Vehicle insurance and declaring the carry of guns ammo.

[Apthorpe]

I aint. Its up to you what you do but if you cant grasp it then you cant complain if it goes tits up.

Rough definition on google gawd bless it :

"The duty of disclosure arises because the facts relevant to the estimation of the risk are most likely to be within the knowledge of the insured and the insurer therefore has to rely upon him to disclose matters material to that risk. The duty extends to the insurer as well as to the insured : Carter v. Boehm.1 Jul 2017"

Ammunition (1.4S) is classed as "articles or substances that present no significant hazard". Therefore the presence of ammunition is not a material fact. It does nothing to increase the risk of accident, decrease the safety or function of the vehicle, nor significantly increase the risk of harm to people. A material fact is not merely anything an insurer can invent to circumvent an insurance policy, it has a meaning. The fact has to have a material bearing on the policy, the vehicle, other people or the claim.
It is a fact that a bag of bird feed contains more combustible material than a box of ammunition. Have you always made a point of disclosing every flammable item to travel in your car? Do you disclose whenever you or another passenger is wearing clothes made of synthetic material, which have a significant effect on your risk of burns in the even of a fire? Do you disclose whenever you wish to drive on a muddy road, or in frosty conditions? All these are factors much more significant than the carriage of ammunition or firearms.

 

[deerly departed]

Ammunition (1.4S) is classed as "articles or substances that present no significant hazard". Therefore the presence of ammunition is not a material fact. It does nothing to increase the risk of accident, decrease the safety or function of the vehicle, nor significantly increase the risk of harm to people. A material fact is not merely anything an insurer can invent to circumvent an insurance policy, it has a meaning. The fact has to have a material bearing on the policy, the vehicle, other people or the claim.
It is a fact that a bag of bird feed contains more combustible material than a box of ammunition. Have you always made a point of disclosing every flammable item to travel in your car? Do you disclose whenever you or another passenger is wearing clothes made of synthetic material, which have a significant effect on your risk of burns in the even of a fire? Do you disclose whenever you wish to drive on a muddy road, or in frosty conditions? All these are factors much more significant than the carriage of ammunition or firearms.

I could agree with you but then we would both be wrong. It is up to an INSURER to decide on what is a material fact and what is not. As stated already, what abother organisation defines as a risk or a non risk is irrelevant. The insurer is not looking for a proposer to imagine every scenario that M8GHT happen or the goods that you might carry. That is not reasonable. However, if you know that you will be doing something on a regular basis it falls within the potential as a risk factor. As I say its up to you what you declare. However an insurer will use ANY method it can to reduce or repudiate a claim. By not stating a true fact then you are open to such action.
It aint rocket science and I have had to deal with many instances were the insureds witholding of info... either deliberate or unintentional.... has left them high and dry. Up to you but I certainly wouldnt give duff advice. It is VERY CLEAR, the insurer expects you to give all salient info so THEY can decide what is a risk factor or what is not.

 

[Foxyboy43]

Emmm. Powder in 1kg tubs……

 

[Liveonce]

Emmm. Powder in 1kg tubs……

If it’s Cocaine it will be ok it’s just people with gun and ammunition the insurance companies don’t all like it seams.

 

[Foxyboy43]

See post no. 25.

 

[Pedro]

Wonder what insurance company those Toyota pickups with heavy machine guns on the load bed in Afghanistan use.

 

[Apthorpe]

I could agree with you but then we would both be wrong. It is up to an INSURER to decide on what is a material fact and what is not. As stated already, what abother organisation defines as a risk or a non risk is irrelevant. The insurer is not looking for a proposer to imagine every scenario that M8GHT happen or the goods that you might carry. That is not reasonable. However, if you know that you will be doing something on a regular basis it falls within the potential as a risk factor.

That is obviously nonsense. It depends entirely on whether what you are doing is a "material".

As I say its up to you what you declare. However an insurer will use ANY method it can to reduce or repudiate a claim. By not stating a true fact then you are open to such action.
It aint rocket science and I have had to deal with many instances were the insureds witholding of info... either deliberate or unintentional.... has left them high and dry. Up to you but I certainly wouldnt give duff advice. It is VERY CLEAR, the insurer expects you to give all salient info so THEY can decide what is a risk factor or what is not.

Neither of us would be wrong. It is not up to an insurer to determine what is a material fact or not. The term has a legal meaning. That meaning is defined in law. An insurance policy is legally binding. That means that an insurer is not able to define irrelevant information or insignificant risks as material facts. Insurers are not at liberty to act in an arbitrary fashion like that.

For personal insurance, your argument is clearly non-applicable.

"From 6 April 2013 your insurer must ask all relevant questions they need to know before you take out, renew or change a policy under the Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012.

Before this date, you had to give any information to the insurer that may have affected their decision to insure you, whether or not the insurer asked all the relevant questions." (Citizens Advice website)

 

[deerly departed]

That is obviously nonsense. It depends entirely on whether what you are doing is a "material".

Neither of us would be wrong. It is not up to an insurer to determine what is a material fact or not. The term has a legal meaning. That meaning is defined in law. An insurance policy is legally binding. That means that an insurer is not able to define irrelevant information or insignificant risks as material facts. Insurers are not at liberty to act in an arbitrary fashion like that.

For personal insurance, your argument is clearly non-applicable.

"From 6 April 2013 your insurer must ask all relevant questions they need to know before you take out, renew or change a policy under the Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012.

Before this date, you had to give any information to the insurer that may have affected their decision to insure you, whether or not the insurer asked all the relevant questions." (Citizens Advice website)
[/Q

Insurers rate on some steange stuff. One of the insurers I used would change the premium if 5he title of the proposermwas entered as Miss Mrs or Mz.

I have made it very clear.... as do the insurers, that the onus is on you to declare info and they state that if you are unsure, you should declare it. Defining who states this or that is anlegal definition is closing the door acter the horse has bolted. Which is the more sensible route. To disclose at proposal stage or wait to a claim arises so you can argue the toss on what legal definition is right.
The legal definition might be defined on very specific criteria say for firearms legislation. An insurer may have a very different and quiet legitimate reason to view it in a different light. I would rather cover my arse at the first point than spend weeks arguing with an insurer and having to pay solicitors good money to tryband resolve deadlock.

Its up to you but the INSURER makes it crstal clear.... disclose even if you are not sure. You are making decisions on what you believe is irrevocable status and you are plain wrong in that belief. There are too many potential pitfalls even 8f you do as telhey ask and I repeat, you are asking for trouble. I would urge anyone not to follow your advice re making your own decisions as to what you think is or is not relevant.

 

[finnbear270]

Insurers are a bit like politicians, evasive & they will try to avoid paying up if they can find a way to, if they decide you are at fault by an ommission of some small fact then the ball is in your court, usually at some cost to you.

 

[camodog]

Wonder what insurance company those Toyota pickups with heavy machine guns on the load bed in Afghanistan use.

Whichever, I bet they pay out quick and don't ask damned silly questions either !

 

[camodog]

Wait till them electric cars start catching fire they should burn well.

Wouldn't want to be the 'water-fairy' tasked to dowse it with the hose either......that could be interesting !

 

[enfieldspares]

Looks like next time you go to the supermarket and buy whisky, you may have to notify your insurer. I wonder how it performs in the event of a vehicle fire.

Or that large tin of Johnno's oil based High Gloss White" and half litre of white spirit I carried home with me the other day!

 

[Greenmist]

I’m with NFU, they did ask me as my rifles are insured by them. But the amount of ammunition they are concerned about is very high and not what you’d likely to carry

 

[Liveonce]

I’m with NFU, they did ask me as my rifles are insured by them. But the amount of ammunition they are concerned about is very high and not what you’d likely to carry

I do as a club officer purchasing for the Club, NFU limit on cartridges was only 2000, so the NFU put an endorsement on my policy increasing the maximum the additional policy cost was from memory about £4, so not an issue really and I know I am insured when transporting it.

 

[kamyonsofor]

Many years ago I did my City and Guilds ADR to carry as a HGV1 driver Hazardous Materials in the exam it was discussed and a series of vids shown of explosions involving various gases in containers the French Camping Gaz in small container if explodes creates 30 times it's original volume , we were also shown a vid filmed from a airliner near Mexico where a LPG plant went up the Pilots thought it was a Nuclear explosion .

 

[Musketeer]

I’m with NFU, they did ask me as my rifles are insured by them. But the amount of ammunition they are concerned about is very high and not what you’d likely to carry

When I asked the local branch about gun insurance they said they did not insure guns or provide third party insurance cover for shooting activities, which surprised me, to be honest.

 

[Greenmist]

When I asked the local branch about gun insurance they said they did not insure guns or provide third party insurance cover for shooting activities, which surprised me, to be honest.

My local branch are brilliant

 

[JTO]

Many years ago I did my City and Guilds ADR to carry as a HGV1 driver Hazardous Materials in the exam it was discussed and a series of vids shown of explosions involving various gases in containers the French Camping Gaz in small container if explodes creates 30 times it's original volume , we were also shown a vid filmed from a airliner near Mexico where a LPG plant went up the Pilots thought it was a Nuclear explosion .

Water creates 1700 times it's volume in steam when it boils.

 

[Bowland blades]

I've just been ringing around for new insurance on my Hilux. In the course of a conversation with a broker named Aplan I was told by the broker that they need to know if guns or ammo are to be carried in the vehicle and how they will be carried. He said some insurance companies consider ammunition to be classed as hazardous materials and guns as dangerous materials for example in the event of a vehicle fire, and this would change the risk profile and hence the premium. He also said that at least one company he deals with, AGEAS, will refuse to quote a policy if guns, once declared, are not carried in a locked gun box.

To be absolutely clear he wasn't talking about cover for the cost of stolen goods he was talking about voiding a policy altogether if an accident were to occur and it was discovered that there had been a non-declaration that the vehicle was used for transport of dangerous and or hazardous materials as determined by the insurance company.

I declined to provide further information and he declined to continue on with the quotation process.

Your thoughts on this would be welcome.

You did right declining to comment you should find a decent insurer . We use nfu never the cheapest but brilliant to deal with never been asked that, other than if your rfd I consider the question itself at best indicative of a company with many loop holes . I can carry explosive gasses etc and paid no extra

 

[JTO]

Just as they question about a van being sign written because, I presume, paintwork might cost more to make good after an accident, so they might consider the presence of combustible material such as ammunition would contribute to greater fire damage. Just a thought! OR perhaps a third party claim if someone was wounded, should a bullet exit the vehicle.