logo, Firearms News and Classifieds in Canada

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 37 of 37

Thread: Capri Insurance and OIC

  1. #31
    CGN Regular
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Edmonton Region, AB
    All of us: non-restricted, restricted, perhaps prohib, and prohibited firearms owners, should take this as a reminder to check our policies.

    I double checked my policy last year to ensure it was uncapped (outside of general contents limit) for firearms. In the past, I had been quoted a policy with a somewhat hidden $10k firearms cap. If I wanted coverage for more than that, it required appraisals for each gun and additional riders.

    My current policy covers all firearms irrespective of firearms class or type without need for appraisal. I have a replacement cost rider, so I can pretty easily prove the value of buying everything new that is still on market.

    It would be an interesting debate as to the replacement value of a now-prohibited firearm. I am probably in a tougher spot with those, but I would fight for a comparable non-restricted value.

    My policy does exclude:
    any property illegally acquired, kept, stored, or transported, or the proceeds of crime;
    Which honestly, most of our guns covered by the OIC would be, after the amnesty expires (pending current court challenges). So after the amnesty expires, any of those guns would be uninsured.

    A post-ban version of the same FRT entry, now reflecting the Stag’s current prohibited status has no Canadian Law Comments.

    This later version of the publicly available FRT, current as of last week, indicates that the Stag 10 is now prohibited as an AR variant.
    The courts will determine, but the fact that the move of the Stag-10 to prohibited is devoid of any reasonable rationale is likely moot (despite the original FRT comments) since the Stag-10 is listed by name.

  2. #32
    CGN Ultra frequent flyer
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Ground Zero
    Quote Originally Posted by Capri Insurance View Post
    This exclusion is meant to exclude people who are illegally in possession of a firearm, for example a criminal who doesn't have a firearms license. All the firearms listed in the OIC were given a 2 year grace period so you're no breaking the law if you're still in possession of it.
    The policy doesnt state "not breaking the law". The police states must have a valid license for that firearm. I cant find the current policy language online but if I recall, in other places the policy states that a person must take reasonable steps to avoid breaking the law, which could be interpretted to mean that a person in unlawful possession of OiC prohibited firearms should dispose of them sooner rather than later.

    Further, the amnesty doesnt make possession lawful. Anyone in possession of an OIC prohibited firearm is breaking the law. The amnesty merely provides immunity from prosecution. That said, in order to avail yourself of the amnesty a person could be charged anyways and the court will have to decide whether the person is complying with the amnesty.

    Despite the language in the policy which seems to clearly not be applicable to OIC firearms, its worth pointing out that an underwriter always has the discretion to respond to a claim even if it isnt strictly covered by the policy.

    I guess the question is whether the underwriter will respond. I suspect it would depend on the circumstances.

    If a policy holder was the victim of a revenge swatting and owned both OIC and non OIC firearms, then I suspect the provider will respond to a claim for all of the firearms. Up until the crown agrees to let the person have their NR and RES firearms and refuses to return the prohibited firearms.

    On the other hand in the unlikely event that .gov starts seizing firearms en masse, the insurer is not likely to bankrupt themselves fighting the governments seizure operations.
    Government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods. HL Mencken. 1919.

  3. #33
    Super GunNutz medvedqc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Whitehorse, YT
    Quote Originally Posted by greentips View Post
    This is not Capri's position, this is the underwriter's position. Capri's most likely won't know the answer, and they will have to ask the underwriter.

    When you go ask the underwriter such tricky things, their risk control people will start asking questions. When risk control people start reviewing things, it could only lead to bad things.

    This is what I think, I would rather Capri NOT to bother the underwriter with this OIC stuff. I have use for this service. OIC is not all the things, and I honestly don't want capri to poke the underwriter with this OIC stuff and put my policy at risk. I like the policy and I don't need to ask the questions that potentially lead to bad consequences for curiosity sake.
    i agree 100% with you on that: i did not need a lawyer nor insurance to challenge s74 ... i will have preferred to have gun orgs sitting with us but that is another story ...

  4. #34
    CGN Ultra frequent flyer CV32's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    The Rock
    Insurance is only useful if the coverage is predictable.
    "There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices. To be found only in the minds of men. For the record, prejudices can kill, and suspicion can destroy, and the frightened, thoughtless search for a scapegoat has a fallout all of its own ..." - The Twilight Zone

  5. #35
    Member 4570 Forever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Quote Originally Posted by Capri Insurance View Post
    This exclusion is meant to exclude people who are illegally in possession of a firearm, for example a criminal who doesn't have a firearms license. All the firearms listed in the OIC were given a 2 year grace period so you're no breaking the law if you're still in possession of it.
    Exactly. We remain in lawful possession of those firearms on precisely the same basis as when they were acquired: on the basis of the PAL. The law was explicit on this point.

  6. #36
    CGN Ultra frequent flyer infidel29's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    So in other words, anyone who continues to hold any prohibited firearm after the amnesty is over, R or NR, would no longer be covered by your services I'm assuming?
    Pump actions speak louder than words.

    Do you remember how hard the Liberals fought to keep the registry?
    Now you know why. - Dexter Morgan

  7. #37
    CGN Regular j_san's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Simcoe County
    Bump for clarity’s sake.
    ORA Service Rifle competitor, NSCC/DCRA supporter, CSSA and CCFR member + Firearms legal defence
    The Antis are after ALL of your firearms. NONE of them are “safe”.
    Wake up Canada!!.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Posting Permissions

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