Countryside Alliance or NARGC

pullandbang

The topic of "insurance" arose at our club's AGM and one of the questions posed was which was the better option - Countryside Alliance or NARGC.

Most peoples concerns were "are we covered while out shooting"
Is the farmer/landowner covered?
What happens if I get shot, my mate gets shot, the dog/sheep/bull gets shot?

Any opinions from the masses?

Sparks

From what I understand, both insurance policies cover you for this; you'd have to dig into the fine print to spot the differences.

We went for CAI in WTSC because at the time the NARGC didn't do target shooting insurance. Don't think that applies in your case (or that it's even correct anymore).

Grizzly 45

Who offers more coverage?Who is cheaper?Who will fight a legal battle?
After that it is who do you give your credit card number to.CA seems to have a slight edge in coverage and price.NARGC the advantage of being tried and tested here in Irl in the courts.

pullandbang

Isn't there a difference between NARGC and CAI - the first is a "Compensation Fund" while the latter is "Insurance"

Bottom line is - who offers best cover and who coughs up without resorting to the courts.

Story Man

Contact Lyall Plant at CAI and ask him directly.

Countryside Alliance Ireland
Courtlough Shooting Grounds
Balbriggan
Co. Dublin
Tel: 01 6903610
Fax: 01 6903611

SM

Sparks

And let us know how it goes if you do!

bunny shooter

IFA do shooting insurance too "IFA Countryside" good cover too and you get discounts off FBD insurance and Eircom as a result of membership

cavan shooter

As I am in 3 NARGC gun clubs I'll favour NARGC. They havent let us down yet and never argued a claim.

pullandbang

I too am in three clubs affiliated to the NARGC but something came up recently regarding a claim that prompted the question to be asked at our AGM.

Seems that unless you or the club has it in writing from a landowner that you have permission to be there, then you are not covered. Now, how many of us have anything in writing from every landowner where you are likely to be?

Seems like it is worth investigating the small print, because if it is the case that you need written permission, then the compensation fund is not worth the paper it's written on.

jwshooter

pullandbang wrote: »

I too am in three clubs affiliated to the NARGC but something came up recently regarding a claim that prompted the question to be asked at our AGM.

Seems that unless you or the club has it in writing from a landowner that you have permission to be there, then you are not covered. Now, how many of us have anything in writing from every landowner where you are likely to be?

Seems like it is worth investigating the small print, because if it is the case that you need written permission, then the compensation fund is not worth the paper it's written on.

can you find the link or where i can view this ,as i think you better be right in what your saying .
was it third party or a personal claim.
did chris gavican put this in writing for the club

J.R.

2 years ago our club checked out the three insurances available, Countryside Alliance Ireland, F.A.I., & N.A.R.G.C.

We checked all the fine print & pluses + minus's and eventually decided on NARGC.

The reason we went for NARGC was it offered the best cover & highest payouts for accidents. Also most landowners we chatted with were happy & confident with members having NARGC cover ......tried & tested......had heard it's a hassle free payout when an accident had happened on owners land, many had never heard of CAI or even FAI covering shooters (which surprises us!)

CAI also covered fishing and was slightly cheaper, but not as high a payout in accidents, so may suit others better.....also one can join as an individual member, whereas one has to be a gun club member to join NARGC.

FAI at the time were new to market, didn't offer as much cover and their ease of pay out had never been tested so we didn't want to be the guinea-pigs! However, they offer a discount on other insurance products if you're a member.

As a committee we reckoned it was our responsibility to seek the insurance that offered the greatest cover for shooters with the highest payouts in case of accident so we went with NARGC.....not all members agreed.....but the 78% majority carried.

Each cover suits different circumstances so take your pick.

jwshooter

protection applies to landowners who permit (verbally or in writing )clubs or fund members to gain access to there property for the purpose of engaging in their sporting activity .
this protection applies where a fund member might in some way himself become injured on the landowners property and he blames the landowner for this .
it also applies however if the fund member injures someone else and the landowner is deemed to be somehow implicated.

Story Man

If you are shooting out of state do the NARGC or FAI cover you insurance wise as CAI does?

SM

pullandbang

jwshooter wrote: »

can you find the link or where i can view this ,as i think you better be right in what your saying .
was it third party or a personal claim.
did chris gavican put this in writing for the club

There isn't a link. It just arose at a club meeting. One of the members who is also a member of another club brought it up because he knows the person involved. I'm not going to go into any detail of the case here because it's still up in the air. His comments at the meeting sparked a debate, hence my OP.

pullandbang

jwshooter wrote: »

it also applies however if the fund member injures someone else and the landowner is deemed to be somehow implicated.

Does that someone else have to be a member of the NARGC also?

jwshooter

pullandbang wrote: »

Does that someone else have to be a member of the NARGC also?

the some one else would be the third party .

i would think a lot of gpa- gun clubs hunt on lands that the farmer is never officially asked ,verbally or in writing.

i would hunt on lands that i know the farmer and never asked him for the hunting but would often talk to them when out .

im not saying your wrong as there might be more to the case than meets the eye.

if i had a accident on your land PnB and the nargc would not cover me ,could i not sue the land owner YOU .

this is why im sure the nargc will cover you as one of there members .

its a interesting post

cavan shooter

In relation to NARGC, I think you are only covered if your shooting with an other Insured member of an affiliated club. I'll check this out as I have the application booklet in the house.

pullandbang

jwshooter wrote: »

the some one else would be the third party .

So is the third party covered if he's nothing to do with hunting, NARGC or anyone else - just an innocent third party?

jwshooter wrote: »

i would think a lot of gpa- gun clubs hunt on lands that the farmer is never officially asked ,verbally or in writing. i would hunt on lands that i know the farmer and never asked him for the hunting but would often talk to them when out .

We're probably all in the same boat.

jwshooter wrote: »

im not saying your wrong as there might be more to the case than meets the eye.

I'm not making any comments about right or wrong - just raising an issue whereby we all as members assumed we were covered for most eventualities.
Again I'm not going to even hint at the details of the case in question, but there seems to be some cloud over cover for the injured party.

jwshooter wrote: »

if i had a accident on your land PnB and the nargc would not cover me ,could i not sue the land owner YOU .
this is why im sure the nargc will cover you as one of there members .
its a interesting post

You would be entitled to sue me if I was a landowner with or without the NARGC Compensation fund - though that is the purpose of the fund - to hopefully prevent those type of claims.
You would be covered as a member, but what about a third party, injured by you on my land? Where does that leave me as a landowner and the injured party as a non insured person?

My understanding of the incident in question is that the NARGC are not coming up with the goods on the basis that the shooter did not have written permission form the owner of the land and it wasn't gun club land.

It was this refusal to pay up that prompted the debate at our meeting and now we are investigating the pros and cons of some other options. Hence this post in the hope of gettting some views from people who use other insurance companies.

jwshooter

PnB must have been a personal accident claim,maybe this guy did not have it taken out as its a extra few bucks .

meathstevie

To the best of my knowledge the NARGC fund covers you when shooting in Europe. Be it target or hunting.

pullandbang

I can't find my NARGC booklet but I downloaded the CAI Insurance forms. The first few lines make me nervous and I quote;

Provides cover for damages and claimants costs and expenses and defence costs and expenses incurred with the written consent of the Insurance Provider for personal injury and property damage while participating in a legal and Recognised Activity of the Insured Extensions include

Indemnity to Principal and others which includes a landowner who has given permission for use of his land for any Recognised Activity

This is the tricky bit in my opinion. The landowner has to have given permission for you, the insured, to be on his land. How many of us have permission from every landowner who's land we are likely to cross in a day. I don't even know most of the landowners over whose land I shoot, let alone have permission from them. In fact quite a lot of the land I shoot has not been given to any club. MEATHSTEVIE probably shoots some of it too as it's near his patch. One particular farmer who has a big stretch of tillage won't stop anyone from shooting it but he won't give it over to any club either.

Thankfully in the three clubs of which I'm a member, we've never had to make any claims and I hope it stays that way. But in the event of an incident similar to the one which prompted my OP, where do we stand?

foxshooter243

pullandbang wrote: »

I can't find my NARGC booklet but I downloaded the CAI Insurance forms. The first few lines make me nervous and I quote;



This is the tricky bit in my opinion. The landowner has to have given permission for you, the insured, to be on his land. How many of us have permission from every landowner who's land we are likely to cross in a day. I don't even know most of the landowners over whose land I shoot, let alone have permission from them. In fact quite a lot of the land I shoot has not been given to any club. MEATHSTEVIE probably shoots some of it too as it's near his patch. One particular farmer who has a big stretch of tillage won't stop anyone from shooting it but he won't give it over to any club either.

Thankfully in the three clubs of which I'm a member, we've never had to make any claims and I hope it stays that way. But in the event of an incident similar to the one which prompted my OP, where do we stand?

Pull&bang ill quote this verbatim from the n.a.r.g.c booklet on the compensation fund;

"Protection applies to landowners who permit{ verbally or in writing}, clubs and /or fund members to gain access to their property for the purpose of engaging in their sporting activity . This protection applies where a fund member might in some way himself become injured on a landowners property and he blames the landowner for this. It also applies however if the fund member injures someone else and the landowner is deemed to be somehow implicated".

pullandbang

foxshooter243 wrote: »

Pull&bang ill quote this verbatim from the n.a.r.g.c booklet on the compensation fund;

"Protection applies to landowners who permit{ verbally or in writing}, clubs and /or fund members to gain access to their property for the purpose of engaging in their sporting activity . This protection applies where a fund member might in some way himself become injured on a landowners property and he blames the landowner for this. It also applies however if the fund member injures someone else and the landowner is deemed to be somehow implicated".

The sticky bit IMO - landowners who permit{ verbally or in writing},

Another post in hunting referred to a person shooting pigeons going to and from a wood. He doesn't have permission to enter the wood but may have to pick up wounded or dead birds from it. Where does he stand if he has an accident in the wood?

I could see lawyers rubbing their grubby little paws in glee at this sort of thing:mad:

pullandbang

At last we got to the bottom of the controversy.

In the final analysis we're sticking with the NARGC.
They offer the best value and have not let anyone down.
Most of the heresay about them not paying out was exactly that - BULLSH!T.

So we'll be staying with them for the forseeable future!:)