Dont Get Legal Advice from Facebook

[teknition]

Hi Cameron,

Thank you for the great questions.

This policy will always defend a client as long as the charges fall within the prescribed coverage's. 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

What an awesome handle. Are you sure it isn't spelled Schwingenschlong?

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.

The only high point of this is if it was detached from shooting a 50 BMG.

#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.

Cause me great concern too. Seems like an easy escape from protecting the client while still taking his money. This type of trade your firearms in for all charges dropped thing happens ALL the time.

[ljones]

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.

But there is also nothing in the wording that says what you are claiming. All we see indicated are outs, and what ever is "deemed" in the best interest of the underwriter not "deemed" in the best interest of the client. I hear of too many insurances snaking their way out of having to pay with all these exclusions and "outs". Also you keep using the phrase "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." Which means absolutely nothing of anything I can put my trust in. It leaves it so wide open you can drive a semi through it.

Ultimately the Government has more money and can drag these things out. With these "outs" it would only be a matter of time when the underwriter will simply cut his looses and say we can't go on and in which case "my losing my collection" would absolutely be on the table with these "outs" in place.

[capp325]

Why risk getting legal advice on Facebook? It doesn't seem like the best place to get legal advice yet we constantly see people putting up legal questions looking for advice. Instead, get access to a lawyer for free! When you purchase an FLD policy you get free, unlimited telephone access to a lawyer included with your legal defence coverage. This service is not just limited to firearms questions either. You can call with any question! Property law, Tax law, Estate Law! Get the right answer the first time from a qualified lawyer. Firearm Legal Defence is the only insurance company in Canada dedicated solely to protecting the firearms community.

Www.firearmlegaldefence.com

Really? So one could buy your insurance and spend hundreds of hours on the phone getting unlimited legal advice from "qualified lawyers" (who normally charge hundreds of dollars per hour) on, say, complicated intellectual property or tax law matters? I find this very difficult to believe.

[johnny88]

Blows my mind what people ask and post on FB. Lots have learned the hard way

[Capri Insurance]

Really? So one could buy your insurance and spend hundreds of hours on the phone getting unlimited legal advice from "qualified lawyers" (who normally charge hundreds of dollars per hour) on, say, complicated intellectual property or tax law matters? I find this very difficult to believe.

You forgot the part about the fact that it doesn't have an impact on your premium.

You have to keep in mind they're not going to send you any emails or do any doc review. You're going to get unlimited, TELEPHONE legal advice. We have many clients that take advantage of this service on a regular basis and whenever I talk to someone about the program I always encourage them to use this service.

[CV32]

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.

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.

[emphasis mine]

I think you mean "mediation". An offer by the Crown that the accused plead guilty to a lesser charge is very common. So you are saying if there is any offer of a lesser charge, and the insured rejects it, coverage ends.

[capp325]

[emphasis mine]

I think you mean "mediation". An offer by the Crown that the accused plead guilty to a lesser charge is very common. So you are saying if there is any offer of a lesser charge, and the insured rejects it, coverage ends.

Another thing that frequently happens is the accused getting charged with multiple counts of the same type of offence and the Crown agreeing to drop most counts in exchange for a single guilty plea (knowing full well that mosts if not all of the duplicate charges will likely get thrown out at trial in any event).

[cman]

Thanks for the help, i think this insurance is good for the money you pay, its not the best thing ever, but its better than nothing.
Especially since you can talk to a lawyer by phone....free anytime, thats worth the money alone.
Cheers

[CV32]

Another thing that frequently happens is the accused getting charged with multiple counts of the same type of offence and the Crown agreeing to drop most counts in exchange for a single guilty plea (knowing full well that mosts if not all of the duplicate charges will likely get thrown out at trial in any event).

Certainly true.

[hunter148]

As a legal professional I have issue with the fact of who determines the plea deal is acceptable. Any counsel/underwriter that tells you, you MUST take a plea is negligent in my opinion. Ultimately, remember who works for who here. I will advise what I think is best but ultimately the choice of a plea is up to you, the accused and if an insurance company holds the final say in your destiny, well you get what you pay for.
Yes the system works on plea deals, just a simple fact. There are many instances where a plea offer is made and rejected and the accused walks free at the end of the day. With a plea you admit to the facts as given by police and Crown. Last I checked the Crown has to still prove a case/facts at trial and that my friends is is not always as easy as laying a charge.
If insurance gives you a piece of mind great, go with but don't expect it to cover you when the sh&&t gets thick