They treat acute infections as chronic…
They treat acute infections as chronic pre-existing illnesses. If you look carefully at their definition of a pre existing condition, they specifically note that they treat curable diseases as non covered pre existing conditions if any recurrence can be linked to a prior incident. Be aware that they use this definition very liberally to avoid paying out claims. In my case, I have a cat who I adopted about 18 months ago. It was noted in the adoption paperwork that she had previously been treated for a UTI. She has had multiple wellness checks since then where she had been given a clean bill of health with no signs of infection. Then, just last week, almost 18 months since the last documented UTI, she had a new acute UTI infection. MetLife has denied the claim and has stood firm on their denial even with involvement from BBB and NJ DOBI. MetLife is taking the stance that since she has had a UTI in the past, it can never be covered by them. They are making the assumption on their own with no evidence that the recent acute infection is the same infection that she had so long ago. They act as if there’s nothing that can be done to counter their opinion. If you look closely, their definition even includes vomiting. So, if there’s any documentation that your pet has ever vomited before you open your policy, any vomiting for the remainder of the pet’s life would be considered a pre existing condition and they will deny coverage, it seems.