Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)
 

slackmaster

(60,567 posts)
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 04:16 PM Apr 2013

Gun Liability Insurance Bills Aren’t the Answer, Says Insurance Industry [View all]

Presented for general discussion in General Discussion:

Congress appears ready to take up gun control legislation for the first time in years, with proposals under consideration focusing on background checks, straw purchases and money for school safety.

If the debate stays on those issues, the insurance industry will be mostly on the sidelines but if any bills requiring that gun owners carry liability insurance start to move, the industry’s lobbyists can be expected to spring into action....

...One gun insurance bill has been filed in the House. Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney, D-N.Y., has filed the Firearms Risk Protection Act of 2013 (HR 1369), which would require gun owners to purchase liability coverage and to show proof of that coverage when they purchase a firearm....

...“Liability coverage is designed to protect against accidental damages, most of which involving guns would be covered under a homeowner’s insurance policy. While some policies may provide coverage for liability stemming from the intentional use of a firearm for defensive purposes, no liability insurance product covers intentional acts of malicious violence, whether committed with a gun, a car, or any other instrument that is used as a weapon to deliberately harm people,” said Grande. “It is inconceivable that any insurer would offer such coverage, either as part of a homeowners or renters policy or on a stand-alone basis....”


Please see the rest of the copyrighted article at http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2013/04/10/287849.htm#

There is much more in the copyrighted article on the Insurance Journal's online edition, including mention of how companies would determine premiums. Generally, policyholders who are found through actuary data to be at higher risk of accidental damage pay higher premiums, and people who are at lower risk pay lower premiums. To me the most compelling point made in the article and some of the comments are that no company is going to cover damage caused by gross willful or criminal misconduct; and that standard homeowner's and renter's policies already cover damage from genuine accidents. In fact a large percentage of people who own guns already have some liability coverage.

76 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
guns in the house should make that owner a high-risk and should be billed accordingly leftyohiolib Apr 2013 #1
If a gun in the house actually made the homeowner a high risk, the insurance industry would already slackmaster Apr 2013 #2
The actuary tables say otherwise hack89 Apr 2013 #5
And this shows up where on the actuarial tables? JVS Apr 2013 #6
An interesting assumption on your part... Lizzie Poppet Apr 2013 #11
How would your insurance company know if you had guns ? rickford66 Apr 2013 #30
they ask if and rely on your honesty and if your house burns down and the finds guns in your home leftyohiolib Apr 2013 #34
I told my agent that I have firearms, and asked if they were covered against fire and theft. slackmaster Apr 2013 #44
I thought the discussion was rickford66 Apr 2013 #53
A retired actuary told me that any risk posed by a person simply owning a gun is so small... slackmaster Apr 2013 #54
Of course they would say that.. Those policies would demand lots of payouts SoCalDem Apr 2013 #3
A large number of people who own guns already have liability policies that pay out for consequences slackmaster Apr 2013 #4
It's not the payout -- it's the predictability kudzu22 Apr 2013 #8
That was "sort of " my point SoCalDem Apr 2013 #9
Of course that would pose a major burden on poorer people ... spin Apr 2013 #13
Why don't you go ask a agent if they offer that policy. oneshooter Apr 2013 #15
I understand what you're trying to get at kudzu22 Apr 2013 #32
Then how do insurers cover theft? Robb Apr 2013 #10
Theft insurance works by compensating the INSURED PARTY for the loss. slackmaster Apr 2013 #12
Can I not carry theft insurance, and name a third party as a beneficiary? Robb Apr 2013 #17
Sure, but it won't pay out if you or the beneficiary are the one who commits a theft. slackmaster Apr 2013 #18
Could I also pay to insure a third party? Robb Apr 2013 #19
Yes. slackmaster Apr 2013 #20
Don't insure the gun owners, insure everyone else. Robb Apr 2013 #22
That's ridiculous. Why should anyone be held responsible for the misdeeds of someone else? slackmaster Apr 2013 #23
Why do I pay for roads I do not drive on? Schools I don't attend? Robb Apr 2013 #27
The same reason I do. slackmaster Apr 2013 #40
Not everyone pays the same amount, however. Robb Apr 2013 #46
I pay more than most people do slackmaster Apr 2013 #49
It's done with auto insurance. magellan Apr 2013 #29
Well then, maybe the individuals who commit insurance fraud should be prosecuted. slackmaster Apr 2013 #38
They are, when caught magellan Apr 2013 #55
So you think people who pay for liability insurance should share the cost of fraudulent liability... slackmaster Apr 2013 #58
Are you being deliberately obtuse? magellan Apr 2013 #59
No insurance policy pays out for damage caused by the insured party's willful, unlawful acts. slackmaster Apr 2013 #60
Insurance fraud is not the issue magellan Apr 2013 #61
Correct. There is no additional premium for a homeowner who owns a gun. Nor does any... slackmaster Apr 2013 #63
Maybe I'm not being clear magellan Apr 2013 #66
I think that's a somewhat inaccurate framing: policy-holders aren't being petronius Apr 2013 #69
One could say responsible gun owners are victims magellan Apr 2013 #70
The difference, though, is that in the gun-insurance scheme the victimization petronius Apr 2013 #71
Fraud and waste contribute to the cost of everything we pay for, including government slackmaster Apr 2013 #73
Who do you think is already paying for the medical care of gun shot victims? PA Democrat Apr 2013 #33
Everyone pays for that. We all share the burden through our taxes. slackmaster Apr 2013 #37
Really? Where do I sign up to have the government pay my health insurance premiums PA Democrat Apr 2013 #42
Most gunshot victims are poor and don't have health insurance. slackmaster Apr 2013 #43
Wrong. When hospitals don't get paid for treating an uninsured gunshot victim PA Democrat Apr 2013 #45
The Affordable Care Act will ensure that everyone pays a fair share slackmaster Apr 2013 #48
Hopefully, it will help. But my point was that it is NOT the case PA Democrat Apr 2013 #56
Yes you can, and name yourself as beneficiary. That way you can be just like Wall Mart! oneshooter Apr 2013 #21
A criminal act by a third party, not the insured. X_Digger Apr 2013 #14
Theft is not an act by the policy owner kudzu22 Apr 2013 #31
As opposed to those gamblers who prefer to offer bets where the odds are against them? Donald Ian Rankin Apr 2013 #57
It makes sense. bluedigger Apr 2013 #7
Of course no insurance will cover intentional acts. X_Digger Apr 2013 #16
If this doesn't make sense, think of car insurance. JVS Apr 2013 #24
Wanna put millions of dollars into NRA coffers? cherokeeprogressive Apr 2013 #25
The insurance companies don't want to pay for the next rampage liberal N proud Apr 2013 #26
RTFA - No insurer is ever going to cover for willful criminal acts slackmaster Apr 2013 #36
Full reinterpretation 2nd, then after NO guns/bullets in hands of private citizens graham4anything Apr 2013 #28
If you don't trust "private citizens" with firearms, why do you trust government employees? slackmaster Apr 2013 #35
They are needed to stop anarchy,vigilantism(Zimmermans)chaos and crime. graham4anything Apr 2013 #39
I take care of myself when I am in trouble. Police usually manage only to clean up the mess. slackmaster Apr 2013 #41
That is what Zimmerman said, and he killed the man who might have cured cancer next year graham4anything Apr 2013 #50
...or become the next Adolf Hitler. slackmaster Apr 2013 #51
This post was alerted on. The jury voted 5/1 to let it stand! ohiosmith Apr 2013 #62
Smart jury. At least most of them. It was an absurd hyperbolic response to absurd hyperbole. slackmaster Apr 2013 #64
Juror number one! ohiosmith Apr 2013 #65
You are not satire. You are one of the NRA gungeon denizens with NRA soundbytes. graham4anything Apr 2013 #68
Besides being gramatically challenged, your post intentionally mischaracterizes my views on... slackmaster Apr 2013 #72
No, actually I am not. But you can explain your position. graham4anything Apr 2013 #74
Everyone is free to use the search feature for my comments on the Zimmerman case slackmaster Apr 2013 #75
I stand by my view on it. The call to police meant his life was not threatened graham4anything Apr 2013 #76
"After all, when you are in trouble, who do you call? CokeMachine Apr 2013 #47
"to stop anarchy" Union Scribe Apr 2013 #67
I'm all for insurance Politicalboi Apr 2013 #52
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Gun Liability Insurance B...