When the policy says that it excludes willful, negligent disregard it would be from those people who knew they we`re breaking the law and chose to do so anyways. In my opinion law abiding gun owners do not fall into this category. Example would be if you were going to the range with your handgun and simply had it sitting in the back seat without the proper case. You know full well that's not allowed and you willfully do it anyways.
The registration exclusion was designed again to not protect people who willfully did not register their firearms IE criminals and gang members. You can also access the telephone legal advice line with any registration questions should you question whether a firearm is classed as antique/deactivated or restricted/prohibited.
This anonymous example on your website is kinda odd, because (for example) courts don't order new investigations:
Are there any reported cases in which this insurer was involved? As in, by Carswell, CanLII, etc and independently verifiable.Luckily, James had Firearm Legal Defence. After a quick call, he had an open claim and a lawyer assigned to his case. The lawyer was able to convince the court that the allegations made by James’ co-worker were false and the investigation was not properly conducted. The court ordered a new investigation which found no basis for charges against James. James’ firearm licence was rein#stated and his guns were returned. If James didn’t have a Firearm Legal Defence policy he would be facing approxi#mately $15,000 in legal fees.
"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
Why would anyone want to trust an Insurance Company for anything, but I guess when they are selling your flavour of Kool-aid, your going to drink it up
And anyone who's had to rely on any type of insurance will usually vouch for its usefulness. Extended health insurance, auto, home, etc... If you're one of the lucky 1% that has/will never need to rely on insurance, that's great. And those are the ones who view insurance poorly as they haven't seen a benefit, yet. But the majority of us will need to use it in one form or another. And this is the cheapest annual insurance I have, and the only one I have where the benefit could prevent jail time.
You say kool-aid, I'll enjoy a cheap layer of comfort.
Some people are really skeptical about this.
Maybe those should be asking the right questions instead of badmouthing it.
Shooter and Collector (kinda)
Never Forget Best Friends.
Aug 30, 2008.
Dec 29, 2008.
There are very good reasons to be skeptical. For example:
1. Insurance companies only make money if they pay out less claims (a lot less) than they take in premiums. And since they are corporations, making money is the primary objective. Fundamentally, its not about protecting you.
2. The principle of fortuity is long standing and unevenly applied.
3. Exclusionary clauses are paramount in any policy that claims to provide coverage for your potentially criminal behaviour (and how that it is defined is extremely subjective). See #2.
"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
So we all need to read the fine print I guess.
Shooter and Collector (kinda)
Never Forget Best Friends.
Aug 30, 2008.
Dec 29, 2008.
"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