cat to the clinic and authorised treatment, AFCA said, and invoices issued by the clinic were addressed to him.

“The insurer did not appoint the clinic to treat the complainant’s cat and did not influence how the clinic treated the complainant’s cat. Therefore, it would be unfair to hold the insurer responsible for the quality of the treatment,” the ruling said.

AFCA’s determination made no finding as to whether the veterinary clinic was negligent.

See the full ruling here.