Capri doesn't seem to be responding much to this thread now. Makes me wonder as I have a policy with them...
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Capri doesn't seem to be responding much to this thread now. Makes me wonder as I have a policy with them...
No such thing as too much ammunition or toilet paper...
Hello, anyone home?????
He's been fairly active previously and responds to emails the same day. It's summer time, give the guy a break.
Hi Guys. Sorry about the delays. Life, work and summertime definitely playing a part in being away from CGN for the last couple weeks. Also, my lead underwriter that I work with on this suffered a detached retina so he's been a little low to respond understandably. I will have the answers to Cameron's questions up next week.
Thanks hahaOriginally Posted by mastermind
Thanks, looking forward to some clarification.
Never believe the internet for any advice. . . Just saying, but thanks for providing the community with such a great service.
B
Attaining a lifestyle nothing short of enviable...essentially, living the dream.
[QUOTE=Cameron SS;13969326]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:
Hi Cameron,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.
I've decided to keep the answers in this post so people can read the whole thread just in case their wondering where the questions stemmed from. In total I believe you had 7 questions so I will number the answers accordingly:
1. With regards to section 1 of the coverage - All criminal actions are excluded other than pursuant to 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 where self defence is pleaded.
The intent is to remove cover for intentional acts.
2. Cover extends to firearms for which the member holds a licence. If the defence is to say it is
not a firearm then this presupposes the member did not have a valid licence for the weapon.
Then there is no cover.
The intent is to exclude charges stemming from items such as knives, bow & arrows and other non firearm type items.
3. STERLON, the underwriting manager, will make such determination acting on behalf of the
underwriter and will have regard to the opinion of the appointed representative and any other
advisor it deems necessary to consult.
4. Provided there is no legal requirement to carry the licence at all times this is not likely to be
considered “negligent disregard” but again STERLON, the underwriting manager, will make such
determination and will have regard to the opinion of the appointed representative and any other
advisor it deems necessary to consult.
5. It is understood that these can be purchased and used in Canada safely and legally. However, this question can stem back to question #2. This policy doesn't extend to an item that it not a firearm.
6. This condition applies if there is any offer to settle the matter by the offer of a lesser charge, or an
invitation to participate in a meditation or other form of dispute resolution and which the
underwriter considers is reasonable and appropriate to resolve the claim. The appointed
representative will be consulted.
7. If a policy holder’s license is suspended or revoked due to ongoing charges the policy would
continue to respond. This exclusion is meant to exclude people who never had a firearms license to
begin with. Further more, this policy will only extend coverage to the person named on the declaration page. At
this time it doesn’t extend coverage to anyone else. Should your spouse be charged with a firearms
charge they would need to have their own policy in place in order to be covered.
Hopefully that gives clarification to your questions and hopefully I've laid out the answers in a way that accurately answers your questions.
#6 is troubling to say the least. So basically if the Crown offers to "settle the matter by the offer of a lesser charge", or an invitation to participate in a meditation or other form of dispute resolution (eg you give up your guns the charges go away which has been offered many times) and which the underwriter considers is reasonable and appropriate to resolve the claim (the underwriter has no qualms in me losing my tens of thousands of dollar firearms collection if it cheap on the underwriters pocketbook) Riiiiight... You are basically agents for the government playing into their hands and not for the interests of your client. I will likely not be renewing my policy with you. Too many outs for the underwriter and nothing that says we will fight to the greatest extent for our clients. Why pay for a policy that doesn't in the end protect you as the client. I can give up my collection without having to pay you if that is my only option. Lawyers as as slimy as the Government. Worse because they make you think they are helping you but instead are no better than the government trying to screw you. Now that this has been clarified I have no trust in this policy and is as worthless as the paper it is written on.
No such thing as too much ammunition or toilet paper...
If your charges are unfounded then "losing my tens of thousands of dollar firearms collection if it cheap on the underwriters pocketbook" is not what our " underwriter considers is reasonable and appropriate to resolve the claim " If that were the case there would be no reason to have created this program in the first place. We're a service based program and trying to find the easiest way out at our clients expense is not the way to do it. That would be the quickest way to go out of business.
Last edited by Capri Insurance; 09-07-2017 at 07:19 PM.
Posting Permissions
