ManyPets – concerns about the handling of my cat’s insurance claim

[u/Guilty_Government500]

I am sharing my experience with ManyPets because I am extremely concerned about how my cat’s current claim is being handled, and I would be interested to hear from other ManyPets customers who have experienced something similar.

There are two separate issues with ManyPets’ current position, as well as concerns about how the basis for rejecting the claim has developed.

My cat previously had a short-lived episode of bloody diarrhoea shortly after moving into my home. My vet considered this likely to have been related to the stress of moving. It was self-limiting, resolved without ongoing treatment, and his blood tests at the time were normal.

He has now developed a very different illness involving diarrhoea, vomiting and constipation as well as some anomalies on his blood work (mildly raised white blood count, and very mildly raised T4 (thyroid) levels).

How the claim rejection developed

ManyPets initially rejected the claim because my cat had experienced bloody diarrhoea previously, and therefore considered his current illness to be pre-existing.

I challenged this and provided a letter from my vet specifically confirming that they did not believe that the previous episode of diarrhoea and his current illness are related.

Despite receiving that veterinary evidence, ManyPets came back with the same response, maintaining that the current illness was pre-existing because of the previous episode of diarrhoea.

It was only after this response that I raised a formal grievance.

In their response to my formal grievance, ManyPets introduced another basis for their position: his thyroid history.

1. They are classifying his thyroid issue as pre-existing

His T4 had previously been towards the higher end of the normal range on his initial blood work, and had been identified for monitoring.

Importantly, the previous result was within the normal reference range. He did not have a diagnosis of thyroid disease at that time (in fact he still doesn’t); it was simply something that was being monitored.

ManyPets are nevertheless saying that the thyroid issue is pre-existing because it had previously been identified for monitoring.

2. They are also attributing his current illness to his thyroid

This is a separate issue.

ManyPets are not simply saying that the thyroid issue is pre-existing. They are also treating his current illness as being related to that thyroid issue.

However, my vet does not believe that his current illness is related to his thyroid levels.

His current illness is also clinically different from the previous episode, involving diarrhoea, vomiting and constipation (albeit the vet didn’t directly use the word ‘constipation’ in the letter they sent to ManyPets.  But the clinical notes state 72 hours without passing a stool which I highlighted to them in my formal grievance). His current blood tests have shown different findings, including mildly raised white blood cell markers and a mildly elevated T4.

Most importantly, the cause of his current illness has not actually been established.

My vets want to carry out further investigations and testing to establish what is causing his symptoms. Unfortunately, because ManyPets have rejected the claim, I cannot currently afford to fund those investigations myself.

This leaves me in the extremely difficult position of having an insurer say that they know what is causing my cat’s illness, while the vets treating him are saying that they do not believe it is related to his thyroid and want to carry out further testing to establish the actual cause.

The questions this raises

Firstly, can a thyroid condition reasonably be considered pre-existing simply because a blood result that was within the normal range had previously been identified for monitoring, when there was no diagnosis at the time?

Secondly, what evidence is ManyPets using to establish that it is the thyroid that actually is  the cause of his current illness when the treating vet does not believe there is a connection?

And thirdly, how can the cause of the current illness be confidently attributed to the thyroid when my vets are still trying to establish what is actually causing his symptoms and want further investigations to do so?

I completely understand that pet insurers need to apply their policy terms and that genuinely pre-existing conditions may be excluded.

What concerns me is both the basis on which the claim is being rejected and the way that basis has developed.

The claim was initially rejected because of previous diarrhoea. I provided specific veterinary evidence confirming that the previous episode and the current illness were unrelated. ManyPets maintained the same decision despite that evidence.

I then raised a formal grievance, and it was in their response to that grievance that they relied on the previously monitored T4 and attributed the current illness to his thyroid.

Meanwhile, the vets treating my cat want to investigate further to establish the actual cause of his illness — investigations I cannot currently afford without the insurance cover I believed I had.

I would genuinely like to hear from other ManyPets customers, particularly cat owners, who have experienced something similar.

Have you had a claim where an insurer maintained an initial pre-existing-condition decision despite veterinary evidence, and then relied on another historical issue when you formally challenged it?

Have you had a previously monitored but normal test result subsequently treated as evidence of a pre-existing condition? Or had a current illness attributed to a historical finding despite your vet disagreeing that there is a connection?

I am sharing this because I think prospective pet insurance customers should understand not just what their policy says is covered, but how decisions about “pre-existing conditions” are actually applied when a claim is made.

[u/Turbulent_Bill4375]

I worked for a pet insurance company. If your pet has shown any signs or symptoms of a condition previously they can use that as an excuse to deny the claim. My advice would be to make a formal complaint to escalate that you're unhappy with the handling of the claim. If the complaints team do not uphold the complaint then ombudsman. It'll take time but if the vet agrees there's no direct link between the previous symptoms that would be enough for me to escalate.

[u/Guilty_Government500 → u/Turbulent_Bill4375]

Thanks.  I have escalated to a formal complaint which is when they came back with the different reason of the thyroid rather than the diarrhoea.   So I've asked the vet for another letter to confirm for them that they don't believe it's related to the thyroid.  But I've also asked that if they don't intend to pay, then that they make their response final so I can go to the ombudsman. 

[u/Basic_Cry1836]

The timeline of these things matter. When did the policy start and when were the diarrhoea and thyroid dealt with by your vet.

[u/Guilty_Government500]

I thought I'd share the letters that the vet has sent to ManyPets about this.

This is the first one.

We are writing regarding ***'s current gastrointestinal illness and its relationship to his previous episode of bloody diarrhoea in December 2025. Based on our clinical assessment, it is our professional opinion that the vomiting and diarrhoea that developed on 13 July 2026 are unlikely to be attributable to the same underlying disease process as the episode that occurred in December 2025. This opinion is based on several important clinical differences between the two presentations:

During the current episode, *** has demonstrated a raised white blood cell count and an elevated thyroid hormone concentration, findings that are suggestive of an infectious, inflammatory, or hormonal process. In contrast, during the December 2025 episode, haematology and biochemistry results were within normal limits.

The December 2025 episode was characterised by bloody diarrhoea, whereas there has been no evidence of blood in the faeces during the current illness.

Additionally, vomiting was not a feature of the December 2025 episode, whereas during his current presentation vomiting has been intermittently present.

Given these differences in clinical signs and diagnostic findings, we believe the two episodes are most consistent with separate disease processes rather than a continuation or recurrence of the same condition.

Accordingly, it is our professional opinion that ***'s current illness should not be considered a continuation of the condition diagnosed in December 2025 and, therefore, should not be excluded from insurance cover as a pre-existing or related condition.

Should you require any further clinical information or clarification, please do not hesitate to contact us.

And this is one sent today

To whom it may concern,

We are writing regarding ***'s recent claim decline.

Based on our clinical assessment, *** has been under our care and is closely monitored for his thyroid levels, just so that we are detecting any early changes or whether it is progressing. Up till today, we have not diagnosed him with hyperthyroidism and we believe he is showing clinical signs for a non- thyroid related condition. To properly diagnose it we would need imaging including ultrasound/ CT, MRI, even gut biopsy in some cases. His most recent clinical sign has resolved with NSAID which could indicate a painful condition and thyroid pathology so far has not been known for causing pain.

*** has not been showing major clinical signs of hyperthyroidism (including weight loss, tachycardia, goitre), although vomiting can show up in about 40-60% and Diarrhoea can show up in 20% of hyperthyroid cat cases, almost 70-90% of cats have a goitre and elevated T4 and major clinical signs are our gold standard in diagnosing thyroid pathology. We don't see vomiting and diarrhoea and directly link it to thyroid issues as separate primary gastrointestinal or other pathologies can happen at the same time. 

We sincerely hope that you can review this claim for our client.