“From Vitamins to Drugs” – Sixth Circuit Clarifies Unauthorized-Medication Exclusion in Equine Mortality Policies

1. Introduction

Cypress Creek Equine, LLC v. North American Specialty Insurance Co., No. 24-5842 (6th Cir. Aug. 20, 2025) centres on the untimely death of Laoban, a valuable Thoroughbred stallion insured for USD 5 million. After the horse died from an anaphylactic reaction to an intravenously administered “black shot” (a mixture of injectable vitamins and iron), the insurer denied the mortality claim under its Unauthorized Medication Exclusion. Cypress Creek sued, arguing the exclusion did not apply because the substances were mere “vitamins,” not “drugs or medication.”

The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the insurer, concluding that—even though the policy never defined the words—ordinary-meaning analysis makes clear that the injected cocktail constituted “drugs or medication.” This decision sets a new, lucid precedent on how courts should treat injectable vitamin compounds in the context of equine (and potentially other animal) insurance exclusions.

2. Summary of the Judgment

Policy Term at Issue: “Loss caused by or resulting from … 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 preventive nature or necessitated by accident, sickness or disease.”
Key Holding: The term “drugs or medication,” although undefined in the policy, is not ambiguous; injectable vitamin/iron solutions used to enhance performance fall squarely within its ordinary meaning.
Result: Coverage properly denied; District Court judgment affirmed.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

State Farm Mutual Ins. v. Fireman’s Fund Am. Ins., 550 S.W.2d 554 (Ky. 1977) – reiterates that insurance coverage is defined by contract terms.
K.M.R. v. Foremost Ins., 171 S.W.3d 751 (Ky. Ct. App. 2005) – sets the two cardinal interpretation principles: liberal construction for insureds & strict construction of exclusions.
Nationwide Mut. Ins. v. Nolan, 10 S.W.3d 129 (Ky. 1999) – underscores giving words their “plain and ordinary meaning.”
Kentucky Ass’n of Cntys. All Lines Fund Tr. v. McClendon, 157 S.W.3d 626 (Ky. 2005) – ambiguities resolved in favour of insured.
True v. Raines, 99 S.W.3d 439 (Ky. 2003) – only actual ambiguities (not “fanciful ones”) trigger contra-proferentem.
Davis v. Progressive Direct Ins., 626 S.W.3d 518 (Ky. 2021) – undefined terms get everyday meaning.

The panel blended these Kentucky authorities with federal ordinary-meaning tools (dictionary definitions, statutory parallels in the Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act) to decide no ambiguity existed. Importantly, no equine-specific case previously squarely decided whether vitamins can be “drugs” for insurance purposes; the court filled that gap.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

Choice of Law. Kentucky law governed under Erie and diversity principles.
Textual Focus. Because the policy omitted a definition for “drugs or medication,” the court applied plain-meaning canons: consult dictionaries, look to ordinary usage, and consider statutory definitions only for guidance.
Dictionary Definitions. Merriam-Webster defines “drug” broadly: any substance “intended for use in diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease” or “to affect the structure or function of the body.” “Medication” is essentially a synonym.
Application to Facts.
- The black-shot ingredients were injectables, sold exclusively to veterinarians, and administered intravenously to alter the stallion’s behaviour/performance.
- At least one component (Iron Hydrogenated Dextran) carried an FDA National Drug Code.
- The veterinarian herself called them “drugs.”
Ambiguity Rejected. Plaintiff’s argument—equating injectable vitamins with a dietary-supplement hay ration—was branded a “parade of horribles.” No reasonable insured would see an IV-infused concoction with expiry-label warnings as mere “food.”
Exclusion Triggered. Because the shot was neither preventive nor necessitated by illness, it squarely fit the exclusion. No further analysis of certification or veterinary direction was needed.

3.3 Potential Impact

The ruling reverberates beyond the thoroughbred world:

Equine Mortality Policies. Owners and managers must recognise that any injectable compound intended to influence performance—even if marketed as a vitamin—can void mortality coverage unless within a policy exception.
Veterinary Practice. The decision underscores malpractice implications: off-label, non-standard vitamin injections may expose vets not only to licensing discipline but also to financial losses for owners.
Drafting Implications. Insurers might tighten policy language (e.g., specifically listing “vitamins, minerals or nutritional supplements administered parenterally”) to avoid future litigation, but the court’s broad interpretation arguably already covers them.
Other Animal & Livestock Insurance. The same interpretative approach will likely apply to cattle, canine breeding programmes, zoo animals, and even elite sporting animals (dressage, show-jumping, sled dogs etc.).
Human-Health Analogy. Though a different context, the opinion echoes courts’ willingness to classify “wellness” injections or compounded supplements as drugs under ERISA/government-benefit plans—foreshadowing cross-pollination of reasoning.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Unauthorized Medication Exclusion: Policy clause denying coverage if an animal dies due to administration of drugs/medication that were not preventive or medically necessary.
“Plain and Ordinary Meaning” Canon: When a contract term lacks a definition, judges give it the meaning an average person would ascribe, often using dictionaries.
Ambiguity Doctrine (Contra-proferentem): If language reasonably supports two interpretations, courts pick the one favouring the insured because insurers draft the policy.
Reasonable Expectations Doctrine: An insured may obtain coverage he reasonably expects unless the policy conspicuously, plainly, and clearly excludes it.
National Drug Code (NDC): Unique ID number assigned by the FDA to medications; presence of an NDC often signals a product is regulated as a drug.
Anaphylactic Shock: Severe, rapid allergic reaction that can lead to death without immediate treatment (often requires epinephrine).

5. Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit’s decision crystallises a straightforward but previously unsettled principle: injectable vitamin compounds fall within “drugs or medication” exclusions in equine mortality insurance. By grounding its reasoning in ordinary meaning and refusing to stretch “ambiguity,” the court not only resolved the fate of a USD 5 million claim but also delivered guidance that will shape how veterinarians, syndicate managers, and insurers assess risk going forward.

Key takeaways:

Undefined policy terms will be read by ordinary-meaning tools before courts entertain ambiguity arguments.
The form of administration (e.g., intravenous injection) and purpose (performance enhancement) heavily influence classification as “drug/medication.”
Equine industry participants should secure written veterinary “preventive or medically necessary” certifications when contemplating any off-label treatments.
Insurers now wield a published blueprint for defending denial of claims arising from experimental or performance-oriented compounds.