Liability Insurance For Gun Ownership [on topic]

[turtlespeed 219]

SkyDekker

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.

***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.

Jimmy the Greek insurance company LTD.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[champu 1]

If my (as yet hypothetical) son stole my firearms and shot up a school, I would have committed a crime. So, no, I would very likely not be able to get liability insurance against that.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

If my (as yet hypothetical) son stole my firearms and shot up a school, I would have committed a crime.

In your hypothetical situation, I am sure, since you'll move the goal posts until it fits your hypothesis. In every situation? Not at all.

Anyways, in the end it all depends on how the policy is written. There rae plenty scenarios in which liability insurance could come into play, all depending on the policy.

If you want to keep coming up with hypothetical situations in which insurance would be impossible, well enjoy your mental masturbation.

[rushmc 23]

lawrocket

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.

Well stated

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,026]

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 which case the premiums should be "extremely low" too, and there is no reason not to get coverage.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,989]

>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%.

As I understand it, subrogation is a way to determine levels of financial responsibility between insurance companies. Since those decisions do not have the force of law, and are just mutual agreements between two companies, it is a much easier/faster/cheaper process, and is often preferable to both companies to a court case.

I'd expect that if there was an actual court case then subrogation would be based on that outcome rather than internal discussions - provided the case covered both insureds.

Let's take an example. Drunk guy is home with his buddies drinking. A "local youth" comes along with a crowbar and pounds on his door with it. The guy takes his gun and fires six rounds through the door. The first one strikes him. The last one hits the six year old neighbor's kid in the arm, who was in their yard to see what all the noise was.

Lawsuits and court cases ensue. The youth claims he did not intend to rob the house, he just wanted to get his help opening a locked door. The guy claims the youth shouted "let me in or I will kill you!" His best friend agrees, the other people at the party don't remember hearing that. The youth sues the guy, the guy talks to the DA and the DA goes after the youth for attempted robbery.

If the youth is convicted, then it becomes easier. But let's say the jury is uncertain so he goes free. And the youth's lawsuit fails as well; his actions resulted in his injuries.

Now the parents of the six year old goes after the shooter for medical bills. This can be done through the courts, or through subrogation. The insurance companies involved (gun insurance, health insurance) may decide to pay out X based on the facts that firing six rounds through a door while you are drunk - and striking a six year old - will be seen as somewhat irresponsible by a jury. (And they think the argument "the child was trespassing" won't get much traction.) And thus the gun insurance company may decide to pay out 90% and the health insurance company 10%, both to avoid the costs of a court case.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Not sure how things are in the US, but in Canada fault determination with regards to insurance is seperate from legal fault determination.

For instance with regards to car insurance, just because you didn't get a ticket, or only the other party got a ticket, doesn't mean your insurance company will not assign blame or partial blame to your policy.

As an example, parking lot accident tend to be adjucated at 50/50 between both parties, regardless of how the actual accident happened. (yes there are exceptions)

[turtlespeed 219]

SkyDekker

Not sure how things are in the US, but in Canada fault determination with regards to insurance is seperate from legal fault determination.

For instance with regards to car insurance, just because you didn't get a ticket, or only the other party got a ticket, doesn't mean your insurance company will not assign blame or partial blame to your policy.

As an example, parking lot accident tend to be adjucated at 50/50 between both parties, regardless of how the actual accident happened. (yes there are exceptions)

That's pretty stupid.

Unless the fault you bear is because you didn't have to park in a place where the other car could potentially run into you. Assumed risk?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[kallend 2,026]

OK,
(1.) if gun ownership is so safe why is it hard to get liability insurance (assuming that the statements in this thread are correct). Surely insurers would want the business.

(2.) I can't imagine why anyone with any assets at all would want to be in a position that a lawsuit would bankrupt them. I don't have any possessions that can potentially kill or injure another party that I have not insured against liability.

(3.) Not having liability insurance is just plain irresponsible.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

That's pretty stupid.

Not really. The Highway Traffic Act doesn't apply on private property. Hence most accidents in parking lots have no person at fault under that act. Only at fault options are criminal or civil.

However the Insurance companies still have to assign blame, which typically is done at 50/50 in those cases.

[billvon 2,989]

>That's pretty stupid.

But cheaper for all involved - and in parking lot accidents the totals are generally pretty low, so generally not worth the additional aggravation of any kind of decision process.

A similar process would likely be applied to gun liability insurance.

[champu 1]

kallend

OK,
(1.) if gun ownership is so safe why is it hard to get liability insurance (assuming that the statements in this thread are correct). Surely insurers would want the business.

(2.) I can't imagine why anyone with any assets at all would want to be in a position that a lawsuit would bankrupt them. I don't have any possessions that can potentially kill or injure another party that I have not insured against liability.

(3.) Not having liability insurance is just plain irresponsible.

(1) You can buy insurance, it just doesn't cover the things the author of the bill wants it to. One of the stated goals is to mandate the insurance and then let insurance companies mandate behaviors as a pre-requisite for coverage. But if the behavior is already illegal this makes no sense.

(2) Having insurance for self-defense cases, especially if you have a CCW permit and carry regularly, is a good idea. That's not an argument supporting an insurance mandate in order to own a firearm.

(3) Having liability insurance doesn't make you more responsible.

[kallend 2,026]

champu

(3) Having liability insurance doesn't make you more responsible.

Yes it does. It means that if you accidentally hurt someone they can receive fair compensation for their injuries, which is the responsible way to behave towards others.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[cvfd1399 0]

So like every DZ in America is operating like that.

[champu 1]

kallend

***

(3) Having liability insurance doesn't make you more responsible.

Yes it does. It means that if you accidentally hurt someone they can receive fair compensation for their injuries, which is the responsible way to behave towards others.

Not accidentally shooting people is the responsible way to behave towards others. Making sure everyone can be sued at all times and get a settlement paid out of it is another matter.

[kallend 2,026]

champu

******

(3) Having liability insurance doesn't make you more responsible.

Yes it does. It means that if you accidentally hurt someone they can receive fair compensation for their injuries, which is the responsible way to behave towards others.

Not accidentally shooting people is the responsible way to behave towards others. Making sure everyone can be sued at all times and get a settlement paid out of it is another matter.

Same can be said of driving, yet RESPONSIBLE drivers have liability insurance.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Hjeada 0]

kallend

*********

(3) Having liability insurance doesn't make you more responsible.

Yes it does. It means that if you accidentally hurt someone they can receive fair compensation for their injuries, which is the responsible way to behave towards others.

Not accidentally shooting people is the responsible way to behave towards others. Making sure everyone can be sued at all times and get a settlement paid out of it is another matter.

Same can be said of driving, yet RESPONSIBLE drivers have liability insurance.

There are many many irresponsible drivers that have liability insurance...being insured doesn't mean someone is going to act responsibly, it just means that if they fuck up they have some insurance to help cover them.

Dudeist Skydiver #0511

[Hjeada 0]

kallend

(2.) I can't imagine why anyone with any assets at all would want to be in a position that a lawsuit would bankrupt them. I don't have any possessions that can potentially kill or injure another party that I have not insured against liability.

Really? You have liability insurance on your parachutes?

Dudeist Skydiver #0511

[kallend 2,026]

Hjeada

***
(2.) I can't imagine why anyone with any assets at all would want to be in a position that a lawsuit would bankrupt them. I don't have any possessions that can potentially kill or injure another party that I have not insured against liability.

Really? You have liability insurance on your parachutes?

I have liability insurance against injuring someone when using my parachutes. When put away in my basement they are covered by my homeowners policy should they decide to go rogue and kill someone on their own.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,026]

Hjeada

************

(3) Having liability insurance doesn't make you more responsible.

Yes it does. It means that if you accidentally hurt someone they can receive fair compensation for their injuries, which is the responsible way to behave towards others.

Not accidentally shooting people is the responsible way to behave towards others. Making sure everyone can be sued at all times and get a settlement paid out of it is another matter.

Same can be said of driving, yet RESPONSIBLE drivers have liability insurance.

There are many many irresponsible drivers that have liability insurance...being insured doesn't mean someone is going to act responsibly, it just means that if they fuck up they have some insurance to help cover them.

Which is, ipso facto, being responsible.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

I have liability insurance against injuring someone when using my parachutes. When put away in my basement they are covered by my homeowners policy should they decide to go rogue and kill someone on their own.

Nope - that would be a miracle! Which in turn, would be an Act of God, which is usually an express exclusion in most homeowner's policies.

[Hjeada 0]

kallend

***************

(3) Having liability insurance doesn't make you more responsible.

Yes it does. It means that if you accidentally hurt someone they can receive fair compensation for their injuries, which is the responsible way to behave towards others.

Not accidentally shooting people is the responsible way to behave towards others. Making sure everyone can be sued at all times and get a settlement paid out of it is another matter.

Same can be said of driving, yet RESPONSIBLE drivers have liability insurance.

There are many many irresponsible drivers that have liability insurance...being insured doesn't mean someone is going to act responsibly, it just means that if they fuck up they have some insurance to help cover them.

Which is, ipso facto, being responsible.

No it doesn't...an insured driver can drive drunk, or at 120mph, or recklessly swerve in and out of traffic. The fact that they have insurance does not mean they are responsible. Insurance != responsibility. Your logic holds that financial compensation is an adequate level of 'responsibility' in your world. You know, if a drunk driver puts someone in the hospital (or grave), as long as they get some $'s, then they were a responsible driver.

Dudeist Skydiver #0511

[billvon 2,989]

>No it doesn't...an insured driver can drive drunk, or at 120mph, or recklessly swerve
>in and out of traffic.

Correct, he can. That would mean a claim on his insurance, so his rates would rise. Most insurance companies have a "good driver" discount, which means lower rates for not speeding or swerving. Thus there are two additional financial incentives for him to not do those things. Some insurance companies give you a lower rate if you install a tracker on your car that monitors speed. That is a third incentive. Thus incentives are provided to act responsibly.

In the gun insurance example, a gun insurance company would be likely to offer lower rates to a gun owner who took a gun safety class, or used trigger locks, or had a gun safe. All the above will be incentives for a gun owner to behave more responsibly.

[rushmc 23]

billvon

> All the above will be incentives for a gun owner to behave more responsibly.

Actually, the goal would be so a few people coudl define for everyone else what being responcible, is.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,989]

>Actually, the goal would be so a few people coudl define for everyone else what
>being responcible, is.

Which is pretty much what insurance is - whether car, medical or gun. They define "more responsible" as "fewer claims" which translates to accidentally shooting fewer people, or fewer expensive things. Not a bad definition all things considered.