$vboptions[bbtitle]

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 34

Thread: Dont Get Legal Advice from Facebook

  1. #21
    Business Member Capri Insurance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    67
    Quote Originally Posted by tony9000 View Post
    i have your insurance, you dont mind little phone calls here and there, about current issues?
    Not at all! Give me a call anytime. Keep in mind though that I'm an insurance broker so I can't speak to the law other then my own personal knowledge. I love getting calls as I've been able to meet some great people and hear some very interesting stories.

  2. #22
    CGN Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    124
    Question:

    how does this Firearms Legal Defence policy correlates with the Legal Defence policy via CCFR?

  3. #23
    Business Member Capri Insurance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    67
    Quote Originally Posted by SLToronto View Post
    Question:

    how does this Firearms Legal Defence policy correlates with the Legal Defence policy via CCFR?
    Simply put, theirs is a copy cat policy that costs more.

  4. #24
    Big Mouth Ruger30-06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    CRD
    Posts
    1,296
    Signed up today! Super easy! Ill be sharing to my friends!

    Si vis pacem para bellum
    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

  5. #25
    Business Member Capri Insurance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    67
    Quote Originally Posted by Ruger30-06 View Post
    Signed up today! Super easy! Ill be sharing to my friends!
    Happy to hear it!

  6. #26
    HELP! I sold my soul to the internet
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Ground Zero
    Posts
    3,815
    Quote Originally Posted by Capri Insurance View Post
    I would recommend you call the legal Defence line and speak to one of our lawyers to get an official answer on that specific situation. I will say that this program was designed to protect legal gun owners who follow the law ( firearms act ) and get charged anyways.
    Why get legal advice from facebook when there is a crack team of arm chair lawyers willing to have a go in the legalese forum?

    So it is designed to protect people who follow the law and get charged anyways. SO what happens when a person THINKS they are following the law, are TRYING to follow the law, but due to the laws that we have, actually end up being found to have been not following the law? Are they still covered?

    After Reading the policy, it seems like there is a litany of legal issues that a license holder can have that would not be covered under the policy, particularly in the realm of legal activism and civil disobedience.

    I am also concerned that in many criminal cases, gun owners who are innocent of wrong doing are slammed with dozens of charges, each one carrying some form of prohibition order, and are often offered plea deals that will at least leave a gun owner required to accept some form of prohibition order.

    Your policy states that if a person is offered a settlement that the underwriter considers reasonable, and refuses to accept the settlement, that they will likely no longer be covered.
    Does the underwriter of a legal defense insurance policy consider the forfeiture of firearms ownership a reasonable thing for a firearm owner to accept?

    Lastly, what is the appropriate venue to ask further questions if an open internet forum isn't the best place for this conversation?
    Last edited by Cameron SS; 07-17-2017 at 12:14 PM.
    Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. HL Mencken. 1916.
    Government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods. HL Mencken. 1919.

  7. #27
    Business Member Capri Insurance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    67
    Quote Originally Posted by Cameron SS View Post
    Why get legal advice from facebook when there is a crack team of arm chair lawyers willing to have a go in the legalese forum?

    So it is designed to protect people who follow the law and get charged anyways. SO what happens when a person THINKS they are following the law, are TRYING to follow the law, but due to the laws that we have, actually end up being found to have been not following the law? Are they still covered?

    After Reading the policy, it seems like there is a litany of legal issues that a license holder can have that would not be covered under the policy, particularly in the realm of legal activism and civil disobedience.

    I am also concerned that in many criminal cases, gun owners who are innocent of wrong doing are slammed with dozens of charges, each one carrying some form of prohibition order, and are often offered plea deals that will at least leave a gun owner required to accept some form of prohibition order.

    Your policy states that if a person is offered a settlement that the underwriter considers reasonable, and refuses to accept the settlement, that they will likely no longer be covered.
    Does the underwriter of a legal defense insurance policy consider the forfeiture of firearms ownership a reasonable thing for a firearm owner to accept?

    Lastly, what is the appropriate venue to ask further questions if an open internet forum isn't the best place for this conversation?
    Hi Cameron,

    Thank you for the great questions.

    This policy will always defend a client no matter what. If the client was following the law and is charged anyways, the policy responds. If the client was breaking the law then the lawyer will still mitigate as best they can. Keep in mind that this could mean taking a plea deal if the assigned legal counsel advises that its the best solution. It's important to note that the lawyer has a 100% duty to the client and not the underwriter. The underwriter only makes decisions based on the lawyers counsel.

    With regards to the underwriter considering a forfeiture of firearms as reasonable, again it's not the underwriter who makes that call. The lawyer who is defending you is the one responsible for making that call and they lawyers duty is 100% to the client, not the underwriter.

    Hopefully that answers your questions but should you want to contact me with anything further you can reach me at zschwing@capri.ca or 250.869.3987 and my name is Zach Schwingenschloegl

  8. #28
    HELP! I sold my soul to the internet
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Ground Zero
    Posts
    3,815
    Thank you kindly for your answers.

    I have many more questions with regards to the text of your policy, which is publicly available on your website. I appreciate your claim that the policy will always defend a client no matter what, however, that simply isn't a fair statement of any insurer as there are always exclusions.

    I can contact you directly if you prefer. This is your thread, so if you would rather I didn't post my questions here, I understand.
    Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. HL Mencken. 1916.
    Government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods. HL Mencken. 1919.

  9. #29
    Business Member Capri Insurance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    67
    Quote Originally Posted by Cameron SS View Post
    Thank you kindly for your answers.

    I have many more questions with regards to the text of your policy, which is publicly available on your website. I appreciate your claim that the policy will always defend a client no matter what, however, that simply isn't a fair statement of any insurer as there are always exclusions.

    I can contact you directly if you prefer. This is your thread, so if you would rather I didn't post my questions here, I understand.
    I believe that if you have more questions you're welcome to keep them hear. That keeps everything transparent and perhaps answers the same question another person might have. You could also send them to me privately and I could create a separate FAQ post. Also I recognize that I should have stated it would always defend as long as it was within the covered items of improper use, storage, transportation, display and use of a firearm. I always want to make to I'm clear that this is not an all encompassing policy and that there are limitations as with any insurance product.

  10. #30
    HELP! I sold my soul to the internet
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Ground Zero
    Posts
    3,815
    Quote Originally Posted by Capri Insurance View Post
    I believe that if you have more questions you're welcome to keep them hear. That keeps everything transparent and perhaps answers the same question another person might have. You could also send them to me privately and I could create a separate FAQ post. Also I recognize that I should have stated it would always defend as long as it was within the covered items of improper use, storage, transportation, display and use of a firearm. I always want to make to I'm clear that this is not an all encompassing policy and that there are limitations as with any insurance product.
    Of course. Thank you.

    Here goes. I will be quoting from your policy which I found from your website, linked here. https://firearmlegaldefence.com/wp-c...y-v1012-16.pdf
    Please let me know if that's not the right reference.

    At the start, your policy states:
    [quote]Underwriters will pay the Legal Expenses to defend the Insured’s legal rights in relation to the Insured being prosecuted for an offence arising out of the use, storage, display, transportation or handling of a firearm.[\quote]

    Sounds good, but then the exclusions state

    Exclusions to Insuring Clause 1.1
    The Underwriter shall not be liable to indemnify the Insured in respect of claims arising out of or in connection with an offence relating to:
    (a) the commission, alleged commission or intent to commit any crime (other than an offence under sections 86 (Careless use of a firearm), 91 (Unauthorized possession of a firearm), 92 (Possession of a firearm knowing its possession is unauthorized), 94 (Unauthorized possession in a motor vehicle), or 105 (Losing or finding) of the Criminal Code of Canada) unless the Insured was acting in self-defense, the defense of a person under the Insured’s protection or in defense of the Insured’s property;
    This implies to me that if a policy holder is charged with any violations under the following criminal code sections and does not have an available defense of self defense, that they would not be covered under the policy. Is that correct? Firearms offences not covered would then be:
    Criminal Code
    85 (uses firearm in the commission of an indictable offence)
    87 (pointing a firearm)
    88 (possession for a dangerous purpose)
    89 (Carrying while attending a public meeting)
    90 (Carrying concealed)
    93 (Possession at unauthorized place)
    95 (possession with ammunition/loaded at unauthorized place)
    96 (possession obtained by offence)
    98 (breaking/entering to obtain)
    99 (trafficking while knowing not authorized)
    100 (possession with intent to traffic)
    101 (Transfer without authority)
    102 (making automatic firearm)
    103 (known smuggling)
    104 (smuggling without authority)
    106 (destroying firearm)
    107 (False Statements)
    108 (tampering with serial number)
    117 (possession while prohibited)

    Firearms Act
    106 (false statements to obtain)
    107 (alters/defaces licence)
    108 (unauthorized possession of ammunition, businesses)
    110 (Contravention of license conditions)

    That is an incredibly long list of possible offences that a person would not be indemnified for by their legal defense insurance policy.

    I will spare you a lengthy annotated list, but with a few exceptions, IE possession in the commission of an indictable offence, knowingly making false statements, it is actually quite easy to imagine how a legal gun owner doing legal gun owning things could have a bad encounter with a law enforcement officer and end up getting charged for a variety of things that have little merit or moral blameworthiness.

    I understand the underwriters intent is to offer this as a policy for LEGAL firearms owners, and is not intended to be open to those who might choose crime and violence as a way of life. It makes sense that the policy would then require policy holders to hold a valid PAL as a condition of the policy.

    On your website you tell a story about a firearms instructor names James who had false accusations made against him and FLD came to the rescue. What if someone had false claims made against them that gave rise to any of the other charges under the sections listed above? Would FLD still come to the rescue?

    Further, your policy states under exclusions,

    Clause 1.1 e) a weapon that is not a firearm
    This is troubling for several reasons, particularly because with many trial judgements against firearms owners, it is commonly argued as a tactic to beat the charge that the object in question is in fact not a firearm. From Felawka to Dunn many accused have tried to defeat charges by arguing that the item does not meet the code definition of a firearm. So what happens if such an argument is necessary and then successful. Are they then not covered?

    Section 2, limit of indemnity

    Para 3 Exclusions:

    g) any claim arising from a prosecution where the Insured’s actions from which the charge arose amounted to an intentional and reckless disregard for human life;
    In whose opinion?

    n) any claim arising out of the deliberate, conscious or intentional or reckless or negligent disregard by the Insured of the need to take all reasonable steps to avoid and prevent claims or legal proceedings;
    This is probably the most peculiar requirement, as it states the requirement to avoid behaviour that could give rise to a claim, as opposed to avoiding behaviour that could give rise to criminal charges.

    Who is the judge of what is or is not negligent disregard?

    The law does not require me to carry my license, but I do need to be the holder of one. It is almost universally regarded as a bad idea to not carry your license in your possession while in the possession of firearms, as the likelihood of being charged for unlawful possession is likely should I be found in possession of firearms without physically having my license. Same for a certificate, or an authorization to transport, or even the license conditions sheet issued with my license.

    Would deliberately leaving my firearms licence at home (legal) be considered "negligent disregard" by the underwriter, and can/will this be used as the basis for denying a claim?

    o) any claims or legal proceedings (including any Legal Expenses or other costs or expenses of any description) arising out of or in connection with:
    c. discharge, explosion, or use of a weapon of mass destruction, whether or not employing nuclear fission or fusion, or chemical, biological, radioactive or similar agents, by any party at any time for any reason;
    Binary explosives are approved for sale in Canada by Natural Resources Canada Explosives Division to Canadians who hold a valid PAL. They can be mixed and used safely and legally in accordance with the regulations. Are binary explosive users covered under your policy?

    You mentioned that it is not the underwriter, but in fact the appointed representative who decides whether accepting a firearms forfeiture and prohibition is a reasonable offer of settlement, however your policy states:

    6.5 Settlement.

    It is a condition precedent to the Underwriter’s liability under this Policy that the Insured informs the Underwriting Manager in writing as soon as the Insured receives a payment into court, an offer to settle a claim or legal proceedings ... If the Insured rejects any offer to settle a claim by way of payment into court or otherwise which the Underwriting Manager considers reasonable and recommends acceptance of, then no further indemnity will be provided by the Underwriter from the date of rejection by the Insured.
    That seems inconsistent with the answer you provided earlier. Am I misreading.

    Lastly, the policy in the definitions sections provides:

    12.9 Insured means the individual shown in the Declarations provided they possess a valid
    Canadian firearms licence
    Unlike other sections of the policy which provide for certain things happening either before or after the policy validity period, this section contains no such language, implying that the second the policy holder does not have a license, they are no longer insured. This is incredibly troubling because immediately upon being charged with most of the offences under PART 3 of the criminal code, your license will be suspended or revoked as part of the proceedings. If not, it will be upon conviction. Even if this policy would cover an appeal to a higher court, if the person lost their license as a result of the trial, or immediately upon being charged, are they still insured?

    This also begs the question as to whether my spouse or any dependants would be covered, if they were charged in relation to possession of my firearms.

    I apologize for getting right into the weeds with my questions. As one salesman to another, I can tell you that I don't usually do this, and usually lament when other customers get right into the nitty gritty of the terms and conditions, when both parties are acting in good faith to try to help solve the other guys problems.

    That said, in this case we are talking about insurance for legal proceedings, and in the event of a dispute, I will be having a dispute with your lawyers and underwriters, not you.

    I love the idea of legal insurance. I would have it already if I ever found a policy that didn't have exclusions that a 747 could drive through. Maybe you can set me straight. The price is perfectly reasonable.
    Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. HL Mencken. 1916.
    Government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods. HL Mencken. 1919.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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