Where expressly? Are you thinking of travel insurance? Personal liability is just thatHmm. Not sure you are comparing like-for-like - those terribly, terribly “dangerous sports” such as shooting would I imagine attract a significant premium?
Field sports Britain insurance/legal cover
- Thread starter Pete6.5
- Start date
Foxyboy43
Well-Known Member
TBH I am no vicarious liability expert but I don’t get this.
Someone who is not involved in a “dangerous sport” having the same personal liability risk factor as someone armed with a high powered rifle or shotgun and in the company of similarly equipped others? Surely the latter’s risk factor would have been the same as the former’s until they got involved in shooting sports thus increasing his risk factor - in the same way parachuting/mountaineering are either “extras” or generally exclusions from life/medical/travel insurance?
That's because the cases are assessed and managed by "no win no fee lawyers" and that's the business model they work to (otherwise they would soon be out of business!)
The premium you pay to Field sports Britain, or who ever, does not form a big fighting fund, it simply administers the scheme.
To be honest, your logic is sound but the sheer volume of premium for personal liability insurance, the inherent profitability (broadly) and the fact that the units of income to risk carriers per risk are in single figures means that the operational costs of risk rating this ‘peripheral product’ would have a bigger impact on ultimate return than the upside.TBH I am no vicarious liability expert but I don’t get this.
Someone who is not involved in a “dangerous sport” having the same personal liability risk factor as someone armed with a high powered rifle or shotgun and in the company of similarly equipped others? Surely the latter’s risk factor would have been the same as the former’s until they got involved in shooting sports thus increasing his risk factor - in the same way parachuting/mountaineering are either “extras” or generally exclusions from life/medical/travel insurance?
These types of super low premium and ultra high volume are underwritten on a group, or even industry vertical basis.
These products are not offered individually but on a volume scheme basis where the entry is often 50k units as an entry point.
Never understood why BASC did not give the option of legal cover as an extra on membership for those that wanted it
I’ll be signing up for that then!
Spear Chucker
Well-Known Member
"Rural Protect" no requirement for a 51% (sometimes as high as 75%!) or better chance of success for defence - as required by most legal expenses providers. You can "attack" as well, but for that you do need a 51% or better chance of success - which is reasonable. Money well spent in my view. You never know when you will need it. Could be just a neighbour who is an anti making spurious claims, that is enough for most police forces to take your tools if they feel like it. If the guns are damaged while in custody, you would need to seek redress against the Police.
Although BASC has dropped legal insurance, they do have a very large Fighting Fund which is used for Appeals etc.
They only seem to take on cases with a decent probability of winning, so it is not blanket cover, but then if they will not support an appeal, it tells you something about the strength of the evidence.
Worth considering for anyone considering the other options.
There was a good win in Cheshire a few weeks back, and more cases going to Court I hear.
Also worth considering that BASC do take Chief Constables to task after Appeal win. Does FSC do that, and are they part of the Independent Advisory Groups that liaise directly with Firearms Licencing Depts?
They only seem to take on cases with a decent probability of winning, so it is not blanket cover, but then if they will not support an appeal, it tells you something about the strength of the evidence.
Worth considering for anyone considering the other options.
There was a good win in Cheshire a few weeks back, and more cases going to Court I hear.
Also worth considering that BASC do take Chief Constables to task after Appeal win. Does FSC do that, and are they part of the Independent Advisory Groups that liaise directly with Firearms Licencing Depts?
Spear Chucker
Well-Known Member
I would concede the point, you are correct. While easy to despair of BASC on almost all fronts, they do know their stuff when it comes to holding the police at bay.
taking on a case that they think they might win and ditching the rest isnt cover in my opinion
i know of 2x separate cases where people went to them for help and was told sorry go away basically.... then wen ton to win their day in court & get weapons back
if im paying for insurance ....thats what i want ...not a maybe insurance
Paul
i know of 2x separate cases where people went to them for help and was told sorry go away basically.... then wen ton to win their day in court & get weapons back
if im paying for insurance ....thats what i want ...not a maybe insurance
Paul
Think on this....
The BASC Fighting Fund comes directly from member subscriptions, so they have to be careful how it is spent.
Sometimes, inevitably they judge a case to have a less than 50% chance of winning, so they do not back it (and the shooter goes on to win the case.)
With legal insurance, if you lose the case then everyone's premiums go up so the insurance company keeps making massive profits. If you win the case, your premiums go up because you made a claim...!
BASC certainly get it wrong some times, but how many people shout about being turned down, then go on to LOSE the Appeal anyway. Likely far more than go on to win.
The BASC Fighting Fund comes directly from member subscriptions, so they have to be careful how it is spent.
Sometimes, inevitably they judge a case to have a less than 50% chance of winning, so they do not back it (and the shooter goes on to win the case.)
With legal insurance, if you lose the case then everyone's premiums go up so the insurance company keeps making massive profits. If you win the case, your premiums go up because you made a claim...!
BASC certainly get it wrong some times, but how many people shout about being turned down, then go on to LOSE the Appeal anyway. Likely far more than go on to win.
Spear Chucker
Well-Known Member
Not really a fair comparison Steve...Insurance companies are in BUSINESS which requires them to make profit. Since when was profit bad? If they provide a service for a fee and you buy that service, this is what you are signing up for.
BASC is a membership organisation set up for the purposes of defending members and the sport. If they can not do so effectively within the confines of the membership subscription income, they need to increase the subs. Simple.
Other lobbying organisations run on membership subs then charge separately for a legal fund subscription.
Personally I would have no problem paying more to a membership organisation, if I felt they were representing my views and protecting me. I do not feel that from BASC nor the Countryside Alliance and choose not to subscribe until such time as I think they represent me again.
My current insurance is due for renewal and I have always been with BASC and every year I say I will look around and find something different but always end up going back just because I’m lazy and find it easier just to renew it. I like the idea of the insurance that the field sports channel is offering and think the more people that take their insurance out they will start listening to there customers and then the policy will grow.
I believe this is why they have made the decision to start doing insurance themselves and as this is the feedback they have been getting back about BASC dropping their legal cover.
I believe this is why they have made the decision to start doing insurance themselves and as this is the feedback they have been getting back about BASC dropping their legal cover.
Similar threads
