If I shoot a bird and it.....

[markm]

Its been hit, does not fold but glides into someones property and smashes a window. Will my shooting insurance cover it?

Edited October 24, 2008 by markm

[Pinkfooty]

If you get your insurance from BASC it will cover any damage to third party property caused as a result of you shooting. Can't speak for other organisations' insurance.

[markm]

NGO the same?

[Highlander]

Yes, you know it makes sense as accidents can (and do) happen. Shooting in todays world without insurance is just plain dumb!

[David BASC]

Yes the BASC policy would cover this, as you would be seen to have been negligent if failing to assess the potential flight of the bird. We do get quite a few of these every year!

 

As it goes I would expect any public liability policy from a shooting organisation to cover this sort of event, as I say this is common.

 

The NGO policy though a little different I understand. The NGO policy will only respond to a claim if you (the member of NGO) do not have any other liability policy in place, such as being a member of another organisation or indeed if you happen to have home insurance.

 

This was covered in the NGO mag earlier this year, where one of their guys, possibly the chairman criticised BASC for spending so much on insurance, and praising the NGO for not….Hmmmm :yp:

 

Pay your money take your choice but be VERY aware of what you are buying, you don’t want to find out you are not covered for something only when you make a claim!

 

David

[Cushat]

as you would be seen to have been negligent if failing to assess the potential flight of the bird.

 

David,

 

I don't understand your comment about being seen to be negligent - can you clarify?

 

Are you saying that you'd be negligent if you didn't assess the potential flight of the bird and therefore you'd NOT be covered? Can of worms there - I've seen birds drop out of the air stone dead a looooong way back when picking up - but if you considered every eventuality like this then you'd never be able to take a shot without being negligent??

 

Maybe if you stood 20 yds from a fence with a greenhouse on the otherside then it would be reasonable to assume you might drop a bird on the greenhouse - that could be deemed negligent. But the occassional long ones that are just winged but glide a long way back without much control - surely not? Where to draw the line? Or more to the point, where does my BASC insurance draw the line?

 

Confused - sorry!

Edited October 24, 2008 by Cushat

[SA1Gunner]

David it's niice to see a BASC representative on here answering questions on certian situations.

[markm]

the potential flight of the bird.

David

 

 

I really appreciate your time and effort in responding to my post. But I am sure you are aware that the flight of a bird after it is shot (in most if not all occasions) will be either 1) drop straight down dead, as a runner or fatally injured or 2) continue on its way with an altered flight path (even if it is thinking about where it is going)

Edited October 24, 2008 by markm

[auto culto]

Yes the BASC policy would cover this, as you would be seen to have been negligent if failing to assess the potential flight of the bird. We do get quite a few of these every year!

 

As it goes I would expect any public liability policy from a shooting organisation to cover this sort of event, as I say this is common.

 

The NGO policy though a little different I understand. The NGO policy will only respond to a claim if you (the member of NGO) do not have any other liability policy in place, such as being a member of another organisation or indeed if you happen to have home insurance.

 

This was covered in the NGO mag earlier this year, where one of their guys, possibly the chairman criticised BASC for spending so much on insurance, and praising the NGO for not….Hmmmm :yp:

 

Pay your money take your choice but be VERY aware of what you are buying, you don’t want to find out you are not covered for something only when you make a claim!

 

David

 

 

Great to see you on here David. Perhaps you would like to participate on this thread http://forums.pigeonwatch.co.uk/forums/ind...showtopic=69389 and answer a couple of questions and settle the debate with basc insurance

[David BASC]

Thanks for that guys, let me try and clarify the point - but if it still does not make sense then please let me know - here to help.

 

Negligence: Basically, and as simple as I can make it- is a three part test as follows:

 

1. Has someone suffered a loss (damage to property, injury for example) and can they prove they have suffered a loss?

2. Did someone else owe the injured party a duty of care?

3. Was the loss caused totally or mainly by a failure of someone else to discharge their duty of care - i.e. has someone failed to take proper care, which in hindsight they could / should have done something differently that would have prevented the loss

OK. So lets look at the case of the bird hitting a window…

 

a. Has someone suffered a loss ? YES broken window – no doubt here

b. Did the shooter (in this case) owe the owner of the window a duty of care? YES – most certainly, obviously shooters must take all reasonable care not to damage someone’s property.

c. Was the loss (broken window) caused by the shooter failing to take care – YES – when you shoot a bird it falls out of the sky- and it tends to fall in a straight line unless there is a hurricane blowing! OK it may fall to the ground in 10,20,30,100m or more – but ANYTHING in the path of the bird is a potential ‘target’ and the shooter should recognise this. Similarly, pointing in the other direction…where has your shot gone!

 

If you are negligent then you are liable to pay for the damage you cause - and this is why you have insurance- the insurance pays out.

 

Insurance would not pay out if you deliberately shot someone’s window for example, not would it pay out if someone suffered a loss but it was not your fault. In the UK the onus is on the person making the claim to prove you are liable

 

The longest range a pheasant has caused a claim on the BASC policy that I know of was about three years ago, these guys were shooting on a walk and stand shoot, pheasant comes out at speed – good high bird and gets shot. By all accounts the bird was hard hit BUT it had set it’s wings and sailed away……. 500 meters away a lady is driving along a lane on her way home from shopping- next thing she knows a pheasant comes crashing through the passenger window! Claim paid.

 

Where does BASC draw the line?, impossible to say as i can assure you every claim I have seen over the last 13 years- about 100 of them is different, and it would be wrong, in my opinion, for the BASC policy to be too prescriptive - the important thing is for the policy wording to be broad enough to cover ALL of the types of claim that a BASC member may incur.

 

There are occasions when the BASC policy has not paid out, there are almost always where the people who threatened to make the claim against the BASC member does not, or the person making the claim against the member cannot prove they have suffered any loss at all.

 

Hope that helps but you know where I am if you need me

 

David :yp:

[Cushat]

Much appreciated!

 

I thought you meant that if the person was negligent then the insurance wouldn't pay out.