Gun liability insurance- optional, mandatory, pros and cons?

This is a discussion on Gun liability insurance- optional, mandatory, pros and cons? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; The problem with insurance is that it tends to suffer from "adverse selection" bias and convey a "moral hazard" upon the insured. Simply, insurance tends ...

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 36
Like Tree13Likes

Thread: Gun liability insurance- optional, mandatory, pros and cons?

  1. #16
    Senior Member
    Array bombthrower77's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    527
    The problem with insurance is that it tends to suffer from "adverse selection" bias and convey a "moral hazard" upon the insured. Simply, insurance tends to attract those who are likely to use it and being insured tends to make the insured less careful. This is why premiums always tend to rise. I don't see how the OP's proposal would play out except for making legal gun ownership extremely expensive. If I am going to be "accidental" I best not be fiddling with a gun in the first place.
    Clodbert, BelaOkmyx and Hoganbeg like this.
    "There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." ~ P. J. O'Rourke

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #17
    VIP Member
    Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    S. Florida, north of the Miami mess, south of the Mouse trap
    Posts
    15,735
    The easiest way to deal with gun liability is to not have guns. There--problem solved at no costs to you.

    Protect your life, or don't.
    Retired USAF E-8. Remember: You're being watched!
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... "For What It's Worth" Buffalo Springfield

  4. #18
    New Member Array VAPawPaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Virgnia
    Posts
    5
    No. I would choose to make that decision myself and not have it mandated. While insurance is a good thing to have and can be purchased through a number of companies should one decide to; just consider what happens with car insurance - even if you are an excellent driver with a clean driving record, some if not all of your premiums are dependent on the carelessness of others who just happen to live in your local area. Insurance companies are there to make money, plain and simple. They are betting they will not have to pay out a claim, but if they do they sure make certain that they do not lose their money - Why do rates increase a little every year when you have no claims against your policy, but increase a lot (surcharge) when you do have a payout?

  5. #19
    Member Array BillK01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    161
    I've been an insurance agent for 23 years. Good luck finding a company willing to bring such a policy to market at an affordable price. I just don't see it happening...ever.
    BelaOkmyx and bombthrower77 like this.

  6. #20
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,527
    The only folks who would benefit from requiring insurance would be those who sell the insurance.
    Look beneath the surface and you'll find business interests behind this, not left wing politicians.

    No legislator would propose this sort of thing if they didn't have friends in the insurance industry
    salivating at the thought of collecting all those premiums.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  7. #21
    Member Array Olduser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Fly Over Land
    Posts
    299
    Follow the dam money. Lipstick on a pig...

    But I would feel better knowing BG's are insured so that I can now recover from the harm done... /sarc
    "The only thing I'm an expert about is my experience."

  8. #22
    Member
    Array dling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    426
    Quote Originally Posted by BillK01 View Post
    I've been an insurance agent for 23 years. Good luck finding a company willing to bring such a policy to market at an affordable price. I just don't see it happening...ever.
    Can you shed some light on umbrella liability policies as to usefulness to this situation?

  9. #23
    VIP Member Array Jetfuelrm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Cape Coral Florida
    Posts
    2,167
    No not interested in insurance where they can tell me what I can do and what I cannot do, no thanks. Do we not already pay for people who have no insurance that go to hospitals etc?
    "As a strong supporter of our 2nd Amendment rights, I believe tougher enforcement of our nation's existing gun laws must be done before any more laws are enacted and put on the books."
    Jeff Miller

  10. #24
    Member Array BillK01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    161
    Quote Originally Posted by dling View Post
    Can you shed some light on umbrella liability policies as to usefulness to this situation?
    Edit: not enough coffee today. Keep in mind when reading below that generally "intentional acts" by you are excluded on most personal liability policies. So intentionally shooting a BG will most likely not be covered under any personal liability type policies. The case could be made for an accidental shooting though I'd imagine.

    I've never really looked into just how an Umbrella would work in a shooting situation as generally they simply layer over your underlying coverage and add an additional $1mm, 2mm etc layer of liability over and above your home, auto, boat, motorcycle, rental property liability limits in the event they're exhausted in a big claim. They will provide some limited additional coverage a homeowner policy does not provide such as libel, slander, defamation of character, false arrest, volunteer acts etc. When that happens and your underlying limits don't provide coverage the umbrella does then you are responsible for the deductible (or retention) amount the umbrella listed (usually a $250 to $500 deductible on personal umbrellas and $10,000 retention on commercial umbrellas). If the underlying policy provides that coverage then it's seemless and no deductible or retention would apply and your limits would move right on to your umbrella.

    So if your homeowners liability picked up coverage for a shooting incident and limited out, then the umbrella would kick in and provide up to its limit. The key thing is you must be negligent in order to be liable. I'll have to look over some of the liability forms attached to the various homeowners policies I sell to confirm if shooting type incidents are excluded or not. Normally unless a policy specifically addresses or excludes something it's going to be covered.

    All that said....if you own a home or have any assets of value to speak of you really really should have an umbrella. They're dirt cheap for what you get.

    One of the BIG things any liability policy - be it auto, home, umbrella - provides that most never consider is defense costs. Even if you're sued and the claim is later dismissed you still end up with tens of thousands of dollars (or more) in defense costs that must be paid. Having a liability policy to provide and pay for defense is huge. I'd much rather have my insurance company's $350/hr attorney defending me than a $150/hr attorney I pay for out of pocket.

    Again all this hinges on the shooting incident being accidental and not intentional. I don't think you're going to find a personal liability policy that provides coverage for intentional acts and doubt any company will ever want to offer one at the premiums mere mortals can afford.

  11. #25
    Member Array BelaOkmyx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    107
    Thanks to everyone providing the cons! The reason I like insurance companies is that actuaries are very realistic people, and their numbers will accurately reflect the real risks, and I think that would be a valuable lesson for the anti-guns too once they realize just how much safer a good guy's gun is, compared to a car, a ladder, a swimming pool etc.

    I got this idea for a discussion of cars and driving, where it was suggested that insurance companies be responsible for driver testing & training, car inspections etc. because being they're getting stuck with the bills for accidents, they have the biggest interest in making things safe on the roads and they won't be silly or arbitrary like the politicians are, they're only going to be interested in measures that actually work.

    But I see the point about moral hazard too. Even people who don't care about their fellow man don't go around smashing their cars into things because they'll lose their car and get hurt themselves, but a guy with a gun doesn't face that same personal risk when shooting. He can go try out his rifle on a field full of cows and leave the insurance company to clean up the mess. He'll go to jail too, but some people don't mind that.

  12. #26
    Member Array mbguy29577's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Coastal SC
    Posts
    305
    So I trade big govt for big business? No thanks to both. Dont fall for their hype. Stay the course.
    Hopyard likes this.
    (4) Springfield Armory XD-40 Sub Compact
    (1) Ruger LC9
    NRA Member

    "Molon labe" "From my cold dead hands"

  13. #27
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    25,767
    Quote Originally Posted by BelaOkmyx View Post
    The reason I like insurance companies is that actuaries are very realistic people, and their numbers will accurately reflect the real risks ...
    Really???

    The actuaries might be, if they each were to merely act as the individuals they are. But they're not individuals, they're company folk, bought and paid for. The companies themselves have very particular reasons for existing, and that has nothing to do with ensuring you retain your 2A rights. Their primary responsibility is, and always will be, to exist in perpetuity for their owners (shareholders), not to ensure you get a gun, keep a gun, get trained, get correctly filtered before being licensed, blah blah blah.

    Their numbers will "accurately reflect the real risks," eh? Says who? The individuals compiling such data are working for that company, and working within that company's policies and goals, yes?

    Keep in mind that the right to defend yourself and your life exists, and nobody can wish that away. That right was codified in the 2A as something our temporarily-elected hirelings had no right to fool with ("shall never be infringed"). This whole machinery of gaining permissions slips from the hall monitor, the background checks, the limitations and prohibitions is all unconstitutional per the meaning of the 2A. And all of this mess is most certainly not something that the hired few can foist off on a corporation that isn't beholden to the people via the 2A and all the other restrictions on its bad behavior, as the hirelings are.

    Most definitely, the liberty-haters are backing all of the People against the wall, ironically at the point of a gun (ie, threats of imprisonment, fines and life-long erasure of 2A rights for non-compliance), via the "upraised knife" if you will. What are you prepared to give up, with your life and the lives of your children on the line if the very right to effectively protect them is destroyed by the tyrants?
    Hoganbeg and bombthrower77 like this.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  14. #28
    Senior Member Array Maverickx50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    LaCrosse Wisconsin
    Posts
    778
    No policy covering anything will cover you for an intentional illegal act of destruction or violence. That said; You would only need this type of insurance if you did a bad thing. Insurance to cover court costs might be a good plan but it (I'm sure) would only pay after the fact when proved you did not violate the above criteria. I'd be more in favor of a gun owners association with annual dues part of which helped cover legal costs. I thought the NRA toyed with that concept a while back but not sure.
    I carry to protect myself and my loved ones from the BG's. Not to solve societies problems. That said: if more carried the deterrent would only have a positive overall effect on those problems.

  15. #29
    Member Array Frogman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    167
    Are the criminals going to be required to carry this insurance too??

    Jim

  16. #30
    Distinguished Member Array Hoganbeg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    1,390
    That is a bad idea; a really bad idea!

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

gun insurance pros and cons

,
gun liability insurance moral hazard
,

mandatory gun liability insurance

,
powered by mybb bear arms
,
powered by mybb help with medical bills
,

powered by mybb help with rent

,
powered by mybb individual insurance
,

powered by mybb united states liability insurance group

,
pro and cons for gun insurance
,

pros and cons of gun insurance

,
pros and cons of regestering guns in arizona
,
pros cons of mandatory firearm insurance
Click on a term to search for related topics.