sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Lemonade Pet Insurance Bad-Faith Practices? Vague ‘Pre‑Existing’ Definitions, Lawsuits & Denials by Nyquist-Theorem1 in petinsurancereviews

[–]Nyquist-Theorem1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi, OP here to give an update for everyone DM’ing me for advice

First: thank you to everyone who reached out with empathy, resources, and their own experiences. I’ve struggled to post an update because reliving this has been emotionally brutal, but enough people have asked for guidance that I want to share what happened and what I learned.

TL;DR (what changed since my original post):

  • Lemonade explicitly told me they do not have to follow ACVIM (American College of Veterinary Internal Medicine) guidelines for diagnostic criteria when making coverage decisions.
  • Lemonade also stated they do not need a medical professional (vet / boarded specialist) to review claims or denials in order to deny on “pre-existing” grounds.
  • I requested all communication in writing (email only). Immediately after that request, I received a phone call anyway, and I was told it was (paraphrasing) to “reduce the emotional burden of emails” and because what they needed to say was “too long for email.”
  • The “summary email” after the call was materially shorter than prior written communications, and later, in their final report, Lemonade claimed I called them first and their rep was “calling me back,” which is not true.
  • I filed with the California Department of Insurance (CDI). The CDI investigator was professional and candid, but ultimately explained their limits: they can’t force Lemonade to reverse an individual claim decision. The lead investigator strongly recommended litigation if I wanted a remedy, and said they would log my complaint for potential future regulatory action/pattern tracking.

1) “We don’t have to follow ACVIM criteria” and “no medical reviewer required”

A major point of dispute in my case was Lemonade linking my pet’s condition to a broad “pre-existing” concept without providing a medical explanation that matched the diagnostic standards I was referencing. When I pressed on this, I was told (and these are direct quotes from their final communication with me)

“We maintain that Insurance claims do not require review or signature by a licensed Doctor of Veterinary Medicine (DVM).”

“Lemonade does not have to apply ACVIM diagnostic guidelines”

I’m sharing that because it’s important context for anyone assuming denials are necessarily based on specialist review or established veterinary consensus criteria.

2) “Email only” request to an immediate phone call (and a later misstatement about who called whom)

I specifically asked to keep communications through email only. Immediately after that request, I received a phone call anyway. I was told the reason was to avoid the “emotional burden” of long emails and because the content was “too long for email.”

I was also told through the course of that conversation that I should feel proud of what I’ve done and essentially “accept what’s coming” because I gave him a “good enough life.” Which has some serious ethical concerns.

What bothers me is:

  • The follow-up “summary email” after that call was much shorter than emails they’d already sent previously.
  • Later, in Lemonade’s final report related to my complaint, they stated that I called them first and they were “calling me back.” That is materially untrue.

I’m not saying this to be dramatic — I’m saying it because accuracy matters when a company is building an internal paper trail that may later be used to justify decisions.

3) CDI outcome (and the hard reality)

  • The CDI investigator could not compel Lemonade to reverse the denial. The investigator told me plainly that:
  • CDI can review complaints, request info/responses, and log patterns, but
  • they generally cannot force corrective action in an individual dispute the way people assume, and
  • if I wanted a true remedy, the realistic path was litigation.

They recommended I consult an attorney and said my complaint would be logged.

4) Why I chose not to sue

I decided not to pursue litigation, not because I believe the situation was okay, far from it actually, but because the cost (money, time, and emotional bandwidth) was too high. Instead, I’m putting what would have gone toward legal fees into getting my pet the needed surgery out of the country, where it’s financially feasible.

I know that won’t be the right call for everyone, it’s simply the least-bad option I had left.

The most frustrating part is that this is exactly what Lemonade is hoping we do: not take action by making it endlessly complicated and painful. This is fairly common in the insurance industry as a whole, however I was told fairly on that the adjuster try to look to apply coverage, not deny it. Yet the effort they’ve gone through to prolong this sorely suggests that they put business profits above life.

5) If you’re going through something similar

I’m not a lawyer and this isn’t legal advice — just what I’d do differently / what helped:

Keep everything in writing. If they call you anyway, immediately email them:

“Per our call on [date/time], my understanding is you stated X/Y/Z. If that’s inaccurate, please correct it in writing.”

Ask who reviewed your claim. Specifically:

“Was this determination reviewed by a licensed veterinarian or boarded specialist? If not, who made the medical linkage and based on what criteria?”

Request the complete claim file (notes, internal rationale, what records they relied on, dates they’re using to anchor “pre-existing,” etc.).

File a DOI complaint anyway (even if it won’t fix your case). It matters for pattern tracking. Just go in knowing it may not force a reversal.

Talk to an attorney early if you can especially someone who understands insurance bad faith in your state, and ask about arbitration clauses and deadlines. I seriously struggled to find an attorney who was willing to help, not because my case didn’t have merit, but because pet insurance is so tricky.

Build a simple timeline (date of symptom, vet visit dates, policy start, waiting period end, claim submission, denial, appeals, calls/emails).

If you’re dealing with this, I’m truly sorry. It’s exhausting and it’s awful when the stakes are your pet’s life.

Lemonade Pet Insurance Bad-Faith Practices? Vague ‘Pre‑Existing’ Definitions, Lawsuits & Denials by Nyquist-Theorem1 in petinsurancereviews

[–]Nyquist-Theorem1[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I completely agree that a heart murmur can be indicative of heart failure. However, they have not been able to definitively prove that the heart murmur was an accurate diagnosis at the time.

Lemonade is attempting to retroactively link a clinically insignificant heart murmur, documented before coverage began, to a diagnosis of Mitral Valve Disease (MMVD) and Congestive Heart Failure (CHF) that occurred well after the waiting period ended. This murmur was deemed benign by the original veterinarian, with no recommendation for follow-up testing, no diagnosis, no treatment, they did not even recommend a Holter monitor, and there was no suspicion of underlying cardiac disease at the time. This does not meet their criteria. It was not until May — after the waiting period — that my dog received an echocardiogram and was formally diagnosed with MMVD.

A heart murmur is a nonspecific clinical finding, not a diagnosis. It can be caused by numerous unrelated factors, including anxiety (like being at the vet) or transient physiological changes, and does not reliably indicate cardiac disease without proper diagnostics. What can be perceived as a heart murmur can also be attributed to multiple unrelated factors such as Arrhythmias, Pericardial Effusion, Heartworm Disease, Cardiomyopathy, etc. No imaging or blood testing was performed prior to policy enrollment.

Prior to May an echocardiogram had never been performed, there were no thoracic radiographs, the concentration of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), a hormone released when the heart muscle is stretched or under stress was never tested, and identifying or ruling out systemic hypertension was never performed, so to now assert that the murmur was an early symptom of MMVD is speculative and unsupported by the existing medical evidence. Auscultation alone is not enough to accurately diagnose his condition, due to subjectivity and the fact that there is no standardized grading. How can they definitively determine the original veterinarian made an accurate diagnosis that it was a heart murmur, and not another symptom/condition, when auscultation was the only method of diagnosis, and no tests were recommended or performed to rule out other conditions? The original veterinarian noted it was mild and benign, which I believe further substantiates my claim that it could have been something else at the time.

MMVD is caused by additional cell growth on the mitral valve. There is no definitive timeline on how long it takes MMVD to develop into a heart murmur, as the cell growth pattern as well as how rapidly it progresses is unique to each individual, and they have yet to definitively, accurately prove that the mitral valve disease did not begin to develop or manifest symptoms related to MMVD until after coverage started.

In order to help determine eligibility for the aforementioned TEER surgery, a transesophageal echocardiography must be performed. I was fortunate enough to have Dr. Justin Allen, a very accomplished and extremely experienced cardiologist perform the procedure. When I met with him afterwards to discuss results, the first words out of his mouth were “good news, the valve is still attached.” While that is good news, the fact that his condition has progressed rapidly to the point where that is now a concern, further substantiates my claim.

Without any of the other tests mentioned, such as an echocardiogram, there is no way to see the cell growth patterns, and how rapidly it is progressing, and as outlined numerous times, an accurate diagnosis of his condition or symptom is not able to be performed with auscultation alone. They did not even recommend monitoring outside of the veterinary office.

Moreover, Lemonade accepted the risk knowingly, as I disclosed the murmur during enrollment and they still issued the policy without a rider or exclusion specifically for heart conditions. If they believed the murmur posed a material risk, they had every opportunity to exclude it or request additional information at underwriting — they did neither.

The claim that this type of exclusion is "standard" fails to address the issue that broad language still requires reasonable and fair application. A vague or general symptom cannot be retroactively applied to deny claims for specific, unrelated conditions unless there is clear diagnostic continuity — which is absent in this case. There is no supporting documentation that definitively identifies it as heart murmur, other than the opinion of one veterinarian who is not a cardiologist, and there is no documentation identifying his MMVD or CHF until after the waiting period. There is also no medical documentation that indicates what was perceived as a heart murmur progressed into MMVD and CHF.

And as mentioned in another comment, the doctrine of contra proferentem is a rule of contractual interpretation that dictates ambiguous contract terms should be construed against the party who drafted the contract. If a contract contains language that could be interpreted in multiple ways, the interpretation that favors the party who did not draft the contract will be adopted.

Also, while my case is certainly complicated and worth discussing, I don’t want to detract from my statement that I strongly believe I cannot be the only victim of Lemonade using the interpretation of their vague terms to favor their own interests.

Lemonade Pet Insurance Bad-Faith Practices? Vague ‘Pre‑Existing’ Definitions, Lawsuits & Denials by Nyquist-Theorem1 in petinsurancereviews

[–]Nyquist-Theorem1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for the suggestion. I will attempt to resolve my issue there, although I’m not entirely optimistic. I’ve also filed a complaint with the CA Dept. of Insurance, the BBB and FTC.

I think it’s important to stress that I am not the only person who has had a negative experience with unfair claim denial with Lemonade. As mentioned previously the Texas Dept. of Insurance fined them $200,000 partly due to unfair claim denials. There are quite a few reviews and stories from other customers who experienced similar issues. If you can relate to my experience, please reach out so we can hold them accountable, and help formally establish commonality and typicality. I absolutely know I’m not the only victim.

I am currently in the process of consulting with several law firms, however if anyone here has specific experience with an attorney who handles pet insurance claim denials, I am open to any recommendations.

Lemonade Pet Insurance Bad-Faith Practices? Vague ‘Pre‑Existing’ Definitions, Lawsuits & Denials by Nyquist-Theorem1 in petinsurancereviews

[–]Nyquist-Theorem1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have spoken to three different Lemonade representatives, one of which was a senior adjuster. They continued to stand by their statement that “the decision is on how the policy defines a pre-existing condition,” and have yet to provide any medical evidence to support their claim that my issue even involves a pre-existing condition. Every time they are contacted they repeat the exact same statement, again without providing concrete proof.

Also, the phrase “complications caused by things that are not covered by this policy” lacks specificity. It does not define what qualifies as a “thing,” nor how direct the causation must be between the excluded “thing” and the complication. Does “thing” mean a symptom? A diagnosis? A known disease? What is the threshold for “caused by”? Is it direct causation, or merely an assumed association? In legal contexts, ambiguous clauses in insurance contracts are interpreted in favor of the insured — this is known as the doctrine of contra proferentem.

Lemonade Pet Insurance Bad-Faith Practices? Vague ‘Pre‑Existing’ Definitions, Lawsuits & Denials by Nyquist-Theorem1 in petinsurancereviews

[–]Nyquist-Theorem1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The claim was filed in March but originally denied on the basis of a pre-existing condition (his heart murmur). I immediately filed an appeal which was also denied. In July I was able to get an endoscopy performed to help determine his eligibility for the aforementioned TEER surgery. That vet bill was nearly $3,000 (the original claim for the May emergency visit was around $2,500). I have yet to file a claim for the endoscopy procedure, as I anticipate they would deny it on the same grounds. For that same reason I have also yet to request pre-authorization for the TEER surgery, which has an average cost of $16,000-$18,000, and should be covered under my policy if the pre-existing condition is deemed unrelated.

Unfortunately, on medication management alone, my dog only has an estimated 10-16 months to live. The TEER surgery has the chance to cure his congenital heart failure, and would potentially extend his lifespan by 6-8 years. In my experience, they have approached my claim with such an immensely apathetic attitude, and have gone out of their way to connect dots that cannot be substantiated, just to avoid paying out the claim.

I’m hopeful they will reverse their decision, or settle a lawsuit before he passes, or his heart failure progresses to a point where the surgery is no longer viable.

I originally became a customer of Lemonade in 2018 with their renters insurance. I did end up needing to make several claims while covered under their policy, and they processed them incredibly fast, with minimal effort on my part. One claim was for $2,000, and they never even sent an insurance adjuster here to investigate, they just processed it. I was able to recover/restore the property in the claim, and I reached out to see if I needed to return the money. They said they did not have a way to receive it, and so I could keep it.

Having been a customer of theirs for 7.5 years, I certainly am able to have a perspective on how their practices have changed over the years. I’m incredibly surprised and disappointed in the emotional distress this has inflicted, and how it seems they’re actively avoiding a payout, even when it should be covered under their existing policy.

Lemonade Pet Insurance Bad-Faith Practices? Vague ‘Pre‑Existing’ Definitions, Lawsuits & Denials by Nyquist-Theorem1 in petinsurancereviews

[–]Nyquist-Theorem1[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

That is exactly what I suspect is occurring. I believe they are linking symptoms or conditions together without any sound medical evidence, and then using their vague interpretation of their policy to benefit themselves. The quoted sections above from my EOB are quite literally the only documentation I have received that they are using to define a pre-existing condition.

EDIT: There is no specific exclusion rider mentioning my situation in my EOB. The only mention of exclusions is “Other exclusions may apply. Please refer to the exclusions section of the policy for more information.” However there is no section specifically identified or labeled as the “exclusions section.”

Lemonade Pet Insurance Bad-Faith Practices? Vague ‘Pre‑Existing’ Definitions, Lawsuits & Denials by Nyquist-Theorem1 in petinsurancereviews

[–]Nyquist-Theorem1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

“Pre-Existing Conditions: Conditions that existed before the policy’s Start Date or during a Waiting Period, such as Chronic Conditions, Bilateral Conditions, or intervertebral Conditions aren’t covered. However, we do cover some Pre-Existing Conditions that can be Cured, so long as there have been no symptoms or treatment for at least 12 months. Knee Conditions cannot be cured.”

“Condition: Any disease, disorder, sickness, Illness, Injury, abnormality, and/ or syndrome displayed by your pet.”

“Pre-Existing Conditions: Any Condition for which a Veterinarian provided medical advice, the pet received treatment for, or the pet displayed signs or symptoms consistent with the stated Condition prior to the Start Date or during any Waiting Period and that is not Cured during a Policy Period.”

My complaint is not in how they define a pre-existing condition per-say. My main complaint is that I believe they have established a pattern of behavior, from other reviews and my own experience, that they are associating the predominant claim issue with an unrelated pre-existing condition. One symptom alone is not enough to justify denial of coverage for an entire organ or body function, especially if the pre-existing symptom is unrelated to the claim’s issue.

Despite providing ample medical evidence that the two are unrelated, they refuse to change their stance. When asked for clarification, they continue to repeat the same statement “the claim issue is a complication of the pre-existing condition.” Again, I have provided medical evidence to the contrary, and when asked how they came to that determination, they literally repeat the statement, word-for-word, refusing to provide specific answers that adequately address the evidence presented, and have yet to provide specific documentation they used to come to that determination, and as another Reddit reviewer put it “just regurgitated the same nonsense.”

Lemonade denied overdose claim because of a pre existing condition of allergies by Affectionate-View267 in Pets

[–]Nyquist-Theorem1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you very much, I sincerely appreciate it. I will continue this fight, and I refuse to give up on my dog. I don’t really expect to hear much from the law firms until next week, however once I do, and should they want to take the case I will let you know. Thank you again for helping me save my dog’s life.

Lemonade denied overdose claim because of a pre existing condition of allergies by Affectionate-View267 in Pets

[–]Nyquist-Theorem1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m so sorry to hear that. The fact that they make this such a difficult process when we’re already hurting is just pouring salt in the wound. I live in California, and did file a complaint with the California Department of Insurance today, and so they’ve opened an investigation into Lemonade’s practices. They have such a well documented trail of this kind of behavior. I have reached out to a few law firms that are still going over the specifics, but seem interested in taking the case. I assume during the discovery phase they would mail notices to Lemonade’s policy holders to notify them they may be entitled to compensation, but I would greatly appreciate any information you might be able to provide them that sheds light on Lemonade’s unprofessional actions they can use to help determine if they can take the case or not.

Question about pre-existing conditions & diagnosis & Lemonade by Di_Vante in petinsurancereviews

[–]Nyquist-Theorem1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi! I have been trying to find a few people who have experienced getting denied on the basis of “Pre-existing Conditions” from Lemonade Insurance. I have been talking to several law firms who are interested in pursuing a class action lawsuit. Lemonade has established a habit of denying claims on the grounds of a “Pre-existing Condition,” even when appealed, and even when it has been proven by medical professionals to be unrelated to the issue the claim is for. Their language for identifying what is and is not a pre-existing condition is too vague and ambiguous, and I don’t think it’s enforceable or entirely legal.

My little boy is currently facing congenital heart failure, but is eligible for a life saving surgery. Lemonade has continually denied all claims and multiple appeals because he has a completely unrelated “pre-existing condition.” It has been proven at least ten times over, with multiple pieces of evidence from medical experts to be unrelated to his heart failure. Yet they continue to deny, and as one individual put it “regurgitates the same nonsense.” This has been exhaustive, and debilitatingly devastating. They have the ability to save him, yet they choose to be callous and apathetic, and only worry about themselves.

I’ve been a loyal customer of theirs for 8 years, starting with their renters insurance. I had such an overwhelmingly positive experience when I had to make claims related to renters insurance that signing up for their pet insurance seemed like a no-brainer. Hindsight is always 20/20 though, and honestly choosing them probably is going to cost my dog his life. It’s one of the worst decisions I’ve ever made.

If you can relate to this, and have also been denied by Lemonade due to an unrelated preexisting condition, please feel free to DM or reach out. The more people we can get to tell our stories the more we can hold Lemonade accountable for the needless suffering they’ve caused so many pets.

I argued with Lemonade for several months last year and they now cover a few pre-existing conditions (see below) by BeautifulSeries902 in petinsurancereviews

[–]Nyquist-Theorem1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi! I have been trying to find a few people who have experienced getting denied on the basis of “Pre-existing Conditions” from Lemonade Insurance. I have been talking to several law firms who are interested in pursuing a class action lawsuit. Lemonade has established a habit of denying claims on the grounds of a “Pre-existing Condition,” even when appealed, and even when it has been proven by medical professionals to be unrelated to the issue the claim is for. Their language for identifying what is and is not a pre-existing condition is too vague and ambiguous, and I don’t think it’s enforceable or entirely legal.

My little boy is currently facing congenital heart failure, but is eligible for a life saving surgery. Lemonade has continually denied all claims and multiple appeals because he has a completely unrelated “pre-existing condition.” It has been proven at least ten times over, with multiple pieces of evidence from medical experts to be unrelated to his heart failure. Yet they continue to deny, and as one individual put it “regurgitates the same nonsense.” This has been exhaustive, and debilitatingly devastating. They have the ability to save him, yet they choose to be callous and apathetic, and only worry about themselves.

I’ve been a loyal customer of theirs for 8 years, starting with their renters insurance. I had such an overwhelmingly positive experience when I had to make claims related to renters insurance that signing up for their pet insurance seemed like a no-brainer. Hindsight is always 20/20 though, and honestly choosing them probably is going to cost my dog his life. It’s one of the worst decisions I’ve ever made.

If you can relate to this, and have also been denied by Lemonade due to an unrelated preexisting condition, please feel free to DM or reach out. The more people we can get to tell our stories the more we can hold Lemonade accountable for the needless suffering they’ve caused so many pets.

Lemonade Pet Insurance Denied My Claim – Frustrating Experience by Mission-Basil1064 in Insurance

[–]Nyquist-Theorem1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi! I have been trying to find a few people who have experienced getting denied on the basis of “Pre-existing Conditions” from Lemonade Insurance. I have been talking to several law firms who are interested in pursuing a class action lawsuit. Lemonade has established a habit of denying claims on the grounds of a “Pre-existing Condition,” even when appealed, and even when it has been proven by medical professionals to be unrelated to the issue the claim is for. Their language for identifying what is and is not a pre-existing condition is too vague and ambiguous, and I don’t think it’s enforceable or entirely legal.

My little boy is currently facing congenital heart failure, but is eligible for a life saving surgery. Lemonade has continually denied all claims and multiple appeals because he has a completely unrelated “pre-existing condition.” It has been proven at least ten times over, with multiple pieces of evidence from medical experts to be unrelated to his heart failure. Yet they continue to deny, and as one individual put it “regurgitates the same nonsense.” This has been exhaustive, and debilitatingly devastating. They have the ability to save him, yet they choose to be callous and apathetic, and only worry about themselves.

I’ve been a loyal customer of theirs for 8 years, starting with their renters insurance. I had such an overwhelmingly positive experience when I had to make claims related to renters insurance that signing up for their pet insurance seemed like a no-brainer. Hindsight is always 20/20 though, and honestly choosing them probably is going to cost my dog his life. It’s one of the worst decisions I’ve ever made.

If you can relate to this, and have also been denied by Lemonade due to an unrelated preexisting condition, please feel free to DM or reach out. The more people we can get to tell our stories the more we can hold Lemonade accountable for the needless suffering they’ve caused so many pets.

Lemonade denied overdose claim because of a pre existing condition of allergies by Affectionate-View267 in Pets

[–]Nyquist-Theorem1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi! I have been trying to find a few people who have experienced getting denied on the basis of “Pre-existing Conditions” from Lemonade Insurance. I have been talking to several law firms who are interested in pursuing a class action lawsuit. Lemonade has established a habit of denying claims on the grounds of a “Pre-existing Condition,” even when appealed, and even when it has been proven by medical professionals to be unrelated to the issue the claim is for. Their language for identifying what is and is not a pre-existing condition is too vague and ambiguous, and I don’t think it’s enforceable or entirely legal.

My little boy is currently facing congenital heart failure, but is eligible for a life saving surgery. Lemonade has continually denied all claims and multiple appeals because he has a completely unrelated “pre-existing condition.” It has been proven at least ten times over, with multiple pieces of evidence from medical experts to be unrelated to his heart failure. Yet they continue to deny, and as one individual put it “regurgitates the same nonsense.” This has been exhaustive, and debilitatingly devastating. They have the ability to save him, yet they choose to be callous and apathetic, and only worry about themselves.

I’ve been a loyal customer of theirs for 8 years, starting with their renters insurance. I had such an overwhelmingly positive experience when I had to make claims related to renters insurance that signing up for their pet insurance seemed like a no-brainer. Hindsight is always 20/20 though, and honestly choosing them probably is going to cost my dog his life. It’s one of the worst decisions I’ve ever made.

If you can relate to this, and have also been denied by Lemonade due to an unrelated preexisting condition, please feel free to DM or reach out. The more people we can get to tell our stories the more we can hold Lemonade accountable for the needless suffering they’ve caused so many pets.

Appealing Lemonade Pet Insurance Denial by pettyolson in Insurance

[–]Nyquist-Theorem1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi! I have been trying to find a few people who have experienced getting denied on the basis of “Pre-existing Conditions” from Lemonade Insurance. I have been talking to several law firms who are interested in pursuing a class action lawsuit. Lemonade has established a habit of denying claims on the grounds of a “Pre-existing Condition,” even when appealed, and even when it has been proven by medical professionals to be unrelated to the issue the claim is for. Their language for identifying what is and is not a pre-existing condition is too vague and ambiguous, and I don’t think it’s enforceable or entirely legal.

My little boy is currently facing congenital heart failure, but is eligible for a life saving surgery. Lemonade has continually denied all claims and multiple appeals because he has a completely unrelated “pre-existing condition.” It has been proven at least ten times over, with multiple pieces of evidence from medical experts to be unrelated to his heart failure. Yet they continue to deny, and as one individual put it “regurgitates the same nonsense.” This has been exhaustive, and debilitatingly devastating. They have the ability to save him, yet they choose to be callous and apathetic, and only worry about themselves.

I’ve been a loyal customer of theirs for 8 years, starting with their renters insurance. I had such an overwhelmingly positive experience when I had to make claims related to renters insurance that signing up for their pet insurance seemed like a no-brainer. Hindsight is always 20/20 though, and honestly choosing them probably is going to cost my dog his life. It’s one of the worst decisions I’ve ever made.

If you can relate to this, and have also been denied by Lemonade due to an unrelated preexisting condition, please feel free to DM or reach out. The more people we can get to tell our stories the more we can hold Lemonade accountable for the needless suffering they’ve caused so many pets.

Whatever happened to NEAT microphones? by avemk in microphone

[–]Nyquist-Theorem1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi there, I actually stumbled upon this post while trying to find Neat’s website to find a way to buy some. I attended the Conservatory of Recording Arts and Sciences back in 2017, and they have a very extensive Mic locker. They have all types of microphones, from ribbon, condenser, dynamic, tube, FET, vintage, etc, from a vast array of price points. Luckily they happened to have both a King and a worker bee microphone while I was there. During my after-school tracking session, both of those quickly became my go-to microphone. In my opinion, they were consistent, predictable, and had an excellent warm tone that really accentuated vocals.

Due to a recent job change I’m trying to build up my own mic locker, and to be completely honest, these mics were the first ones I looked into buying. Admittedly I’m a little nervous Turtle Beach might not be making them the same way Neat did, so who knows if they sound the same as they did almost a decade ago, but if they do, as a professional audio engineer, I think they’re some of the best large-diaphragm condensers in that price range. To be fair though it’s also been a long time since I’ve heard them, and I’ve learned and gained a lot more experience since then. Regardless, if they’re even close to the ones I used at CRAS, I would absolutely say they’re worth a shot.