Firearm Legal Defence - New Business Member

[dacron]

There are very good reasons to be skeptical. For example:

1. Insurance companies only make money if they pay out less claims (a lot less) than they take in premiums. And since they are corporations, making money is the primary objective. Fundamentally, its not about protecting you.
2. The principle of fortuity is long standing and unevenly applied.
3. Exclusionary clauses are paramount in any policy that claims to provide coverage for your potentially criminal behaviour (and how that it is defined is extremely subjective). See #2.

As to #1, yes, they need to bring in more than they pay, hence the advertisement to gain new clients for a service - so they can provide the coverage as advertised (protecting gun owners) while making money. Just because profit drives industry does not make their coverage useless - or all extended health, auto, house etc... insurance coverage would be useless. It is not.

Here is the wording of the coverage. Instead of speaking in generalities, what specifically should the rest of us be worried about? Looks proper to me, but I am a layman. There might be things I should be concerned about.

https://firearmlegaldefence.com/wp-c...y-v1012-16.pdf

[CV32]

As to #1, yes, they need to bring in more than they pay, hence the advertisement to gain new clients for a service - so they can provide the coverage as advertised (protecting gun owners) while making money. Just because profit drives industry does not make their coverage useless - or all extended health, auto, house etc... insurance coverage would be useless. It is not.

No one said profit making causes the coverage to be useless. But all encompassing coverage would be useless to the insurer because no profit would be made. That's the point. Insurers have an interest in not extending you coverage.

Here is the wording of the coverage. Instead of speaking in generalities, what specifically should the rest of us be worried about? Looks proper to me, but I am a layman. There might be things I should be concerned about.

I am aware of the wording. I have read it before. I am not about to give advice about it, but the exclusions are considerable.

[Jericho]

No one said profit making causes the coverage to be useless. But all encompassing coverage would be useless to the insurer because no profit would be made. That's the point. Insurers have an interest in not extending you coverage.



I am aware of the wording. I have read it before. I am not about to give advice about it, but the exclusions are considerable.

I agree.

There are far too many outs for this insurer to not provide coverage at their discretion.

[Avenida]

lol, he is already regretting putting this thread up and dealing with you guys...

I got the insurance last year, and will get it again. It is a no brainer.

[Capri Insurance]

lol, he is already regretting putting this thread up and dealing with you guys...

I got the insurance last year, and will get it again. It is a no brainer.

Haha thanks Avenida. No regrets though, open dialogue is important and I don't see any negative, only ways to improve the program. I welcome everyone's opinion. Both the positive and constructive. I must admit I'm much happier when someone calls to report a claim who has a policy then when I get a call from someone who's has an incident and is asking if it's to late to buy it. I get that call way more often then I like.

[CV32]

So I am still curious if there are independently verifiable cases where the insurance coverage was provided?

[Capri Insurance]

So I am still curious if there are independently verifiable cases where the insurance coverage was provided?

We have 2 claims examples on our website:
https://firearmlegaldefence.com/gun-...arges-dropped/
https://firearmlegaldefence.com/gun-...sed-gun-owner/

I believe there are 3 other claims currently open at this time and due to the fact that they're open we don't have any details. Once the claims have been closed, the client must agree to let us post the info before we can.

[CV32]

We have 2 claims examples on our website:
https://firearmlegaldefence.com/gun-...arges-dropped/
https://firearmlegaldefence.com/gun-...sed-gun-owner/

I believe there are 3 other claims currently open at this time and due to the fact that they're open we don't have any details. Once the claims have been closed, the client must agree to let us post the info before we can.

See post #83.

[Capri Insurance]

This anonymous example on your website is kinda odd, because (for example) courts don't order new investigations:



Are there any reported cases in which this insurer was involved? As in, by Carswell, CanLII, etc and independently verifiable.

Both linked stories are actual claims handled through our program. The info we have on our website about annonymous claim was written by the insurer and then approved by the client who went through the claim before it was posted. Due to privacy the client asked us not to use his real name. The other claim has the clients name and picture. I will ask Alexi if he wants to comment on it. I welcome you to get the claims verified if you're concerned with their validity.

[K-C]

I am just about to renew for the third time next week - CSSA members still get a $10 discount I presume?