Home contents insurance and legal liability cover

[otherwayup]

Whilst looking at the various insurance covers provided by BASC, CPSA and CA, I came across this paragraph in the CA Insurance FAQ;

 

"Most members will also have Home Contents Insurance and these policies generally

include Personal Liability Insurance for most events including claims arising from

pets and shooting related incidents. Again if Home Contents Insurance is in place, a

claim should first be referred to that insurer for consideration."

 

Had a quick look at my home contents policy and it covers Legal Liability of Activities upto 1M GBP and doesn't specifically mention or exclude shooting (it does exclude activities involving motor vehicles for example).

 

I assume if I paid for CA membership and needed to make a claim, they would tell me to claim off my home contents insurance (for the first 1M) anyway.

 

Has this happened to anyone?

 

Do any PW members use their home contents public liability cover for their shooting cover?

 

Darren

[Dekers]

Interesting point and the answer is almost certainly yes...any and every insurance company looks at ways of minimizing their liability!

[955i]

I have wondered about this as I also have Professional Indemnity and Public Liability for the business and am not sure whether I would be covered by this.

[Sinistercr0c]

So your saying that if you've paid to be a member of the CA and have to make a claim (in the unfortunate event you might shoot/injure someone or their property) the CA will first tell you to try and claim off your home insurance?!

 

If your right, then I'd be a tad unimpressed with them I have to say. I would also assume that you would have to inform your home insurer about your shooting activity as they may wish to load your premium because of it?

 

Or have I read it wrong.....

[Ozzy Fudd]

most house insurance carries public liability. just lifted a random policy booklet from axa, the wording is...

 

"we will cover all amounts that you are legally responsible to pay as damages for:

a - bodily injury (inc death or disease) to any person, or loss or

b - loss or damage to property which happens anywhere in the world during the period of insurance"

 

theres more to it, but theres also a big bit that says what is not covered, which includes...

 

"you owning, or using, any firearm or sporting gun" - so shooting isnt covered, also "you owning or using animals other than horses, cats, or dogs, and other animals normally domesticated in ireland" - so be careful about pet cover (especially if its a dangerous breed dog - see dangerous dog act 1991), and theres also a bit saying mechanically propelled vehicles arent covered (or you wouldnt need car insurance... ).

 

if anyone has any questions read your policy booklet, it should say whats covered and whats not; failing that ring your insurance company

Edited August 4, 2010 by Ozzy Fudd

[silpig5]

not really on topic but barclays insurance was pleased to give me 3k insurance for my beretta in and out of the house inc accidental damage .but it did cost me 22 quid a year.

 

[David BASC]

Possibly a final post before I go on holiday for a couple of weeks :

 

Yes as I read it (via the CA claim form on their web site) the CA policy, and some other shooting association policies will want YOU to check ALL your other policies before you can make a claim on theirs - thought you were covered in any event by your Association policy? Check agian!

 

Of course there are many reasons to suport a shooting organisation, not just insurance, but if you have joined an association because they are tempting you with a cheap insurance deal - what have you paid for exactly if they make you claim somewhere else?

 

The BASC policy, by the way, does NOT have this clause, you claim on the BASC policy as a member and our insurers and thier lawyers take it on from there - we do not ask you to check this that and the other policy.

 

Some home policies will cover your shooting liability, but to my knowledge these are getting fewer and fewer, so don't assume your home insurance does cover you - check first.

 

Having said that it is not so uncommon for you to be able to add your guns and say fishing tackle onto your home contents insurance in case you dammage it for example.

 

So, if I were you , I would check if you are directly covered by your association policy or if, in the event of a claim, they will leave you to sort it out first and only come to them as a last resort. You get what you pay for I guess

 

David

 

Sorry I will not be able to contribute to this thread any more as I am about o drive down to Pembrokeshie - see you all soon

 

D

[al4x]

this is fairly standard with most, having had a look through the CA insurance it doesn't appear to exclude things like Windscreens if you drop a bird on someone else on the shoots car etc which the BASC one excludes. That is probably the most common thing I've seen done on a shooting field so always worth remembering you aren't covered if the car belongs to a fellow shooter.

[wymberley]

this is fairly standard with most, having had a look through the CA insurance it doesn't appear to exclude things like Windscreens if you drop a bird on someone else on the shoots car etc which the BASC one excludes. That is probably the most common thing I've seen done on a shooting field so always worth remembering you aren't covered if the car belongs to a fellow shooter.

Hi, would that be because there's no way that could be described as negligent?

Cheers

[al4x]

nope I'd guess its because it happens a lot, obviously you don't park vehicles on a shoot day in silly places but if you ***** a bird and it glides down or someone else has parked behind a hedge its worth knowing you aren't covered if you land a bird on it

[Piebob]

I assume if I paid for CA membership and needed to make a claim, they would tell me to claim off my home contents insurance (for the first 1M) anyway.

 

That's what I would take it to mean.

 

I'm confused now though. What if you home insurance policy said something along the same lines? i.e. we'll cover you for a shooting related incident, but if you've got another shooting specific policy, you should claim off that. So you go back to CA, then they say nope - you need to claim off your house insurance.

 

Who wins? Does it come down to the date when each policy started? What if all insurers start writing in such clauses?

[al4x]

they usually argue between the two of them and I believe usually pay a proportion each. Whichever way you are insured what is nice about the CA policy is they have qualified the being paid for beating etc when you would be covered unless its your main source of Income and that has been a sticking point with a few policies

[Ozzy Fudd]

That's what I would take it to mean.

 

I'm confused now though. What if you home insurance policy said something along the same lines? i.e. we'll cover you for a shooting related incident, but if you've got another shooting specific policy, you should claim off that. So you go back to CA, then they say nope - you need to claim off your house insurance.

 

Who wins? Does it come down to the date when each policy started? What if all insurers start writing in such clauses?

 

its usually called dual insurance. each each insurer usually pay a portion of the claim, it happens all the time with travel insurance - lose your bags, claim on the travel insurance and half the time the items are covered under the house insurance as well, so the travel insurers get the house insurers to pay half the claim; usually doesnt go against your claims history on the house insurance though.

 

(and yes, im studying for more ******* insurance exams at the mo )

[Piebob]

Thanks lads - all becomes clear

[wymberley]

nope I'd guess its because it happens a lot, obviously you don't park vehicles on a shoot day in silly places but if you ***** a bird and it glides down or someone else has parked behind a hedge its worth knowing you aren't covered if you land a bird on it

The reason I asked was because if memory serves me right some policies stated that negligence had to be shown in order for a claim to be settled. Perhaps someone could put me straight (BASC insurance clearly states accidental).

David has said that BASC does not have a clause about claiming off another policy first. So it seems. However, what he didn't say ( not a criticism, after all the poor chap was trying to get away) or mention is Clause 6 under "Clauses" in the policy document which is as Ozzy stated.

Cheers

[al4x]

actually I was wrong about the vehicles they are covered but you have to pay the first £1K of a claim

[Christopher Graffius]

actually I was wrong about the vehicles they are covered but you have to pay the first £1K of a claim

 

In David's absence I've looked into this. BASC has an excess only where the person whose car is hit is someone involved with the shoot (as gun, beater picker up etc) who therefore has reason to know that the parking place is not safe (e.g. they parked behind the guns where dead birds are likely to land); this was in response to a number of claims that could have been avoided had the claimants parked sensibly. Aside from the claims cost, which has a knock-on effect on BASC’s premiums, avoiding such damage by sensible parking avoids all the inconvenience of having to claim and get the claim sorted out.

 

If you drop a bird on someone's car who's not involved with the shoot you're covered.

 

Any questions let me know.

 

Christopher

[vulpicide]

Only time I was involved in an insurance claim involving CA it was a personal injury claim some one who was out with me they were paid out in full with NO quibble.

[Pinkfooty]

Regarding the "double insurance" question, I had a claim recently (nothing to do with shooting) where parts of the claim were covered by my home insurance, some were covered by my travel insurance, some by my camera insurance and some were covered by my credit card insurance. There was a considerable amount of overlap, especially between my home insurance and the travel insurance.

 

I only had to complete one claim form (home insurance - Saga) and on it give details of the other policies. The home insurance paid the entire claim in full immediately and then, I assume, reclaimed agreed proportions from the other insurers. I believe this is common practice, supported throughout the insurance industry. In addition to being much more satisfactory from the customer's viewpoint, it also protects the insurance companies from con artists trying to claim twice for the same loss.

[David BASC]

Morning all,

 

Glad to be back.

 

As CG says, we don’t exclude claims from falling birds on your cars, but if you park them immediately behind where you are shooting we will hit you with an excess.

 

Personal accident policies are different from Public liability policies, there is no issue with PA polices about claiming off another one first, if you had two PA policies for example you would get paid twice.

 

With PL polices you can only get paid once, even if you have more than one policy in play.

 

Clause 6 in the BASC policy is not the same as the clause in some others (such as the CA policy for example). Which means the policy is, in effect, a policy of last resprt.

 

In the case of the CA policy the responsibility will be on YOU to exhaust ALL other possible covers you have to take over the claim before you can go back to the CA. Not to much of an issue if the claim is for a broken window or a shot sheep, but what if it is a major injury claim, and you have solicitors letters landing on your doormat its another matter -what you want is for your insurer to take the problem away from you, not ask you to do the leg work!

 

Clause 6 in the BASC policy means that if another underwriter is in play, we have the right to go to them to ask if they consider that they too may be liable, and contribute to the claim, BUT the BASC policy still responds in the first instance and takes over the claim WE do all the leg work behind the scenes not you.

 

I have no issues about polices having restrictions on them BUT what I do have an issue with is when someone goes round claiming their policy is better than or the same as others when there are ,in my view, significant limitations which are not clearly listed on the policy’s Key Facts document.

 

The law is on the side of the buyer of insurance polices, the law say the sell must tell you about significant exclusions before you buy.

 

My regards to all

 

David

[al4x]

£1000 is quite a good vehicle excess and one worth remembering as if its someone elses vehicle and they parked it there you would be arguing the toss on a shoot day. I've seen it happen with pricked birds that have flown a long way in a glide to hit a vehicle so its worth remembering you'll have a grand to pay if it happens

[HDAV]

£1000 is quite a good vehicle excess and one worth remembering as if its someone elses vehicle and they parked it there you would be arguing the toss on a shoot day. I've seen it happen with pricked birds that have flown a long way in a glide to hit a vehicle so its worth remembering you'll have a grand to pay if it happens

How much damage can a pheasant do to a car? I have seen many cars park behind rugby posts and be hit by the balls with little or no damage. Also having hit a few birds inc a seagul that landed in front of me while doing 60 on a dual carriageway.......and suffered no damage what the hell sort of cars do people take to shoots? Paper mache ones?

[al4x]

mostly just windscreens but can be more if you dump one on a smart 4x4's bonnet, I'd suggest most claims are below 1K as thats gets the insurers off the hook on most of them. Obviously most people will claim on their glass insurance so you would only have less than £100 to pay however if the person refuses to do so then you are liable and it can be a fair wack to change a decent motors screen.

 

I hit a cock bird on the M1 in a merc sprinter and that broke the screen and dented the roof where it met the screen. Obviously most will be going a lot slower but its still a couple of kilos of meat that can land on bodywork. Its rare but by the fact they are excluded by the high excess it happens quite a lot

Edited August 16, 2010 by al4x

[David BASC]

It’s not an issue of a pricked bird setting its wings and flying on.

 

What we will apply the excess to is if you are daft enough to park your car immediately being you on the peg, shoot the drive and then turm in amazement to see your car(s) peppered with dead birds and dents - …..it happens much more than you would think!