Advice on insurance please…

I appreciate that this subject comes up repeatedly, and I have read most of the posts on it, but still find myself really confused.

My background/experience is as follows: new shooter, own a gun (silver pigeon), stored at the shooting ground, I will never shoot game, only clays, and only as a pastime for now, shoot maximum once a fortnight, I can’t see myself wanting to enter a competition and if I ever did it would be only at the club. At the moment this is the only place I’ll shoot and there’s no need for me to travel with the gun.

I’ve looked at CPSA, BASC, CCC, Sports Direct, Ripe. Obviously they all cover different things at different costs. Then one of them (I think BASC) mentioned that their insurance means they deal with it, in the event of a claim, but other insurance means you have to prove that your house insurance etc doesn’t cover it before they will take it on (there’s a legal term for that which I can’t remember).

Then there’s the issue of just public liability, or add on personal accident cover and/or equipment cover.

I think it’s done my head in, trying to work out which is best. My budget isn’t the issue, I can probably afford whichever I want; however, I don’t want to spend something I really don’t need, but neither do I want to miss out on something that I do.

Could anyone give me general advice on what I need, based on my description of my shooting above. I appreciate that it’s a difficult question to answer, but I’m sure many will have gone through the same thing. Thanks for your help in advance.

This probably isn’t going to answer your question , however the difference between the CPSA , BASC , and the commercial insurers are that CPSA and BASC are in principle organisations that also represent shooters , organise competitions , offer training programmes for members , have members discount schemes , and publish members magazines that are quite informative.

The others just sell a product .

Therefore the CPSA and BASC have employees who are dedicated to the furtherance of the particular aspects of shooting that they represent . If we accept that , by supporting them we ourselves are supporting our shooting future to some extent .

I won’t go all political about whether these organisations are effective, they are what we have.
I used to belong to both , I don’t shoot registered competitions any more , but I am also a game shot , so the BASC package suits my current needs best . From your description you may be better off with a CPSA Clubman membership , you’ll get the insurance , magazine and learn what’s happening in your sport , see the opportunities and benefits that are available , you can easily upgrade , if you ever want to enter registered comps .

MartynB said:

This probably isn’t going to answer your question , however the difference between the CPSA , BASC , and the commercial insurers are that CPSA and BASC are in principle organisations that also represent shooters , organise competitions , offer training programmes for members , have members discount schemes , and publish members magazines that are quite informative.

The others just sell a product .

Therefore the CPSA and BASC have employees who are dedicated to the furtherance of the particular aspects of shooting that they represent . If we accept that , by supporting them we ourselves are supporting our shooting future to some extent .

I won’t go all political about whether these organisations are effective, they are what we have.
I used to belong to both , I don’t shoot registered competitions any more , but I am also a game shot , so the BASC package suits my current needs best . From your description you may be better off with a CPSA Clubman membership , you’ll get the instance , magazine and learn what’s happening in your sport , see the opportunities and benefits that are available , you can easily upgrade , if you ever want to enter registered comps .

Click to expand...

Thank you, some very good points there. Particularly about supporting the sport.

I’ve joined the CPSA, Clubman. Job done.

Sorry for the late response, if you have even half decent home insurance you will likely be insured for PL (check exclusions) and I’d guess 90% of people are wasting their money … BASC only keeps going by mis selling insurance no one needs ..

RJD said:

Sorry for the late response, if you have even half decent home insurance you will likely be insured for PL (check exclusions) and I’d guess 90% of people are wasting their money … BASC only keeps going by mis selling insurance no one needs ..

Click to expand...

As far as I could tell, not all house insurers covered shotguns for loss or damage (many did) but none of them covered you for public liability when out shooting.

I may be wrong but that was the impression I got and it’s public liability that was most important for me.

"but none of them covered you for public liability when out shooting."

What lead you to this conclusion ?

Freddypip said:

"but none of them covered you for public liability when out shooting."

What lead you to this conclusion ?

Click to expand...

Research on the net. But I’m happy if someone can show me a house insurance policy that explicitly includes damage/injury caused when shooting.

@PeeJay it exclusions you need to look at

RJD said:

@PeeJay it exclusions you need to look at

Click to expand...

Yes, I appreciate that, but I would be happier if someone has explicit information that injury to other people while shooting is covered on general house insurance.

For £40 a year I wouldn't take the chance

vmax1010 said:

For £40 a year I wouldn't take the chance

Click to expand...

To be fair that was my feeling. I joined the CPSA so there’s no doubt exactly what is and isn’t covered by the insurance. It’s worth it for peace of mind, especially knowing how insurers are clever at wriggling out of paying.

PeeJay said:

Yes, I appreciate that, but I would be happier if someone has explicit information that injury to other people while shooting is covered on general house insurance.

Click to expand...

It is public liability, LEGAL liability for which you are PROVEN NEGLIGENT to a third party, ‘you’ often means all permanent residents of your home …. BASC et Al will be paying 3-5 for this per person at scale, it’s a rip off

Funnily enough the FCA wrote about these spins sells in December

RJD said:

It is public liability, LEGAL liability for which you are PROVEN NEGLIGENT to a third party, ‘you’ often means all permanent residents of your home …. BASC et Al will be paying 3-5 for this per person at scale, it’s a rip off

Funnily enough the FCA wrote about these spins sells in December

Click to expand...

Yes, I fully understand the definition of public liability and the legal implications. Has anyone got definitive written proof from their household insurer that their policy covers public liability for damage to others and their property when shooting?

As for it being a rip off, that’s always very subjective. Many tens of thousands of members don’t think so. Horses for courses. Members aren’t paying £60 for insurance. They are paying for membership, which as well as the other benefits, includes defined insurance.

PeeJay said:

Yes, I fully understand the definition of public liability and the legal implications. Has anyone got definitive written proof from their household insurer that their policy covers public liability for damage to others and their property when shooting?

As for it being a rip off, that’s always very subjective. Many tens of thousands of members don’t think so. Horses for courses. Members aren’t paying £60 for insurance. They are paying for membership, which as well as the other benefits, includes defined insurance.

Click to expand...

Phone your insurer and ask. I guarantee they will say shooting (and guns) are excluded. NFU is about the only exception. Personally, as I also have firearms, I pay NRA membership. It covers the liability for shotguns, firearms, and even covers the guns themselves. Otherwise its RIPE Insurance, but they cost more for liability and guns.

If it's a general liability cover (as most household policies are) then unless it excluded than if the operative clause applies, cover is included. It's simply impractical for an insurer to list everything that is covered = most of the excluded risk are those items which can be insured elsewhere (EL, mechanical vehicles etc). If one insurers says it's not then that's that insurer's wording so check with your insurer. They should refer you to the wording however.

Having said this I would expect most guns (for first party loss) to be above & beyond the single article limit so they should be insured as a named item or insured elsewhere. Household insurer might not have the nous to work the premium out and might want to avoid that risk particularly for damage.