insurance cover

[partridge60]

You are WRONG about sacs mate NOBS have joined on mass 9,000 of them so i think they would have brought up your little oops wouldnt you

The point about the cover for SPORT only is taken from a post by the South Wales Regional Officer on NOBS Forum.

I have a friend who is a barrister and specialises in industrial law and it is his opinion that any form of payment would mean that the person is not covered whilst beating or picking up, and that even a brace of birds or a meal or drink legally constitutes a payment.

Most shoots already cover their beaters and pickers up and other employees with their own policy in such circumstances.

 

From what I can gather the NOBS deal does not cover all members but only those who pay an additional £15, therefore 9,000 members or not doesnt come into the equation.

 

If you are a member of NOBS I suggest you check the position and as others have advised get all the small print clarified.

Should you have a claim made against you its too late to find out you arent covered and could prove an expensive lesson.

[David BASC]

I’m no vet, but I think the issue comes when the animal gorges on wheat, it ferments in the gut and toxic shock follows. Maybe given to sheep in small quantity it does no harm? No idea like I say I am not a vet, all I do know if that some of our members have killed sheep with wheat.

 

As to payment, a valid point, but it all depends on the terminology / clauses of the policy. In similar vein I did some research for a magazine article last year on dog insurance- to see how many of the big dog insurers would cover a working dog when it was working – result…NONE of them if any form of ‘payment’ was maid be it beer, birds or cash!

 

Yes you do have to pay extra for the insurance - £15 like you say…seems to me all the SACS members could save themselves a tenner by joining NOBS and getting their SACS insurance through them!

 

Anyway, back to payment, it all depends on the policy, many policies (such as the BASC policy for example) do allow a degree of ‘payment’ without classing it as non recreational, it is a matter of degree. If it is the odd brace, or the odd meal or a tenner here and there etc so what! Even HMRC would not be interested at that level I bet!

 

If you are taking a few grand a year out of beating & picking up then I think that is another matter!

 

David

Edited September 2, 2009 by David BASC

[al4x]

The point about the cover for SPORT only is taken from a post by the South Wales Regional Officer on NOBS Forum.

I have a friend who is a barrister and specialises in industrial law and it is his opinion that any form of payment would mean that the person is not covered whilst beating or picking up, and that even a brace of birds or a meal or drink legally constitutes a payment.

Most shoots already cover their beaters and pickers up and other employees with their own policy in such circumstances.

 

From what I can gather the NOBS deal does not cover all members but only those who pay an additional £15, therefore 9,000 members or not doesnt come into the equation.

 

If you are a member of NOBS I suggest you check the position and as others have advised get all the small print clarified.

Should you have a claim made against you its too late to find out you arent covered and could prove an expensive lesson.

 

 

Interestingly it looks like they include employers liability in cover so were the shoot owner / syndicate owner covered then beaters actions would be covered through their SACS cover.

[partridge60]

So any beater or picker up doesnt need third party insurance cover for themselves then and can save £15?

So 9,500 members wont be needing the cover, just say 1,000 shoots pay a £10 +£15 for the cover and job done!!!

[dazza]

NOBS & SACS. The name might put people off

[al4x]

So any beater or picker up doesnt need third party insurance cover for themselves then and can save £15?

So 9,500 members wont be needing the cover, just say 1,000 shoots pay a £10 +£15 for the cover and job done!!!

 

 

Partridge anyone would think you're a BASC undercover poster with few posts and all of them shooting down other organisations.

 

NOBS members would be covered under their insurance when they are out shooting, however when being paid for work which as you say is possibly not covered then the person paying them would be expected to have employers liability insurance the same up and down the country if you do any job. I know plenty of kids who go beating none do it for the pay and none that I'm aware of insure themselves. What you're suggesting is pretty ludicrous and just adding to the beaurecratic **** that is ruining this country. If you want to insure yourself to go beating then fine but i'd suggest you also take out insurance for going down the pub afterwards as I'd suggest you're far more likely to need it then.

 

 

edit:- actually looks from your posts like you're a disgruntled NOBS member upset about the SACS insurance deal

Edited September 3, 2009 by al4x

[David BASC]

Not withstanding everything I have said about taking care to ‘check the small print’ on insurance polices, I think all the associations would say (I hope) that the insurance is just one small part of why you should join.

 

Insurance claims are very few and far between – for example how may people here have ever know anyone how had been sued through shooting?

Look at it another way…if there were no such think as public liability claims –so you could not be sued – so insurance was not an issue. .. which organisation would you join?

 

Lets not get too hung up on insurance, lets look more at keeping shooting safe. After all, all the insurance in the world is going to be damn all use if you have no where to shoot, nothing to shoot with and nothing to shoot at!

 

David

[markbivvy]

edit:- actually looks from your posts like you're a disgruntled NOBS member upset about the SACS insurance deal .

had his nose pushed out for sure.

[MM]

Ah, a bashing thread. We havent had one of these for ages

[partridge60]

Considering that the management of PW have pmd me to warn me for promoting NOBS i find that your suggestion is laughable!

My concern is that I know someone who was shot in the face and is still suffering from the after effects.

The insurance company concerned, even though the shoot and its people BELIEVED they had adequate cover, wriggled and twisted to avoid any payout even implying contributory negligence!! Its still ongoing.

Having met Foxgun Tom in person and discussed the SACS Insurance Cover and in the light of the above case I just want to ensure that people ensure they are covered- heaven forbid they ever need to make a claim but its too late then to find you arent covered.

As far as legal expenses cover goes I doubt many need that cover anyway- my household policy covers me and the premium is miniscule.

I have cover from BASC, NGO, BDS, GWCT,CA, NFU etc etc many as part of my membership fee or as part of my existing policies- at least NOBS gives you the option of paying or not.

[partridge60]

FROM SACS WEBSITE:

"Third-party Liability - All recognised country sports, except competitive horse events.

 

This now covers: All types of shooting with any legal weapons, whether at live or artificial targets, indoors or outdoors; all types of fishing with rod and line; all types of falconry and hawking; all types of gundog work, including tests and trials; all types of lurcher and terrier work, including racing and showing at events; ferreting; archery; hunting, hacking and general personal horse use; the use of hounds, etc. for hunting. The fishing cover includes fishing anywhere within UK Territorial Limits, so sea-fishing is also specifically covered, provided you are within this area.

 

 

 

Note that this cover applies when carrying out these activities as a sport – it does not cover commercial activities, or carrying out these activities for hire or reward. SACS has a ‘Business Member’ category, which covers even commercial activities which would otherwise be country sports, and anyone wishing to extend their cover in this way should be registered as a Business Member. To find out if you should have this additional cover, contact SACS HQ.

 

 

 

Employers Liability.

 

The cover includes employer’s liability for casual beaters and pickers-up, and anyone who may be assisting you with your sport in some way. In law, anyone who is ‘employed’, which simply means receiving some kind of reward for what they are doing, is treated differently from an ordinary member of the public for insurance purposes.

 

 

 

Your SACS insurance covers these ‘employees’ while they are acting on your behalf.

 

 

Legal Insurance

 

One of the most common difficulties members encounter is when they apply for a firearm or shotgun certificate, or to renew their existing certificates. These problems are becoming increasingly common, as the article in this issue on licensing problems shows.

 

 

 

Your SACS insurance includes up to £100,000 for legal expenses to cover the cost of employing expert legal assistance in appealing against a refusal or other associated difficulties.

 

 

 

This legal insurance also covers your legal costs in defending yourself if you are charged with alleged offences relating to your sport – the most common of these are currently under the Wildlife and Countryside Acts, although there are others. The legal representatives we use are widely acknowledged to be among the best in the country."

 

Latest legal opinion from my barrister buddy indicates that shoots cannot get away with just joining NOBS and paying £25 after all - that cover only covers casual employees, presumably persons assiting you like loaders or ghillies etc, regular attendees at shoots for beating and picking up are not casuals so would not be covered!

 

As David and I have said the devil is in the small print all the time!!!

Every person taking out this cover should be sent a copy of the policy imho so they can examine the exclusions and restrictions and if in doubt ASK!

[al4x]

Considering that the management of PW have pmd me to warn me for promoting NOBS i find that your suggestion is laughable!

My concern is that I know someone who was shot in the face and is still suffering from the after effects.

The insurance company concerned, even though the shoot and its people BELIEVED they had adequate cover, wriggled and twisted to avoid any payout even implying contributory negligence!! Its still ongoing.

Having met Foxgun Tom in person and discussed the SACS Insurance Cover and in the light of the above case I just want to ensure that people ensure they are covered- heaven forbid they ever need to make a claim but its too late then to find you arent covered.

As far as legal expenses cover goes I doubt many need that cover anyway- my household policy covers me and the premium is miniscule.

I have cover from BASC, NGO, BDS, GWCT,CA, NFU etc etc many as part of my membership fee or as part of my existing policies- at least NOBS gives you the option of paying or not.

 

 

In your friends case its a perfect example of when you need legal expenses cover, he should be pursuing the gun who shot him through the courts for compansation rather than his own policy, if the gun isn't insured then that is down to the shoot for not checking but its one of the claims you'd expect to claim from him not your own policy as I'm sure David will confirm were the gun BASC insured then they would be footing the bill.

most shoots I go on check guns are insured so this shouldn't happen

[partridge60]

But thats the point, SACS insurance would not cover him as he was a beater for reward!!

[David BASC]

If you are injured by someone that you can make a claim against them for compensation, it is much easier if they are insured as you (or rather your lawyer) will be able to easily negotiate with the insurance company. It gets a bit more sticky if the person who injured you is not insured of course.

 

I am surprised the insurer is still ‘wriggling’ as I have posted before the law on settling claims had tightened up considerably. Once a claim is made the insurer has just 90 days to accept of deny liability, that’s all, so within 90 days your chum would have known where he stood in that context. At this point the insurer will set what is called a ‘reserve’ against the claim, the reserve is the sum that the insurer believes the claim could cost, and will include the compensation fee, the insures legal fees, the third party legal fees, medical reports and so on, in other words all the costs that are associated with an insurance claim

 

It is always good idea to have had a lawyer representing your interests, as the lawyers fees would be paid by the other party ,assuming liability had been proven like I say. You would not need legal expenses insurance for this.

 

Once liability has been proven it then typically comes down to a matter of quantum, i.e. how much money he gets in compensation. There are many factors that will affect this, not least of all the long term effects on him, his work and his quality of life. In the case of severe personal injury claims a lot of emphasis will be placed on medical reports, which can take time, not least of all because it may take a few years before the injured party really knows the full effects of the injury, the corrective surgery etc. But because of this it is typical for interim payments to be made

 

Contributory negligence is pretty unusual in shooting accidents in my experience, I can only think of one case out of the thousand or so I have dealt with where this has come up.

 

Hope this helps

 

David

 

PS if your mate was a SACS member it would make no difference at all whether he was being paid or not - he is the injured party, not the party being sued.

Edited September 4, 2009 by David BASC

[al4x]

But thats the point, SACS insurance would not cover him as he was a beater for reward!!

 

 

I think you've got the wrong end of the stick personally and there is more to it.

 

Fact if you get shot in the face by someone you go after their insurers not your own. Doesn't matter if you're being paid at the time or not,

 

If its the SACS legal cover you're meaning that won't pay out I find it hard to believe in a case where the lawyers as David says would seek their fees from the other party. So sorry but it doesn't wash

[Bazooka Joe]

But thats the point, SACS insurance would not cover him as he was a beater for reward!!

 

Just had an email confirmation back from Ian at SASC's on this;

 

I think I see what is causing the confusion here, and I'll try to set it out more clearly.

 

Firstly, as a SACS member, if you are taking part in ANY Countrysports activity, you as an individual are fully covered, and the cover includes anything that happens and for which you could be sued, including beating, picking up, etc. for the usual 'payment' that such jobs normally receive.

 

Our insurers have specifically confirmed this in the past, and one of the 'professional' loaders spoke direct to the NFU recently, at my suggestion, and that was again confirmed to him by the NFU.

 

Secondly, if you are a Gun on a shoot, the SACS insurance also covers you against a claim made against you BY a beater or picker-up who is working for the shoot.

 

I think maybe this is where the confusion has come from - both eventualities are covered, though, and there is nothing to worry about.

 

BJ.

Edited September 4, 2009 by Bazooka Joe

[al4x]

funny thing is the NFU are one of the more reputable insurers and certainly well recognised by farmers so you can't see them being too underhand about things

[partridge60]

aal4x

I agree but if one of my dogs causes an accident whilst beating etc and someone sues me then Im not covered by SACS insurance, but aparently I am according to Ian somebody, has he got that in writing I wonder?

Is the cover from the NFU then, I agree they are good insurers but I already have that cover from them under my personal policy so why pay more?

[partridge60]

David

Yes the law has changed recently but doesnt apply retrospectively unfortunately for my friend.

[David BASC]

In that case the accident you refer to must have taken place very long time ago, as the '90 day rule' has been in place for several years. If your friend is not getting satisfaction, he could contact the insurance Ombudsman.

 

As to the NFU policy via SACS, I do not think there is any suggestion of anything underhand; I do think that the text on the SACS web site like it is a little unclear. What they should publish is a proper Key Facts document, the format and content of the document is governed by the Financial Services Authority.

 

All policies (more than others) have limits and restrictions on them, and policies by the NFU are no exception. All I think is needed is clear information on what is or is not covered. This MUST (by law) come from the NFU mutual or one of their Agents, as, to the best of my knowledge, Ian is not personally registered with the FSA so cannot give personal advice on what the SACA policy does or does not cover.

 

David

[IanClark]

Sorry to spoil a decent BASC propaganda thread guys, but our insurance DOES cover beating and picking up (for hire or reward), and it would also have covered Partridge if his dog had caused a problem.

 

I am not aware of anything a country sportsman could reasonably do (except competitive horse-riding and competitive husky racing) which would not be covered by our policy - if I found something, I would have it added to the policy immediately if possible - and of course our policy covers ALL country sports, not only shooting.

 

I'm not an insurance salesman, and neither is SACS as an organisation - we are a POLICYHOLDER on behalf of our members, and the insurance, although important to our members, is only one of the many services we supply to our members.

 

I try to explain things clearly, in plain english - if anyone needs clarification of anything I say, I am always happy to do that - it just means that my english wasn't plain enough, not that there is anything being concealed or twisted.

 

On the subject of claims, in my experience members have needed our legal fees insurance to fight certificate revocations and other such difficulties FAR more than the Public Liability insurance - the ratio is more than ten to one at present.

 

Happy to post again anytime, gentlemen

[David BASC]

Hmmmm…seems Ian is a touch sensitive about BASC doesn’t he?

 

I certainly did not see this as a propaganda thread, indeed if I were in Ian’s shoes I would have taken it as useful feedback from the market place and acted accordingly.

 

As Ian says he is not an insurance salesman, so again if I were in his shoes I would not be responding directly to insurance questions, either on forums or indeed on the web, but would be asking NFU mutual to post up a full policy wording, a full policy summary with Key Facts clearly listed as per FSA rules on the SACS web site, and a NFU help line number for SACS members to call for more advice.

 

Evidently though I am not association director material…

 

David

[webber]

Legal Insurance

 

One of the most common difficulties members encounter is when they apply for a firearm or shotgun certificate, or to renew their existing certificates. These problems are becoming increasingly common, as the article in this issue on licensing problems shows.

 

 

 

Your SACS insurance includes up to £100,000 for legal expenses to cover the cost of employing expert legal assistance in appealing against a refusal or other associated difficulties.

 

 

 

This legal insurance also covers your legal costs in defending yourself if you are charged with alleged offences relating to your sport – the most common of these are currently under the Wildlife and Countryside Acts, although there are others. The legal representatives we use are widely acknowledged to be among the best in the country."

 

 

 

I know someone who was represented by just such a policy. It transpired that the legal representation had little experience and had zero firearms experience. Not what I would call expert, or best in the country. I understand that such cases are put out to legal firms by insurers whom seek bids for the work. You won't be surprised to learn that he lost.

 

BASC may not be perfect, but they tick all my boxes.

 

webber

[roadkill]

im with basc and sacs ,

[LostWomble]

I'm with the Sportsmans Association.

It does what it says on the tin, no accronyms, no pretence at being anything other than what it is. Run by shooters for shooters, a shooter answers the phone, not posh totty.

Edited September 7, 2009 by LostWomble