> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.smdp.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# Letter: Reader says pet insurer covered only a fraction of dog's costs
- URL: https://www.smdp.com/060708-story/
- Published: 2008-06-07T15:00:00.000Z
- Updated: 2026-10-24T19:52:02.000Z
- Author: Guest Author
- Tags: Opinion, Santa Monica, #archive-import

*By Mark Kaiserman*

I read with interest the article about pet insurance (“Health insurance isn’t just for humans anymore,” page 1, June 6). My experience has not been so glowing. I purchased pet insurance six years ago with VPI when we rescued a small dog. Previously, we had spent thousands of dollars on a diabetic cat and did not want to go through that financial drain again. We bought the superior plan from VPI and currently pay $51 per month (not the $25 to $30 mentioned in the article). Late last year, PJ came down with encephalitis of the brain and it spread to her eyes. She was partially paralyzed and blind for a while. Fortunately she is doing much better now although still on chemotherapy every six weeks, Prednisone twice a week, and gets four different medications in her eyes every morning and three of them at night. Her initial hospitalization was $6,895\. VPI paid $1,578 under my superior plan. I have regularly been filing letters of dispute relating to my claims. My expenditures on PJ’s illness are approaching $20,000 and ongoing with reimbursement under the superior plan about 25 percent. This is certainly not the kind of protection we envisioned when we purchased the VPI superior (what a misnomer) plan.

*Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on June 7, 2008.* [Read the original PDF.](https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/smdp%5Fbackissues/060708.pdf?ref=smdp.com)