Shooting Insurance

[ferretman]

i carnt belive that mate.

[Tam]

BASC have trained the claims handling team at Marsh on shooting and shooting related activities so when any member speaks with them, the member can rest assured that they are speaking to someone who knows about shooting. And is on their side

 

David

 

Unfortunately like some others I have not found this to be the case :hmm: :lol:

BASC does a lot for shooting & conservation BUT if you want insurance & back up then you should go for S.A.C.S. full legal cover included

[perfect]

rather be coverd, my m8 just broken his foot on his quad in the field shooting. no insurance as yet, all i want is to be fully insured no hassle.

[Buckster]

rather be coverd, my m8 just broken his foot on his quad in the field shooting. no insurance as yet, all i want is to be fully insured no hassle.

Aye you do want to be fully covered but are you.see my post at the bottom of page 5

[al4x]

Doesn't mater who you are insured with if they can get out of paying a claim they will did'nt want to say anything before as i was having a claim going through with BASC for loss of sight in my right eye due to been hit with a clay pigeon.Just received a letter this morning to tell me that they will not be paying out.This is a quote in the letter.

 

 

Insurers have advised that your medical report confirms vision in your

right eye is recorded at 6/60. Unfortunately, the definition of the policy

states "loss of sight is deemed to have occurred in one eye when the

degree of sight remaining after correction is 3/60 or less on the Snell

Scale and the Company is satisfied that the condition is permanent and

without expectation of recovery".

 

As your consultant has confirmed your sight to be 6/60 they are unable to

consider this claim under the terms of the policy.

 

 

So you pays your money and takes a chance

 

 

stupid question but isn't the wearing of safety glasses pretty much compulsory at most clay grounds just so this kind of accident doesn't happen

[Buckster]

stupid question but isn't the wearing of safety glasses pretty much compulsory at most clay grounds just so this kind of accident doesn't happen

 

 

At most grounds they advise people to wear safety glasses but I was doing some maintenance on a clay trap and it accidentally went off.

Edited May 28, 2008 by Buckster

[markbivvy]

BASC have trained the claims handling team at Marsh on shooting and shooting related activities so when any member speaks with them, the member can rest assured that they are speaking to someone who knows about shooting. And is on their side

 

David

 

Unfortunately like some others I have not found this to be the case

BASC does a lot for shooting & conservation BUT if you want insurance & back up then you should go for S.A.C.S. full legal cover included

 

 

[new to the flock]

stupid question but isn't the wearing of safety glasses pretty much compulsory at most clay grounds just so this kind of accident doesn't happen

 

 

At most grounds they advise people to wear safety glasses but I was doing some maintenance on a clay trap and it accidentally went off.

 

 

First off as i read it Basc are following the rules layed down in the Terms and Conditions of their coverage.

 

Second why were you not wearing your saftey equiptment while woking on the machine?

 

Third why was the power not disconnected if electrically driven and the machine de-cocked electrical or manual machine?

 

NTTF

[Buckster]

First off as i read it Basc are following the rules layed down in the Terms and Conditions of their coverage.

The eye was damaged through a shooting related accident

Second why were you not wearing your saftey equiptment while woking on the machine?

Acording to one of the doctors I saw said that if I had been wearing safety glasses they probably would of shattered and made the injury worse.Loss of eye

 

Third why was the power not disconnected if electrically driven and the machine de-cocked electrical or manual machine?

 

NTTF

 

The power was diconnected,but I can't remember if was de-cocked.But obviously it must have been cocked.

[David BASC]

I am honestly very sorry about your injury- I am very aware of the claim.

 

Our insurance company asked your doctor for a report on your eye injury, this is common for injury claims so the insurance company bases their decision on medical evidence- the policy clearly states that payment for loss of site is only made if the vision is 3/60 or less as the result of the injury.

 

As you correctly say - your doc states that your eye sight is 6/60 (ie better then 3/60) so the policy will not respond.

 

I do not know of any of the shooting organisations Pesonal Accident policy that would pay out for 6/60 or better - sorry.

 

I understand how you feel, and wish there was somthing I could do or say to ease the situation but I am affraid there is nothing I can do in this case due to the medical evidence.

 

Very best wishes

David

[Highlander]

I'm afraid in this day and age INSURANCE is just a way of taking your money and giving back as little as possible (like a lot of other things in life) BUT you'd be damned silly to go shooting without it! Also IMO it's not just insurance that you should be considering but the wider picture, putting something back into the sport/s you love and BASC do that probably a lot more than most other organisations. Again IMO it's a shame we have so many different organisations when 'United we stand, Divided we fall'.

[Buckster]

I do not know of any of the shooting organisations Pesonal Accident policy that would pay out for 6/60 or better - sorry.

 

So if a beater ,picker up or another person got hit in the eye with a stray pellet from a shotgun on a game shoot and ended up with 6/60 vision they would not be able to claim on insurance.

[David BASC]

Buckster,

 

We are talking here about two different types of insurance, as insurance can be a bit of a mine field will you allow me to explain?

 

Your claim was under a personal injury policy – i.e. a policy that covers you for injury you suffer yourself. In is case the personal accident policy covers Capital Benefits only – i.e. you have to lose a part of your body or the use of a pert of your body on a permanent basis for a claim to be made. The policy does not cover temporary disability. I.e. broken finger – not covered, cut off your finger – covered.

 

Also –personal accident policies do not rely on any proof of liability – only that the loss is permanent (based usually on medical evidence)

 

Also, personal accident policies will often pay out a fixed sum, regardless of how severe you feel the loss is. i.e. under the same policy if you lost your finger and you are a retired tap dancer, you would get the same payout if you were a 30 year old concert pianist.

 

Typically lawyers are not involved in claims against personal accident polices

 

 

Now the other type of insurance typical in our filed is liability insurance– in this case the policy protects you if you injure someone else or damage their policy. In this case the injured party has to prove the following:

 

• That they have suffered a loss

• That you owed them a duty of care

• That you failed in your duty of care

• That their loss was totally or mainly down to your failure in that duty of care

 

Also, if liability is proven then the level of payout is not fixed, it will depend on how severe the loss is and how much it effects you. This is decided by lawyers negotiating based on evidence produces, hence a large part of a liability claim can often be the legal fees!

 

Taking the lost finger of the tap dancer and the pianist as above, the tap dancer loss is minimal – it is unlikely to have nay negative effect on his income for example, and possibly not his life style in general. The pianist however is totally different, probable loss of income, lifestyle etc- the payout to him would be much greater.

 

Turning to your beater- who suffered an eye injury on the shoot, he has two people he could claim against, the person who fired the shot and the person who ‘employed’ him on the day to go beating.

 

There is no doubt he suffered a loss – any form of eye injury is likely to evoke a claim regardless of the level of loss of sight.

 

Arguably BOTH owe him a duty of care

 

Arguably they both failed in their duty of care although it could be hard for the guy that pulled the trigger to mitigate against the guy who employed the beater – but I have seen it.

 

His loss was certainly totally down to their failure in their duty of care

 

Now all this may or may not make things clearer – please let me know if it does not, I deal with insurance claims under the BASC policy every day – so it all makes sense to me – BUT if it still reads like Double Dutch then let me know – but remember I can only give hypothetical answers to hypothetical questions, every real claim will be judged on ALL the events and circumstances at the time of the claim.

 

Thanks

David

[al4x]

you're on overtime now David

 

Buckster was the accident on an organised clay shoot as from the sounds of things if you want to make a claim it would need to be on the organisers public liability insurance,

[Cranfield]

stupid question but isn't the wearing of safety glasses pretty much compulsory at most clay grounds just so this kind of accident doesn't happen

 

I have shot at about 20 different Clay Grounds and at none of them was it compulsory to wear safety glasses (or any other type of glasses) when shooting.

I would also add that hearing protection wasn't compulsory either.

[Maiden22]

.

Edited November 20, 2008 by Maiden22

[David BASC]

Al4x

 

I wish I was on overtime!

 

I have sent a message to Buckster offering further help and guidance- here to help members if I can. I understand why he feels aggrieved, but hope he and others realize that the decision not to pay was not BASC’s – it was the underwriters decision based an the members doctor’s evidence.

 

I think (or I could be wrong ) that all grounds with the CPSA insurance have to offer full safety kit to people shooting, but if the punter does not want to use it....what can be done?

 

OK we are all safety aware, aren’t we? But accidents do happen. Should someone who has not got the relevant experience try to fix a broken trap?

 

If on an organized show then I would argue that the organiser is potentially liable, If on a recreational hoot, with a bunch of guys clubbing together for a bit of fun… could be tough to prove who if anyone was liable I suspect – I await further info.

 

Best wishes

 

 

David

[Buckster]

If on a recreational hoot, with a bunch of guys clubbing together for a bit of fun… could be tough to prove who if anyone was liable I suspect – I await further info.

 

Best wishes

 

 

David

 

that is what it is a bunch of bloke's with a few traps that rent a field for a couple of hours on a Sunday morning .

[blahblahblah]

Could you tell me if their are any payment options for BASC membership as I know loads of rough shooters who would prefer to be with the BASC myself included, but can only afford to get insurance, sometimes with, sometimes without an organisational body behind it. With the credit crunch, bills going up ect and getting less overtime it seems some people dont have a choice who they get insurance with or which organisation they can join.

[webber]

Blah

 

You could consider paying with a credit card?

 

webber

[blahblahblah]

I dont like them thus dont have them. P.S. that would be even more expensive with interest added

[Psyxologos]

I think I will join BASC and CPSA

[clayman]

Al4x

 

I think (or I could be wrong ) that all grounds with the CPSA insurance have to offer full safety kit to people shooting, but if the punter does not want to use it....what can be done?

 

 

David

 

CPSA grounds fall into two categories:

 

Affiliated - these grounds are required to have a Safety Officer who has been through the CPSA Safety Officer training program. This is now subject to a 5 year renewal to maintain training. The ground is required to complete a Safety Audit that is a self declaring form. Download assistance and help from HQ is available for such things as Safety Policy Statement, Risk Assessment etc. Following complaints on safety, or if there are queries on the application of CPSA recommendations, regional Senior Safety officers or CPSA HQ staff may visit the ground to give advice.

 

At these grounds there is no CPSA requirement for PPE, neither ears nor eyes, although its strongly recommended and most grounds make at least hearing protection a condition of entry. That is actually the grounds commercial decision, not a CPSA enforcement, but there is a legal obligation by the ground owner to protect public and workers under H&S@W and HSE guidelines.

 

Registered - this includes Premier and Premier Plus. These grounds need all the requirements of the affiliated ground, and are required to submit a much more in depth Safety Audit every 4 years or so in an country wide cycle. These grounds are all visited by Senior Safety Officers or HQ staff and their status is only maintained if they do complete all the paperwork and are compliant. A full report is filed at HQ by the inspecting SSO. In the event of queries , disputes or appeals, a three man team visits the ground to provide advice or make a decision. Several grounds have left the CPSA because they were unwilling to follow safety advice given, or not prepared to comply with the legal requirements of Risk Assessment, Safety Policy etc as recommended by the CPSA and evidence required of compliance at Safety Audit.

 

At these grounds both Registered and Unregistered shoots are run, but it is only within the CPSA registered shoot that there is an obligation by the ground to insist under CPSA rules of entry that shooters have full PPE ( ear and eyes). All shooting outside the CPSA registered competition is outside the remit of control by the CPSA as they have nothing to do with it, and the insistence and provision, or otherwise, of PPE for shooters, public and workers is again entirely the ground owner's decision.

 

The CPSA does go to great lengths to try to make sure ground owners are fully informed of the possibility of HSE prosecution if they don't make adequate arrangements, but outside the entry to CPSA regulated competition, the CPSA itself cannot, and does not, impose PPE.

 

Fortunately it is now standard to consider that hearing protection must be worn at all times, and as sight is more precious than hearing ( in my mind anyway), a growing number of grounds are recommending or insisting on eye protection at all times. While there are many who be-moan this, I for one support it fully.

 

Jerry Parks Young

training and safety manager CPSA 2001-2006

Edited November 18, 2008 by clayman