Jump to content

Insurance/membership suggestions.


Pyropredator
 Share

Recommended Posts

Happy to advise,

 

On average, over say the past 5 years it averages out at about a claim a week,.

 

I agree shooting accidents are rare, and the majority are simple property damage claims which are relatively easy and less expensive to resolve. The minority result in an injury to a third party and will almost always be significantly more complex and more costly to resolve.

 

There is no 'fat commission' to BASC

 

The average cost of a claim is a little shy of £10,000, with several claims of six figures on the books and a one that hit seven figures

 

If you think you are covered under your home insurance please double check and get it in writing would be my guidance, you don't want to find out that there is no cover or cover is restricted when you need to make a claim

 

£13.50 per member is spent on the insurances, public, product and employer liability personal accident and legal expenses

 

As I have said, even given the low risks, how many of us would want to go shooting with someone who's not insured? Fewer and fewer landowners are willing to allow uninsured people shoot over their land, and given that cover under a home policy may well not be there, the cheapest way to get cover is by being a member of one of the associations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Now David, that is a step too far in my humble opinion. I am a paid up member of BASC, and gladly so, but to suggest that is unacceptable to shoot unless one is somehow tied to membership of an organisation is as Orwellian and controlling a statement as some of the more controlling issues that we are trying to fight!

 

There are many shooters out there with no axes to grind, who are experienced, safe and law abiding, and to suggest that it is unacceptable for them to continue with their sport without signing up somewhere is little different to unions press-ganging all workers into paying their subs "or else". The important thing for the shooting organisations is that they have sufficient membership and sufficient funding to carry on with their good work, not that everyone has to become affiliated. Those who remain outside membership have to accept that their voices will be harder to hear but it does not mean that they are less qualified to continue with their sport than fully paid up members. I am surprised at this statement.

 

The shooting organisations may be a good voice for the shooting community (although many will disagree with this) but it is a free and democratic country, and there should be NO suggestion of mandatory membership of any organisation.

 

The only issue of mandatory compliance that I think may become inevitable is that of competence testing to hold and FAC or shotgun certificate, in whatever form that might take.

When it comes to the insurance issue, as I think that he's said it before but if I'm wrong no doubt David BASC will correct me, the highlighted shooters somewhat surprisingly make up the largest proportion of those making claims under the BASC insurance scheme.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That would stand to reason as many responsible experienced shooters are the ones most likely I guess to be affiliated and insured. Those not insured can't claim, obviously, so I wouldn't really expect the statistics to reflect anything else. Point is, we have to be careful using statistics as proof of anything, as more often than not, they are a means for delivering more politically motivated agendas. I think that David and the BASC, by and large, do a great job. I do think however that insurance should be for individuals to decide on for themselves as all circumstances are different.

 

As some have already said, they may only seldom shoot and have other financial strains, so £72 a year whilst not much in the scheme of things, still has to be justified by families. I don't buy the argument that if you can afford to shoot you can afford to pay for all the extras. If someone only shoots say half a dozen times per year over the winter season, and rough shoots, then they may only get through 4 or 5 boxes of cartridges and that may be their only outlay and the returns in game might more than justify the outlay. That was certainly the case for me many years ago when I first started. If someone then had suggested I spend more on affiliation and insurance than I could afford on cartridges, it would have killed my ability and interest to carry on with the sport.

 

For air gun owners, the cost of ammo is peanuts. For 22LR shooters, both the rifles and the ammo can be picked up very cheaply. Guns can also be picked up very cheaply. A perfectly serviceable 12g s/s can be had for less than £100 and might give many years shooting service. I'm just against all of this nonsense about shooting somehow being an expensive sport when it doesn't have to be. It also fuels the fires of arguments by some antis that it's a "toffs game". Few shooters I know fall into that camp. For those who regularly shoot and can afford it, I'm with David and think that it is a responsible thing to sort out shooting insurance cover, but mandatory for all irrespective of circumstances? No.

 

Shooting only starts to get expensive when fancier kit is bought, when paying for specific shooting days, being part of a syndicate or when regular shooting means getting through a lot of ammo etc. That still at a guess wouldn't represent an overwhelming majority of the shooting public. Golf, from what I can tell, is generally a more costly pastime.

Edited by Savhmr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, most claims come from people who have been shooting for some time.

 

Having had to deal with cases where the person who pulled the trigger was not insured, I can assure you that the injured party with a potentially life changing injury trying to claim against someone who is not insured and have damn all assets will, along with their family and friends,look aghast at anyone who says 'sorry I cant afford to get insured to go shooting as I only go shooting a few times a year'

 

Some may feel that paying BASC £70 odd quid a year is too much if they are only going shooting a few times a year, but you can spread the cost over 10 payments and if you use your membership benefits wisely can probably save the cost of your membership and if that's still not attractive there are cheaper options availalbe

Edited by David BASC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't have to ask your insurer if you are covered - just look at the exclusions to your public liability section of your household policy. Mine has just arrived with renewal Octobers and it is quite clear my personal liability whilst out shooting (provided not being paid) is covered. In my 50 or so years of shooting the only time I've ever felt threatened by dangerous shooting actually involved a well-known shooting journalist taking some very low shots at pheasants through a maize crop when I was standing on the other side. He was warned and never invited back - he had BASC stickers on his Landy and, shooting all around the world, as he says he does(!) I'm fairly sure my family would have got compensation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Savhmr - On a rolling 5 year average, around 20%

 

My guidance is not to simply depend on reading the exclusions, unless shooting is clearly identified then check. Note in the case above beating or picking up would not be covered if any form of payment is included for example

 

Never assume that someone you think is well heeled will be in a position to pay you compensation and pay your legal bills, nor that any payments will come quickly!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Savhmr - On a rolling 5 year average, around 20%

 

My guidance is not to simply depend on reading the exclusions, unless shooting is clearly identified then check. Note in the case above beating or picking up would not be covered if any form of payment is included for example

 

Never assume that someone you think is well heeled will be in a position to pay you compensation and pay your legal bills, nor that any payments will come quickly!

 

Wow...I'm astonished that it's that high. That being the case David, I can certainly see where you're coming from as that makes for sobering reading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David BASC what is the 'rolling 20%' is this claim paid/estimates to premiums paid (including commission) or to the % of the premium insurer retain for their costs and liabilities? This would be a very good loss ratio for a specialist class of insurance if, as you mentioned, there is a 7 figure claim included.

 

When my near miss occurred it would not have mattered if I was a beater (paid or otherwise) or a gun as it would have been his negligence and a standard household cover would have included this. It is only as a paid gun (pest control etc) there would be no cover and I've never been fortunate enough to be paid to shoot. As it was I was a gun on the other side of the maize.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry where does this pay your way come into it, I shoot clays at a local range and have no reason to belong to any organisation, I dont compete in registered shoots and cannot see any advantage in joining any group

I assume you do have some sort of liability cover for your shooting ? If not you will be doing yourself but more importantly those around you a great disservice .

And I assume you are not concerned if there is a ban on the use of lead shot , which are organisations are fighting against ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ND - I was asked what percentage of claims (number of claims) involved TP injury, over the last 5 years its 20%, the other 8 % of claims involve TP property, livestock, horses ect

 

Take care assuming 'standard household policies would cover this' some do some dont and many people do not have household insurance...so never assume, especially when it comes to liability insurance

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David BASC - as I said it is a very simple task to check exclusions to your public liability section of household covers. If not specifically excluded it is covered but belt and braces pick up the phone and check. Yes many householders do not take out household covers but given the responsible nature of shooting folk I would suggest the incidence of non-insurance will be much much lower. At the end of the day I take considerable comfort from knowing I very very rarely feel concerned when out beating/shooting yet every time I'm driving and this is daily I see dangerous incidents, near misses and quite a few collisions and Norfolk is a very low risk county.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm of the opinion that insurance should be compulsory, but that the joining of a representational organisation should be optional.

Not many shooting organisations are politically actively worthwhile and none have any real influence as firearm ownership and shooting in general in this country is not only unpopular but by many aspects of our society generally frowned upon.

Individuals have to consider what they want from an organisation and where best their money is spent, and whether any organisations are worth the extra expense which includes their insurance.

 

+1 well said, it sums up the whole discussion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...