General Discussion

NutmegYankee

(16,484 posts)

15. The Connecticut legislature held hearings on this after Sandy Hook.

Sun Oct 8, 2017, 10:07 PM

Oct 2017

It isn't bullshit - your drunk driving example may open you up to tort liability and legal ramifications, but you didn't intentionally crash the car. So an insurer will still be required to cover the damage.

This was the bill that died after public hearings. The insurance industry said they wouldn't offer such a product, so the state would be forced to offer it like flood insurance. https://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=HB6656&which_year=2013

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

71 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

So that talking point about gun liability insurance not insuring illegal acts... [View all] better Oct 2017 OP

Well, your car insurance would not likely cover you for things that happen... TreasonousBastard Oct 2017 #1

Insurance will cover what ever insurance companies decide it will cover hack89 Oct 2017 #2

I love the idea tymorial Oct 2017 #3

Yeah, taxing a right. Not exactly a liberal idea GulfCoast66 Oct 2017 #4

Licenses are required in some states tymorial Oct 2017 #8

Washington state? ClarendonDem Oct 2017 #11

I pay sales tax on everything I buy. GulfCoast66 Oct 2017 #14

Seattle has an extra tax on ammunition and firearms sales ClarendonDem Oct 2017 #61

Imagine a tax on abortion FBaggins Oct 2017 #28

False equivalency nt tymorial Oct 2017 #40

Please expound on this... GulfCoast66 Oct 2017 #42

There is no right to own guns...and a future court will change that ruling...the idea that militia Demsrule86 Oct 2017 #48

Right now Heller is the law of the land per the Supreme Court NickB79 Oct 2017 #55

I don't have a crystal ball, but I believe it will change...the militia argument was always bullshit Demsrule86 Oct 2017 #71

You are incorrect GulfCoast66 Oct 2017 #69

There is no such right and when sanity returns...the militia argument will be discarded as Dredd Demsrule86 Oct 2017 #70

Women would still seek alternatives - another state, Ilsa Oct 2017 #58

For over 200 years it was not an individual right. safeinOhio Oct 2017 #25

Incorrect GulfCoast66 Oct 2017 #45

"Supports the individual right" safeinOhio Oct 2017 #46

I don't agree and with these sort of shootings...it will be less and less. Demsrule86 Oct 2017 #49

That's not historically accurate ClarendonDem Oct 2017 #59

You all make good points. Thanks for that! better Oct 2017 #5

The difference is sarisataka Oct 2017 #6

It still seems to me better Oct 2017 #9

They would be very willing to cover gun owners sarisataka Oct 2017 #16

And crimes committed with stolen guns? krispos42 Oct 2017 #17

Easy peazy. If the gun is stolen there is no insurance coverage. brush Oct 2017 #24

I don't have the slightest hint of an answer to that problem yet. better Oct 2017 #26

Murder insurance, interesting idea, think of all the good that The Purge does...... Not Ruth Oct 2017 #7

It seems that intentionality would be a key piece petronius Oct 2017 #10

Let me start by saying... better Oct 2017 #18

If criminals could cover their victims' injuries, the mob and corner boys would love it. X_Digger Oct 2017 #12

Take it one step further... Sancho Oct 2017 #13

That's not the case at all Lee-Lee Oct 2017 #53

If you had a required license...and insurance similar to auto (with no fault; medical, etc.) Sancho Oct 2017 #54

Simply proposing many of these "solutions" ClarendonDem Oct 2017 #62

Just think about it...make it harder for dangerous people to easily get guns. Sancho Oct 2017 #64

Just a couple of quick follows ups ClarendonDem Oct 2017 #65

The Connecticut legislature held hearings on this after Sandy Hook. NutmegYankee Oct 2017 #15

Thanks for the education on that! better Oct 2017 #20

You've used the wrong parallel Sailor65x1 Oct 2017 #19

I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this... better Oct 2017 #23

The insurance NRA offers is voided upon conviction or pleading guilty Kaleva Oct 2017 #21

Insurance law is one of my areas. TomSlick Oct 2017 #22

Make that a campaign issue, 2018, 2020 and see how that works out for us. nt Purveyor Oct 2017 #27

It won't work for us. Demsrule86 Oct 2017 #50

$50K in expenses causes $500M in economic damage exboyfil Oct 2017 #29

Great Thread! But what if the shooter has brain damage that prevents "intent" as defined by the... JoeOtterbein Oct 2017 #30

Its black letter law that you cannot insure intentional acts hardluck Oct 2017 #31

Even if the act is by an adjudicated mentally ill person? JoeOtterbein Oct 2017 #32

Yup hardluck Oct 2017 #33

Or, if a person can be found incompetent because of mental impairment then why can't their JoeOtterbein Oct 2017 #34

Ill give you an answer when I have access to my computer hardluck Oct 2017 #35

Thanks, you have been very generous already! I hope you understand I'm just trying to find a way for JoeOtterbein Oct 2017 #36

Totally get it and happy to help hardluck Oct 2017 #37

Thanks again. Take your time. We are all learning more from your posts. JoeOtterbein Oct 2017 #38

And what if the POTUS said that the guy in the car crash was a "sick and demented man"? JoeOtterbein Oct 2017 #39

Please excuse my layman's knowledge of the law, but can you clarify for me... better Oct 2017 #41

The California Code does not come from Moses on a mountain, you know jberryhill Oct 2017 #51

Thank you for the edification hardluck Oct 2017 #68

Insurance should be pretty cheap if you base it on car style policies. ileus Oct 2017 #43

Personally, I would raise the in loco parentis age Nevernose Oct 2017 #44

Cool so some 17 year old takes your baseball bat and assaults another person with jmg257 Oct 2017 #60

Clearly you dont need a gun at all Nevernose Oct 2017 #63

Of course I don't need a gun at all. And you are also right...people shouldn't just leave their guns jmg257 Oct 2017 #67

But if you kill someone while driving drunk or a dependent does...there will be no coverage as it is Demsrule86 Oct 2017 #47

Even if you get them to somehow cover intentional acts you are still Lee-Lee Oct 2017 #52

This is a desperate backdoor way of trying to get past Cosmocat Oct 2017 #56

At the very least they should have it for accidental treestar Oct 2017 #57

They are actually less common Lee-Lee Oct 2017 #66