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
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,
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:
In whose opinion?
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?
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:
That seems inconsistent with the answer you provided earlier. Am I misreading.
Lastly, the policy in the definitions sections provides:
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.
Originally Posted by Capri Insurance
