Liability Insurance For Gun Ownership [on topic]

[champu 1]

There are a few news articles out there about this proposed bill:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2546

I tried to find one that's not too over the top:
http://www.ibamag.com/news/house-bill-to-require-gun-owners-to-carry-liability-insurance-22716.aspx

The "on-topic-ness" I'm going for here is, while this is an idea I think you hear from time to time, how would this ever work in practice? Or would this be mandatory insurance that is virtually guaranteed to never pay out a claim? (maybe I should get in on the ground floor )

Were you committing a crime against someone? Oh, well that's out of policy. Was it an accident where someone was injured or property was damaged? That's clearly gross negligence, and is out of policy. Did you or a family member commit suicide? That's definitely out of policy. You used your firearm legally to defend yourself but one of your shots missed the target and hit a parked car owned by a third party? In that case, you're in luck! We cover that.... oh, wait you didn't meet the deductible, never mind.

[lawrocket 3]

Require insurance for guns. But there are no insurers out there.

Kinda odd. Voting is a right. Just like bearing a firearm. Poll taxes were found to be unconstitutional as a restraint of a right. I would hhink the same would apply here.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[champu 1]

To be clear, I don't think this will pass let alone survive a trip to SCOTUS, so I'm not particularly worried about it.

As you point out though, the type of insurance this appears to be trying to mandate doesn't really exist. You can purchase insurance as a firearm owner to cover legal defense costs if you use your gun defensively, but that's quite a bit different, and certainly not what people have in mind with firearm insurance mandates.

For those who may have thrown firearms insurance mandates out there in passing in some of the gun arguments around here, am I missing something? What would the policy look like?

[Furiosa 0]

It's not about providing insurance pay-outs to wrongly injured victims.

It's about making gun ownership more difficult and expensive, in order to discourage it.

[1969912 0]

Furiosa

It's not about providing insurance pay-outs to wrongly injured victims.

It's about making gun ownership more difficult and expensive, in order to discourage it.

Yup.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[headoverheels 333]

lawrocket

Require insurance for guns. But there are no insurers out there.

http://www.locktonaffinity.com/nrains/defense.htm

[champu 1]

As I said in post #3, there is insurance available but it's there to provide legal defense for the gun owner if you didn't do anything wrong. For example if the person who breaks into your house sues you for shooting them or you have a DA trying to make a name for the self by being tough on guns.

Requiring insurance doesn't make sense if you've already made everything you say you want the required insurance to cover illegal.

[D22369 0]

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/

This is who I am insured by - Quite inexpensive and worth the peace of mind if/when I ever need it.

Roy

They say I suffer from insanity.... But I actually enjoy it.

[Boomerdog 0]

Looking at the sponsor of the bill, it makes perfect sense. The bill won't even make it out of committee.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

champu

To be clear, I don't think this will pass let alone survive a trip to SCOTUS, so I'm not particularly worried about it.

As you point out though, the type of insurance this appears to be trying to mandate doesn't really exist. You can purchase insurance as a firearm owner to cover legal defense costs if you use your gun defensively, but that's quite a bit different, and certainly not what people have in mind with firearm insurance mandates.

For those who may have thrown firearms insurance mandates out there in passing in some of the gun arguments around here, am I missing something? What would the policy look like?

Sandy Hook would have been quite the claim under such a policy.

I can see some uses for it, though not sure it really accomplishes anything. This "argument" usually comes up when the somewhat idiotic comparison of guns and cars happens.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

What would the policy look like?

http://www.byegoff.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/insurance-policy.jpg

[Furiosa 0]

SkyDekker

Sandy Hook would have been quite the claim under such a policy.

It would have been no claim at all, since insurance policies don't cover intentional criminal acts.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Furiosa

***Sandy Hook would have been quite the claim under such a policy.

It would have been no claim at all, since insurance policies don't cover intentional criminal acts.

Of the policy holder.

The perpetrator of Sandy Hook would not have been the policy holder.

[Furiosa 0]

SkyDekker

******Sandy Hook would have been quite the claim under such a policy.

It would have been no claim at all, since insurance policies don't cover intentional criminal acts.

Of the policy holder.

The perpetrator of Sandy Hook would not have been the policy holder.

What other gun owner's liability policy do you think would cover those claims?

This is all kind of silly anyway. A thug with a gun he obtained on the street isn't going to bother buying liability insurance for his untraceable gun, to pay compensation for his robbery victims.

[Andy9o8 2]

Furiosa

***Sandy Hook would have been quite the claim under such a policy.

It would have been no claim at all, since insurance policies don't cover intentional criminal acts.

Just "intentional acts", Big Guy, regardless of whether or not legally defined as criminal.

[Andy9o8 2]

SkyDekker

******Sandy Hook would have been quite the claim under such a policy.

It would have been no claim at all, since insurance policies don't cover intentional criminal acts.

Of the policy holder.

The perpetrator of Sandy Hook would not have been the policy holder.

You mean because the guns were owned only by his mom. Well, maybe, maybe not. It would depend on how the policy, and its exclusions, would be worded. But even if he wouldn't have been a "named insured" (i.e., the actual policyholder), he might still have been a "defined insured" - thus precluding coverage - given the fact that he lived in the same household and the mom (the hypothetical policyholder) allowed him access to the guns. It would definitely be a coverage issue that would have to be battled out in court.

[champu 1]

And, as we've discussed before most people in the US live in jurisdictions with storage laws that would likely preclude coverage if a child gets a gun without permission and something bad happens.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

You mean because the guns were owned only by his mom. Well, maybe, maybe not. It would depend on how the policy, and its exclusions, would be worded. But even if he wouldn't have been a "named insured" (i.e., the actual policyholder), he might still have been a "defined insured" - thus precluding coverage - given the fact that he lived in the same household and the mom (the hypothetical policyholder) allowed him access to the guns. It would definitely be a coverage issue that would have to be battled out in court.

Like I said...it would have been quite the claim.

Insurance companies routinely dispute coverage, that doesn't mean insurance is therefor useless, which is what the argument seems to be earlier in the thread.

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

You used your firearm legally to defend yourself but one of your shots missed the target and hit a parked car owned by a third party? In that case, you're in luck! We cover that.... oh, wait you didn't meet the deductible, never mind.

About the only way this bill would make sense is it would help if that errant bullet in a self-defense situation struck a bystander outside and he needed help covering his medical bills.

However, the person defending himself shouldn't be the one paying the bills. The person committing the crime is supposed to be responsible for all the bad that happens.

In a way, you would be making the victim a victim yet again in the court of law. Some people would say "that just isn't right."

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[billvon 2,991]

>However, the person defending himself shouldn't be the one paying the bills. The
>person committing the crime is supposed to be responsible for all the bad that happens.

That's what subrogation is for - determination of which insurance covers what. The same sort of thing happens in car accidents.

"Car A hit Car C and caused $5000 of damage."
"But Car B caused the accident!"
"OK. Car B's insurance pays 70% and Car A's insurance pays 30%."

[champu 1]

jgoose71

About the only way this bill would make sense is it would help if that errant bullet in a self-defense situation struck a bystander outside and he needed help covering his medical bills.

Unfortunately, the signal-to-noise of firearm statistics on the internet is extremely poor, and the data cited in the articles I have found are quite old, but it would seem the prevalence of non-LEO people making justified defensive shoots and inadvertently hitting bystanders is extremely low. (In one six-year data set for Miami-Dade that was mentioned there were zero occurances.)

I'd still be interested to hear of more hypothetical situations where people feel liability insurance would actually cover the incident.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

champu

***About the only way this bill would make sense is it would help if that errant bullet in a self-defense situation struck a bystander outside and he needed help covering his medical bills.

Unfortunately, the signal-to-noise of firearm statistics on the internet is extremely poor, and the data cited in the articles I have found are quite old, but it would seem the prevalence of non-LEO people making justified defensive shoots and inadvertently hitting bystanders is extremely low. (In one six-year data set for Miami-Dade that was mentioned there were zero occurances.)

I'd still be interested to hear of more hypothetical situations where people feel liability insurance would actually cover the incident.

You are asking an impossible question. It all depends on how the policy is worded. You can buy insurance against anything and everything.

[champu 1]

SkyDekker

You are asking an impossible question. It all depends on how the policy is worded. You can buy insurance against anything and everything.

Your first sentence may very well be true, that's what I'm hoping to determine. The second and third are nonsense. There are plenty of things you absolutely can't buy insurance for and that you will never be able to buy insurance for. e.g. no one will ever insure armed robbery or assault with a deadly weapon.

The proposed law is to mandate that a person must show proof of "adequate" liability insurance before they are allowed to own a firearm.

My challenge is to come up with situations that would be covered by "adequate firearms liability insurance" that you can say with a straight face, "yes, an insurance company in their right mind would ever offer a policy that didn't exclude that."

[jgoose71 0]

billvon

>However, the person defending himself shouldn't be the one paying the bills. The
>person committing the crime is supposed to be responsible for all the bad that happens.

That's what subrogation is for - determination of which insurance covers what. The same sort of thing happens in car accidents.

"Car A hit Car C and caused $5000 of damage."
"But Car B caused the accident!"
"OK. Car B's insurance pays 70% and Car A's insurance pays 30%."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but, usually when a judge does that, it has a lot to do with assigning blame. Car B did this, so they are responsible for 70%, Car A did this, so they are responsible for 30%.

I would argue that if someone breaks into your house and robs and assaults you, they are 100% responsible. To say anything less would be to slowly move back to the days in California where people who hurt themselves robbing a house would turn around and sue the homeowner.

The victims of these crimes should not be victimized again. A person should not fear protecting himself or his family.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

The second and third are nonsense. There are plenty of things you absolutely can't buy insurance for and that you will never be able to buy insurance for. e.g. no one will ever insure armed robbery or assault with a deadly weapon.

You can't insure illegal activity no. But you can insure yourself against illegal activity. The Lloyd's insurance market is quite famous for underwriting all kinds of unusual insurance policies.

Can you obtain insurance against your son stealing your firearms and shooting up an elementary school. You absolutely could, the question is if you can afford the premium.

Quote

yes, an insurance company in their right mind would ever offer a policy that didn't exclude that.

Again, all depends on the premiums charged. Insurance and oddsmaking are pretty similar.