Hunting insurance who has what.

barnaman

Have a farm, shoot and used to allow lads in to shoot on a personal basis until last year. Reason I stopped was risk of being sued for an accident. That hill walker case made me even more glad I stopped. Todays Farmers Journal has bit about allowing lads on your land. I never was certain about NARGC and its compensation fund as seemed limitations to it ie from its website

http://nargc.ie/nargc-compensation-fund/

"" protects Members for third party and/or member-to-member liability arising in the course of their shooting activities" Highlighting by NARGC

What happens if you injury yourself with a gun? thats not third party or member to member?
Also what happens if NARGC went bust?
Anyway would be interested if any gun club officers on here who knew more and to hear if people have individual public liability insurance for shooting and personal injury insurance for accidents that happen shooting.

extremetaz

I have insurance through the rifle club with Countryside alliance - covers third party liability, but no doesn't to the best of my knowledge cover me for any personal injury. Nor should it frankly. That that walkers claim was upheld is an utter shambles though, believe it's going through again as there's an appeal against it .

barnaman

Hopefully €40,000 for a cut! Plus legals cost that probably are the same.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/hillwalker-s-40-000-award-criticised-as-simplistic-1.2612692

"... suffered a gash to her right knee which required seven stitches."

Good to hear about the CountrySide Alliance insurance if there was personal injury insurance as well I would be happy. Lot of lads by me putting up no trespassing signs since that case and most farmers down my way not going to give permissions this year. Its just not worth the hassle which is a shame.

sniperman

im with IFA countryside,and the farmer/owners of the land i shoot on are perfectly happy with that,any how i would never dream for a moment to sue anyone who allows me on there land either walking or shooting,if i injure myself,my tough luck,thats my way,and i have also said that to the farmers/owners that allow me on,shooting is my passion,im not a rich man,my passion before money any day,i would rather be out the fields,than have a few grand sitting in the bank.

cavan shooter

Im a Member of the NARGC fund and member of two gun clubs. Never had any problems with claim third party or personal accident. Personally know guys who did ligament damage and recieved assistance including the physio covered. Most insurances of last resort such as CAI only cover permanent damage. I also know that any claim with farmers are covered very quickly. NARGC mantra protect the farmer from any claim...ots the farmer who gives us our sport.

Cass

cavan shooter wrote: »

Most insurances of last resort ..........

What are these? Last resort?

berettaman

The NARGC comp fund has a personal accident scheme built into it as well as normal cover. If you are out hunting or pursueing your sport and you are injured you can make a claim. This will cover medical expenses as well as a certain amount per week until you are back to work.
As far as i know it is the only scheme available in ireland that does this.
Others will pay while you are in hospital but then the payments stop. Depending on the injury you could be 6 months out of work recovering and that us a long time without income.
In that aspect it is superior.
Also, the nargc look after farmers very well when it comes to claims. No messing, if it is legit it is paid.

Cass

Sorry, i meant what does "last resort" mean. What makes any other insurance last resort?

berettaman

Cass wrote: »

What are these? Last resort?

An insurance scheme of last resort means that the insurer will look for someone else to pay if possible. E.g. you are shooting clays and your car is broken into and your gun is stolen. Other insurers wilk try to get your car insurer, the shoot organisers and even the owner of the field to pay for the claim. They will only cough up after much quibbling and as a last resort...
The NARGC fund will cover things like that providing you did your bit..such as lock it in the boot and not have it on the back seat..

Thats a big difference when it comes to claims..

Cass

BTW not being a dick, just asking. I had NARGC cover when i was in the gun club, but as they don't do individual cover i had to go elsewhere.

Thanks for the explanation.

Dawggone

Cass wrote: »

Sorry, i meant what does "last resort" mean. What makes any other insurance last resort?

I'd like to add that the NARGC 'insurance' is only a fund, therefore has a limited resource.
If there were 50 or 100 major claims at any one time the fund could be exhausted, whereas an insurance would have to be covered by the state or other insurers if it were to be hit by a similar catastrophe.

Cass

Yeah, we had that debate at length lad.

The fund has it's advantages, but also it's disadvantages. IMO anyway.

berettaman

I Don't think you are a dick at all. When i heard the term first i had to ask too.

Saw it first hand with the brother in law..had a tough time with a claim..hes with nargc now..

Interestingly NARGC covers shooting anywhere in EU. I am pretty sure the others just cover the Republic.. not a bad package for €50 a year..

Sparks

The other thing to bear in mind is that the NARGC fund is not insurance, it's a compensation fund. They're functionally equivalent (ie. there's no difference to the end user in pretty much all cases) but they're governed differently. So comparing them is a bit trickier to do fairly.

edit: ha! ninja'd while typing



Also, I don't think that's what insurer of last resort means. Every time I've heard the term it's saying that yes, other insurers get the claim bounced at them first, but the insurer of last resort is the backstop, the one that definitely will pay out if all others fail. It's not really a negative thing.

berettaman

Dawggone wrote: »

I'd like to add that the NARGC 'insurance' is only a fund, therefore has a limited resource.
If there were 50 or 100 major claims at any one time the fund could be exhausted, whereas an insurance would have to be covered by the state or other insurers if it were to be hit by a similar catastrophe.

Thats a good point however the fund is protected through reinsurance of the risk. I am told that the NARGC pays a premium every year to reinsure against massive claims on the fund. So not all the eggs are in one basket..

Cass

Never heard the term before, but have heard about the process. I normally call it last man in pays.

Good to know.

The NARGC fund is good in some aspects. Coverage for certain activities, etc. But it also falls down on the same things. On the Mixed bag comp each year we had to place a notice about NARGC cover as it was pointed out to us that NARGC may not cover you if competing in such a comp.

The payments when/if off work are good too, and possibly better than insurance companies (had my fair share of dealings with them through work).

The biggest downfall is the individual cover. I know it's a game club association, but i'd like to see it, if possible, go individual. Probably never happen, but you never know.

Sparks

Dawggone wrote: »

I'd like to add that the NARGC 'insurance' is only a fund, therefore has a limited resource.
If there were 50 or 100 major claims at any one time the fund could be exhausted...

Yes, but I seem to remember it being backstopped by insurance to allow it to fail more gracefully than just running out of cash.

berettaman

Sparks wrote: »

The other thing to bear in mind is that the NARGC fund is not insurance, it's a compensation fund. They're functionally equivalent (ie. there's no difference to the end user in pretty much all cases) but they're governed differently. So comparing them is a bit trickier to do fairly.

edit: ha! ninja'd while typing


Also, I don't think that's what insurer of last resort means. Every time I've heard the term it's saying that yes, other insurers get the claim bounced at them first, but the insurer of last resort is the backstop, the one that definitely will pay out if all others fail. It's not really a negative thing.

Haa who is the quickest on the draw..?

I am not an insurance guy.. some may view it as a backstop..that is one way of looking at it but it can be a pain in the ass at claim time..😂

Sparks

berettaman wrote: »

I am not an insurance guy.. some may view it as a backstop..that is one way of looking at it but it can be a pain in the ass at claim time..��

Claim time is going to be a pain in the ass no matter what coverage you have or with whom - I mean, don't forget what has to happen before you make a claim!

I stick with a simple rule for this stuff: if it is mandatory or you need the cover, then read the fine print, ignore the advertising and choose based on your needs, not testimonials from people in totally different circumstances.

Dawggone

Sparks wrote: »

Yes, but I seem to remember it being backstopped by insurance to allow it to fail more gracefully than just running out of cash.

Hmmm sounds like bookies that lay off bets. I'd prefer to be insured by a proper insurance company. Not a crowd that play with my money and 'lay' the big risk... Just saying.

cavan shooter

Dawggone wrote:

I'd like to add that the NARGC 'insurance' is only a fund, therefore has a limited resource. If there were 50 or 100 major claims at any one time the fund could be exhausted, whereas an insurance would have to be covered by the state or other insurers if it were to be hit by a similar catastrophe.

A fund that is insured for multiple hits
Of its maximum payout in any one year. It's rock solid. The problem is the fact clubs are not open to new members which is contrary to the NARGC policy. All Clubs should have open doors

Sparks

I think Lloyds of London would not normally be described as "bookies that lay off bets".
And compensation funds aren't inherently dodgy things either. They're a perfectly legitimate way to provide cover in this country. They have advantages and disadvantages, like everything else. Just read the fine print and make sure they meet your needs; but the same advice applies to insurers and only a fool wouldn't do that anyway.

Dawggone

Sparks wrote: »

I think Lloyds of London would not normally be described as "bookies that lay off bets".
And compensation funds aren't inherently dodgy things either. They're a perfectly legitimate way to provide cover in this country. They have advantages and disadvantages, like everything else. Just read the fine print and make sure they meet your needs; but the same advice applies to insurers and only a fool wouldn't do that anyway.

Then I'd feel more comfortable being insured by Lloyds...

Sparks

Dawggone wrote: »

Then I'd feel more comfortable being insured by Lloyds...

I'm not sure if you can be. As far as I know the only available cover in this country for shooting comes from either the NARGC, the IFA or the CAI.

barnaman

Thanks Lads. Wish was clear with NARGC that there is personal injury cover and or Gun Club takes responsibility idea being Gun Club officer walks the permissions says safe to shoot and if any comeback its on the club/NARGC.
Problem was local Gun Club were lazy shower and it had problems with "members" who were not members at all; Guard's tighten up on that though.

Like DawGone would prefer insurance to a fund. Wonder if NARGC can raid the compensation fund if it gets into financial trouble lots of UK comoanies used to raid their pension funds.

cavan shooter

Always remember it's a fund that is insured against total wipe out. Every year the Fund administrator releases a list of claims and settlements so it's all there to see. I know in Cavan that's discussed at the AGM so every Gun club has access to it.

Kat1170

Dawggone wrote: »

Hmmm sounds like bookies that lay off bets. I'd prefer to be insured by a proper insurance company. Not a crowd that play with my money and 'lay' the big risk... Just saying.

Twice I've been on the sh1tty end of what you call 'proper insurance' companies going bust. Once with motorcycle insurance and second time with van insurance. :mad:

And all bookies lay off bets to each other, even the very big ones

garrettod

Cass wrote: »

BTW not being a dick, just asking. I had NARGC cover when i was in the gun club, but as they don't do individual cover i had to go elsewhere....

I was aware that NARGC was only available via the clubs, but never understood why and think it's wrong to exclude some shooters, on a personal note.

Any idea why it's club members only (are members of clubs considered lower risk perhaps) ?

Thanks.

J.R.

berettaman wrote: »

Thats a good point however the fund is protected through reinsurance of the risk. I am told that the NARGC pays a premium every year to reinsure against massive claims on the fund. So not all the eggs are in one basket..

They are underwritten by Lloyds of London for any substantial claim - I think it's anything over €1 million............NARGC pay up to €1 million...claims higher than that then Llyods kicks in.

NARGC Cover is very good and comprehensive ...only downside is you must be a member of a NARGC affiliated Gun Club...so NARGC is not an option for everyone

cavan shooter

garrettod wrote:

I was aware that NARGC was only available via the clubs, but never understood why and think it's wrong to exclude some shooters, on a personal note.

It's the way it was set up Members in a Club affiliated to Region, Region affiliated to National Association. The problem arises that some clubs are very closed shops. Eventually the small mildness will be the death of clubs. I know a club that won't let anyone in....these lads are all around 60.

garrettod

Thanks,

cavan shooter wrote: »

....I know a club that won't let anyone in....these lads are all around 60.

Think there are quite a lot of clubs like that.... "you have to be a member of the parish" tends to be a favored line :rolleyes:

I can fully appreciate clubs not wanting to be overrun with newbies, but equally there are significant benefits to bringing in new blood every year - more funds, new ideas, most will be willing to help out a bit etc.

cavan shooter

garrettod wrote:

I can fully appreciate clubs not wanting to be overrun with newbies, but equally there are significant benefits to bringing in new blood every year - more funds, new ideas, most will be willing to help out a bit etc.

You have to be in the parish or have links to the parish.

If your not from the area your goosed

The hardest for newbies is to get someone to propose and second you in an area where you know no one.

bluezulu49

cavan shooter wrote: »

You have to be in the parish or have links to the parish.

If your not from the area your goosed

The hardest for newbies is to get someone to propose and second you in an area where you know no one.

If you look at the NARGC sample constitution for a club you will find the following

3. Qualification for Membership:
a. Membership shall be confined to persons either currently residing or previously resident in the area covered by the
Club, or drawing their livelihood mainly from within that area.

As this is effectively a directive coming from the top it represents a classic example of shooting oneself in the foot in terms of increasing membership. (Pun intended).

Clubs may feel either feel bound by this condition or be using it to "conserve" their own shooting.

Rimfire Shooter

So should rural NARGC clubs open their membership to lads from the big smoke so they have somewhere to shoot game even though they'd have no connection to the area/s?.................I think that was mooted and shot down previously I am in a NARGC club BUT all my permissions I got myself & I make sure I keep 'em by treating the landowners properly. Some think they have a right to everything just because they want it.

cavan shooter

Rimfire Shooter wrote:

So should rural NARGC clubs open their membership to lads from the big smoke so they have somewhere to shoot game even though they'd have no connection to the area/s?.................I think that was mooted and shot down previously I am in a NARGC club BUT all my permissions I got myself & I make sure I keep 'em by treating the landowners properly. Some think they have a right to everything just because they want it.

All depends I know non rural lads in our club who come down for a shot over weekends and no hassle, but you also hear of the bad ones. Depends on your club really, some clubs have a condition of probation where the proposer is responsible for any messing......as for own permissions I know that even though I'm in a couple of clubs, I only tend to shoot the same areas where I personally know the farmer so I think that's common. I'd even go as far as to say it's common practice to stick to ones patch.

homerhop

It's not always the clubs, we give a list of club members to landowners. They are the ones who query us on individuals and if they are from the parish.

grassroot1

bluezulu49 wrote: »

If you look at the NARGC sample constitution for a club you will find the following

3. Qualification for Membership:
a. Membership shall be confined to persons either currently residing or previously resident in the area covered by the
Club, or drawing their livelihood mainly from within that area.

As this is effectively a directive coming from the top it represents a classic example of shooting oneself in the foot in terms of increasing membership. (Pun intended).

Clubs may feel either feel bound by this condition or be using it to "conserve" their own shooting.

Its a sample, clubs may amend as they see fit, it is not a directive from the top.
The club is an autonomous body free to set its own rules and regulations and admit whom they like.
That does not stop us from encouraging our clubs or other clubs from taking in members from outside areas.
that said I take you point lets see if that line cant be amended in near future.

garrettod

Rimfire Shooter wrote: »

So should rural NARGC clubs open their membership to lads from the big smoke so they have somewhere to shoot game even though they'd have no connection to the area/s?.....

Sure, why not ?

Don't people from the country want to come to Dublin and use the city for things not available in their local parish ?

Putting the age old riverly aside for a moment, there's plenty of good can come from having "outsiders" joining - more income to help fund the club, more people available to do a bit of work (be it fixing pens, helping on committee etc) and odds are, while those from outside the parish will pay the same fees (and probably a joining fee), they won't be down shooting the land half as much as the locals.

Is it a case of purposely blocking non locals from joining and perhaps by extension, the sport (given they may not get licences without being in a hunting club) ? .. I would have hoped everyone would be willing to work together to try and grow our sport.

Rimfire Shooter wrote: »

I am in a NARGC club BUT all my permissions I got myself & I make sure I keep 'em by treating the landowners properly....

I suspect you will find thats the way every self respecting shooter goes about it, doesn't matter where they come from etc. Sadly, I do appreciate that there are a few a$$holes walking among us however. Different issue to club membership, in fairness

Sika98k

Sparks wrote: »

I'm not sure if you can be. As far as I know the only available cover in this country for shooting comes from either the NARGC, the IFA or the CAI.

Country Sports Ireland are now offering insurance. Offices in Mayo and Derry.
They currently have an introductory offer for new membership.