In Cypress Creek Equine LLC v. North American Specialty Insurance Co., the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recently told an insured to “hold your horses” regarding coverage under mortality policies covering a thoroughbred stallion whose unfortunate demise resulted from a vet-administered “vitamin shot” cocktail. The court ruled the unauthorized medication exclusion applied to bar coverage, holding the terms “drugs or medication” applied to the shot at issue.
The stallion, named Laoban, previously enjoyed a moderately successful racing career. The ownership syndicate then decided to put Laoban out as a stud first in New York and then in Kentucky breeding circuits to collect stud fees. When Laoban began developing breeding issues, the syndicate manager, WinStar, solicited the advice of reproductive specialists who recommended a variety of breeding treatments, such as shockwave therapy and testosterone injections. WinStar proceeded to breed Laoban more than 100 times in the first several months of the 2021 breeding season, despite the horse’s intermittent trouble breeding.
At a certain point, Laoban refused to breed with mares in consecutive sessions despite no apparent causal physical ailment and despite the veterinarian’s attempts at shockwave therapy. As an alternative measure, the WinStar veterinarian recommended a “vitamin shot” cocktail she had previously used to aid racehorses in post-race recovery. The recipe contained Vitamin B12, vitamin C, vitamin B complex, and iron hydrogenated dextran. When preparing the shot using WinStar’s on-site pharmacy, the veterinarian neglected to notice three of the ingredients were expired, and certain of the warning labels noted possible anaphylactic shock. Upon administering the vitamin shot to Laoban, the stallion staggered and fell against the stable wall, apparently suffering anaphylaxis, a life-threatening allergic reaction. Despite attempts to stabilize Laoban, he died soon thereafter, most likely from anaphylactic shock.
WinStar settled with the members of Laoban’s ownership syndicate. Cypress Creek, a half-owner of Laoban, additionally sought coverage from North American under two mortality policies covering Laoban. The policies provided coverage upon the “death of a horse for any reason.” However, the policies’ unauthorized medical exclusion prevented 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.” North American denied coverage for the death, citing, among other provisions, the unauthorized medical exclusion.
The court viewed the exclusion’s applicability in this case as determined by whether the vitamin shot at issue constituted “drugs or medication” within the meaning of the policy. Because the policy did not provide a definition, the court assessed its “ordinary and everyday meaning” in reference to dictionary definitions. The court noted a Merriam-Webster definition of “drug,” which defined it as: (1) “a substance recognized in an official pharmacopoeia or formulary”; (2) “a substance intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease”; (3) “a substance other than food intended to affect the structure or function of the body”; and (4) “a substance intended for use as a component of a medicine but not a device or a component, part, or accessory of a device.” The court further observed that “medication” is synonymous with “medicine,” which is in turn defined as “a substance or preparation used in treating disease.”
The court determined that at least some of the ingredients separately met the definition of a drug because of their intended uses or treatment recognized by the Food and Drug Administration and National Institutes of Health and, regardless, the vitamin shot in these circumstances constituted a “medication.” The vitamin shot was a medication, according to the court, because it was an intravenous injection administered by a registered veterinarian and used for the treatment of disease — low energy levels caused by vitamin deficiency. Thus, the unauthorized medical exclusion applied to bar coverage.
In performing this analysis, the court rejected WinStar’s attempted distinction between vitamins and minerals versus drugs or medications. Nonetheless, the court clarified that its holding does not extend to treating vitamins as drugs as a class but is limited to these circumstances where the vitamin shot took the form of an injectable vitamin solution, purchasable only by licensed veterinarians. As such, it expressly took no position on the treatment of over-the-counter options such as “Flintstones” multivitamins, noting most English speakers would not recognize them as such.
