Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 25 of 25

Thread: Insurance - alternatives to BASC?

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Bexhill-On-Sea
    Posts
    5,436
    Quote Originally Posted by d_h_p View Post
    i have been a member of basc since i started shooting in 2012, mainly because of insurance. But basc have stopped including "legal expenses insurance" in their membership package. I can't help feeling that if i need to claim on the insurance there is a pretty good chance i will be needing legal advice.

    So what are the alternatives? Do they provide legal expenses cover?
    nra
    sacs
    Looking for TO-6 Trigger unit unmessed with or T0-6 kit for 34

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    New Milton, Hampshire
    Posts
    14,389
    Quote Originally Posted by angrybear View Post
    That's why you have the 3rd party cover,
    And that's the important bit to have to protect YOU from other people claiming for damage.

    All the BASC have dropped is the "legal expenses" cover which is basically the equivalent of these 'no win no fee' ambulance chasers, for most people.

    If you have motor insurance it's an extra they ask if you want to add on & charge extra for having.
    It can be next to useless even if you pay for it. This is because it's risk based. They will only back you if they deem they are likely to win. This isn't a given and they might decline to support you even if you're likely to win but the costs could be high.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    milton keynes
    Posts
    196
    Spot on RobF - your Insurance company will happily settle 50/50 even if you were totally without fault if it means avoiding court costs. For example - idiot reverses into you then says that you were on the phone, How do you prove that you were not? You end up with a fault claim on your insurance history, and a price hike, simply because it saved the insurance company money.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Exeter
    Posts
    35,658
    Quote Originally Posted by RobF View Post
    It can be next to useless even if you pay for it. This is because it's risk based. They will only back you if they deem they are likely to win. This isn't a given and they might decline to support you even if you're likely to win but the costs could be high.
    Sorry but that's misleading rubbish.

    If you have 3rd party indemnity that covers you against a 3rd party claim, providing you're acting legally.

    You appear to be commenting on making some sort of legal claim yourself against someone else, which is nothing to do with you having 3rd party cover, indeed if anything that would be the legal expenses bit they have dropped.

    Depending on what your claim was it might be one for a "no win-no fee" set up, or it might be one for your solicitor to look at.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Exeter
    Posts
    35,658
    Quote Originally Posted by scorpiont10 View Post
    Spot on RobF - your Insurance company will happily settle 50/50 even if you were totally without fault if it means avoiding court costs. For example - idiot reverses into you then says that you were on the phone, How do you prove that you were not? You end up with a fault claim on your insurance history, and a price hike, simply because it saved the insurance company money.
    You would produce your phone records which would prove you weren't

    Motor insurance is not the same as shooting cover

    If you don't want insurance that's up to you,
    but if you shoot on private property like a farm, pray you don't damage machinery or injure livestock, because without cover you'll need deep pockets.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    New Milton, Hampshire
    Posts
    14,389
    Quote Originally Posted by angrybear View Post
    You would produce your phone records which would prove you weren't

    Motor insurance is not the same as shooting cover

    If you don't want insurance that's up to you,
    but if you shoot on private property like a farm, pray you don't damage machinery or injure livestock, because without cover you'll need deep pockets.
    Insurance is the same no matter what.

    I could prove I wasn’t in a vehicle and was totally not at fault but the legal protection still would not kick in. My alternative was to self fund. In the end I didn’t need to because the other party admitted liability.

    That’s what insurance ends up as, a poker game of resources about who is liable. It’s expensive to pursue even if you have something like a successful police prosecution to help on your side of the party you are trying to prove is liable. It really doesn’t come down to what you were doing specifically.

    It’s certainly not rubbish and you’ll find no insurance company is going to back you to the hilt even if you follow all process because they do settle based upon an economic decision. I know this from successfully suing someone for a significant sum.

    Unfortunately the store many put in insurance is often misplaced. It’s quite adequate for mainstream every day occurrences but even then the companies will often follow well trodden routes unless there’s someone who takes the time, effort and money to challenge them. And normally unless they’re an idiot they will have substantial evidence to prove their point. But where that isn’t available and other evidence is that can weaken your case. In your example having phone records that show you weren’t calling or texting don’t prove you weren’t on the phone using it for something else or that purpose unsuccessfully. Against a witness that says you were your legal cover may opt not to defend because that’s how they work, like it or not. You would of course be free to take it further with your own resources. But that would probably involve what many would consider a considerable sum.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Exeter
    Posts
    35,658
    Lot's of "if's, but's & maybe's"

    Of course if the situation is unusual or extreme then matters can get "interesting" but general 3rd party liability for a random accident is what shooters need to have if they shoot on land they don't own,
    & it's going to be all they need 9/10, very few people will need to sue anyone or end up in court over an insurance claim, indeed hopefully very few shooters will ever need to use any part of their insurance,
    but having it in place is far better than needing it when you don't have any.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    New Milton, Hampshire
    Posts
    14,389
    Quote Originally Posted by angrybear View Post
    Lot's of "if's, but's & maybe's"

    Of course if the situation is unusual or extreme then matters can get "interesting" but general 3rd party liability for a random accident is what shooters need to have if they shoot on land they don't own,
    & it's going to be all they need 9/10, very few people will need to sue anyone or end up in court over an insurance claim, indeed hopefully very few shooters will ever need to use any part of their insurance,
    but having it in place is far better than needing it when you don't have any.
    I'm not even sure I used either word, but nevermind.

    I agree it's good to have a good policy in place. However just assuming legal insurance is going to do that is just that, an assumption. You want cover for something random, but understand you might not get it with something unusual. What usual sort of shooting incident do you think exists in terms of insurance?

    If you delve into the world of insurance when your neck is severely on the line you'll often find the cover isn't going to do what you think. Most people don't even have a copy of the policy wording document for their policy before buying it, if indeed afterwards, just relying on the schedule/brochure. Most don't realise that often home insurance comes with legal protection insurance either. Many people are finding out that with Sars2Cov their business interuption policies aren't holding up. That's because when claims get big things get different really fast. And when they're small they'll settle irrespective of what you think should be the outcome, legal protection or not.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Exeter
    Posts
    35,658
    "If's, but's & maybe's" is a common phrase in the English language, for people who quote 1 or 2 examples & think that proves their point against something that works for the majority of people.

    Normal as an example might be a miss, ricochet or through & through that puts a hole in a shed roof or the shed wall & maybe hits a vehicle, person or livestock the other side.

    As for settling irrespective in my book that's what insurance is supposed to do

    But this is now dragging the thread way off line

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    New Milton, Hampshire
    Posts
    14,389
    Quote Originally Posted by angrybear View Post
    "If's, but's & maybe's" is a common phrase in the English language, for people who quote 1 or 2 examples & think that proves their point against something that works for the majority of people.

    Normal as an example might be a miss, ricochet or through & through that puts a hole in a shed roof or the shed wall & maybe hits a vehicle, person or livestock the other side.

    As for settling irrespective in my book that's what insurance is supposed to do

    But this is now dragging the thread way off line
    Maybe, but it's important people know what they are buying. There's a reliance on insurance and even with the examples you give there's reasons why there could be no payout and why you might not like the settlement because of the ramifications it might have on you. The best advice is really look into what you're buying and what it ask you to do in order to be covered.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •