General Discussion

TomSlick

(13,090 posts)

22. Insurance law is one of my areas.

Sun Oct 8, 2017, 10:50 PM

Oct 2017

Policies generally don't cover intentional acts. There are nuanced issues like when an intentional act causes unintended consequences. For example, the Arkansas courts would find coverage for a guy firing a "warning shot" that "accidentally" hit someone. However, a guy in an hotel window shooting people down below is engaged in an intentional act with intentional consequences - no coverage.

I can't imagine an insurance company writing a policy that covered intentionally shooting people - at least not with the kind of coverage limits that would be sufficient. Try this mental experiment: Let's say that the Las Vegas shooter had been a multi-billionaire. If all the victims of the shooting (or their estates) filed suit against the shooter's estate, what would be the total damages? There is no insurer that would write a policy sufficient to cover the damages.

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