In August 2025, a US Appeals Court upheld an insurer’s denial of a mortality claim for a valuable thoroughbred stallion, finding that a vitamin injection constituted “drugs or medication” within the meaning of the policy’s unauthorised medication exclusion.
The insured, Cypress Creek Equine, held two mortality policies with North American Specialty Insurance Company providing coverage upon the “death of a horse for any reason”. However, the policies contained an unauthorised medication exclusion that barred coverage for “loss caused by … administration of drugs or medication to the horse, unless done by or under the direction of a veterinarian and certified by him/her to have been of a preventative nature or necessitated by accident, sickness or disease of the horse”. The court upheld the denial of the claim on the basis that this exclusion applied.
The stallion, Laoban, had a moderately successful racing career before being retired to stud. After Laoban began experiencing breeding difficulties during the 2021 season, a veterinarian administered an intravenous injection containing a cocktail of Vitamin B12, vitamin C, vitamin B complex, and iron hydrogenated dextran to improve his energy levels. The veterinarian failed to notice that three of the ingredients were expired, and certain warning labels noted possible anaphylactic shock. Shortly after receiving the injection, Laoban suffered a fatal anaphylactic reaction.
The court held that the vitamin cocktail constituted “drugs or medication” within the meaning of the exclusion. The policy did not define these terms, so the court assessed their ordinary meaning with reference to dictionary definitions.
The court determined that at least some of the ingredients separately met the definition of a “drug” because of their intended uses or treatment recognised by the Food and Drug Administration and National Institutes of Health. Regardless, the vitamin shot in these circumstances constituted a “medication” because it took the form of an intravenous injection administered by a veterinarian with the intent to treat a perceived condition. The court emphasised the method of administration and therapeutic intent.
The insured attempted to draw a distinction between vitamins and minerals on the one hand and drugs or medications on the other. The court rejected this argument, although it clarified that its holding does not extend to treating vitamins as drugs as a class. The decision was expressly limited to these circumstances, where the vitamin shot took the form of an injectable vitamin solution purchasable only by licensed veterinarians.