So that talking point about gun liability insurance not insuring illegal acts...

[petronius]

10. It seems that intentionality would be a key piece

When you* drive drunk and smash into someone, it's still an accident - you didn't expect or intend to cause any injury. But when you purposely drive into someone, it's a deliberate act and you intend the outcome. I can easily see insurance paying out in the former but not the latter.

Likewise with firearms, if you have an accidental/negligent discharge in the house, even if you're behaving like an irresponsible ass at the time, I wouldn't be surprised if your homeowners insurance covered the damage. But if you lean over the back wall and murder your neighbor, I doubt your insurance will pay.

So, given that the costs of violence (including that involving firearms) are generally due to intentional rather than negligent acts, it seems unlikely to me that normal insurance policies would cover much of them.

If you intend a new kind of insurance policy, in which the insurer was required to cover the costs of intentional damage caused by the insured, I suspect you'd have a long, hard, fight with the insurance industry...

* "You" in the generalized anonymous sense, not you personally!