BASC - cutting through the insurance jargon

[Conor O'Gorman]

The following article provides a further insight on BASC insurance:

https://basc.org.uk/cutting-through-the-insurance-jargon/ 

This is a follow-up to a previous article on the topic here:

https://basc.org.uk/fighting-your-corner-on-firearms/
 

[Rewulf]

On 28/02/2024 at 19:36, Conor O'Gorman said:

The following article provides a further insight on BASC insurance:

Conor, Im not having a 'bash' here, but the wording in Mr Dockerty's 'scenario' is a bit troubling.

First off , the 'bird going through a grade 2 listed conservatory window' certainly, while possible, would be a fairly certain proposition if a game shoot would be happening so close to it, what about shot fallout ?
Surely responsibility would fall squarely upon the shoulders of the shoot organiser not performing a proper risk assessment ?

Secondly, it insinuates 'any other insurance besides BASCs' will try and wriggle out of paying up, that is clearly an assumption that steps over a line of decency and accuracy ?

Im sure BASC insurance is excellent, but claiming any other insurance 'probably wont pay' is like a car manufacturer saying only our cars wont break down, and everyone elses will 

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

6 hours ago, Rewulf said:

Conor, Im not having a 'bash' here, but the wording in Mr Dockerty's 'scenario' is a bit troubling.

First off , the 'bird going through a grade 2 listed conservatory window' certainly, while possible, would be a fairly certain proposition if a game shoot would be happening so close to it, what about shot fallout ?
Surely responsibility would fall squarely upon the shoulders of the shoot organiser not performing a proper risk assessment ?

Secondly, it insinuates 'any other insurance besides BASCs' will try and wriggle out of paying up, that is clearly an assumption that steps over a line of decency and accuracy ?

Im sure BASC insurance is excellent, but claiming any other insurance 'probably wont pay' is like a car manufacturer saying only our cars wont break down, and everyone elses will 

 

Thanks, I will pass your comments back to Gareth.

[GHE]

I agree, and not only is "knocking copy" unethical and wrong, it's also commercially risky . . .

There was an American car hire business that, for years, wrote knocking copy about their main competitor. Eventually, the competitor responded with full-page ads everywhere " XXX has been telling you why they are the 2nd largest car renter and now it's time to tell you why we're bigger and better than them"

[Conor O'Gorman]

6 minutes ago, GHE said:

I agree, and not only is "knocking copy" unethical and wrong, it's also commercially risky . . .

There was an American car hire business that, for years, wrote knocking copy about their main competitor. Eventually, the competitor responded with full-page ads everywhere " XXX has been telling you why they are the 2nd largest car renter and now it's time to tell you why we're bigger and better than them"

I appreciate you have your own views of BASC but the article is rather matter of fact in stating the following:

"The BASC members’ insurance policy is a policy of ‘first resort’ which means in the event of a claim, the expert claims team will take control and deal with it, regardless of what other policies you may have in place.

However, many of the cheaper membership insurance products out there are policies of ‘last resort’, which means if you make a claim on one of them, the policy will not respond until you can prove you have no other insurance in place which could cover the claim. 

If you hold household contents insurance, for example, this will almost certainly cover your personal liabilities and would be forced to respond to the claim before your membership cover."

[GHE]

27 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

I appreciate you have your own views of BASC

I do, my views are honest and sincerely held, and you know the history.

2 points though;

1. Where a claim is covered by more than one insurer, the responsible insurer is the one that covered the risk first. What BASC seems to be saying is that where both they and another insurer cover the risk, they will take on the job of sorting out the very simple task of defining which insurer is actually liable. not a big job for anyone who can read a calendar.

2. BASC seems to be claiming that they are the insurer of first resort, which may be correct, But they indicate that this is a good thing. It is in fact the insurer of last resort (when there is one) that has to pick up the tab when there is no other insurer on the scene, for whatever reason - an example of this is where the government becomes the insurer of last resort if a financial institution fails.

I'm NOT suggesting that there is anything wrong with the BASC insurance services, I'm not even suggesting that the statements are inaccurate, what I am saying that that you are using knocking copy, which is inadvisable for the reasons already given.

[Conor O'Gorman]

On 02/03/2024 at 21:12, GHE said:

I do, my views are honest and sincerely held, and you know the history.

2 points though;

1. Where a claim is covered by more than one insurer, the responsible insurer is the one that covered the risk first. What BASC seems to be saying is that where both they and another insurer cover the risk, they will take on the job of sorting out the very simple task of defining which insurer is actually liable. not a big job for anyone who can read a calendar.

2. BASC seems to be claiming that they are the insurer of first resort, which may be correct, But they indicate that this is a good thing. It is in fact the insurer of last resort (when there is one) that has to pick up the tab when there is no other insurer on the scene, for whatever reason - an example of this is where the government becomes the insurer of last resort if a financial institution fails.

I'm NOT suggesting that there is anything wrong with the BASC insurance services, I'm not even suggesting that the statements are inaccurate, what I am saying that that you are using knocking copy, which is inadvisable for the reasons already given.

Thanks for taking the time to qualify your points. I will pass that on to Gareth.

[old man]

On 01/03/2024 at 12:48, Rewulf said:

Conor, Im not having a 'bash' here, but the wording in Mr Dockerty's 'scenario' is a bit troubling.

First off , the 'bird going through a grade 2 listed conservatory window' certainly, while possible, would be a fairly certain proposition if a game shoot would be happening so close to it, what about shot fallout ?
Surely responsibility would fall squarely upon the shoulders of the shoot organiser not performing a proper risk assessment ?

Secondly, it insinuates 'any other insurance besides BASCs' will try and wriggle out of paying up, that is clearly an assumption that steps over a line of decency and accuracy ?

Im sure BASC insurance is excellent, but claiming any other insurance 'probably wont pay' is like a car manufacturer saying only our cars wont break down, and everyone elses will 

 

Absolutely!