Illinois HB0687, $1,000,000 Insurance

[AllAmerican]

First let me state I'm from Illinois and absolutley against this or any BS gun laws.
For informational puposes only a $1M umbrella policy is not that much if you already have home and car insurance with an agent. Again, I'm not justifying it, just throwing out a little info. I have this policy, and think it's about $300-350 a year. (I'd gladly pay that for a CCW permit!)

Unreal. You as a 2A activist = FAIL

You're against it yet you have this policy. You and Illinois deserve each other.

Good luck with that.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[PNUT]

Insane....basically the politrickans are trying to criminalize a whole class of people. Time to start making phone calls, e-mailing Senators ...etc. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, that's how the Antis get their way,they get noisy. I'm not from Ill, but I'll still e-mail the Reps there. I do that on a lot of different issues,even though I'm not a constituent I get replies.

[KevinDooley]

Umbrella policies are useful if you own plenty of property, multiple homes and the whatnot... if you're a working class stiff with one house and two cars... it doesn't do you any good except it gives lawyers something to take from you when people sue you. Most states will protect your basic possessions... with no real net worth beyond that, it's just a waste of money.

Either way, I would refuse to pay for a constitutional right... which is what this boils down to.

[P7fanatic]

Insane....basically the politrickans are trying to criminalize a whole class of people.

Yep. All those that believe in the second amendment.

[Thanis]

I'm in no way shape or form suggesting this is a good idea, appropriate (the precedent alone would be a real problem).

But I offer an outside the box thought.

I don't think this will pass. They would have to make some type of hunting exemption (there are enough hunters in Illinois to prevent otherwise). It will be targeted toward handguns, assault rifles, etc. I know, all but impossible qualifications to define, but lets just say they do (like unless hunting or hunting club a firearm must be lock and stored seperately from ammo).

From what I have been told, Illinois (esp Chicago) is anti-gun. However, this might be an opportunity. If you piggy back a shall issue CC with back ground check onto the $1 million insurance requirement for SD firearms, I wonder if there would be such a large demand, and minimal statistical risk, that you might find the insurance was affordable.

So here is what I'm saying. If I was a pro-gun Illinois politician, knowing how difficult it would be to push through a shall-issue CC (with say a every three year back-ground check), and this insurance was limited to CC. Cost of back-groung check $100 to $150. I'm going to guess if the requirement was a personal liability umbrella (concerning just firearms), the cost would be close to $100 annual. I imagine there would be some type of limitation on caliber and number of SD firearms used for CC (maybe printed on permit).

So the question might be, would you pay $500 for three years of CC if you lived in a state with no other option.

I'm not saying I like it. But if I lived there, I would think of it as progress, and I would do it.

Again, with many assumptions, and not directly in reply to the OP.

[Thanis]

I'm not so sure it will be easy to find a company to issue this insurance. There are companies who will issue to companies (manufacturers, ranges, etc) but to an individual who just carries?

How ofen does a person who has had a back ground check, who carries, is life long law abiding citizen with no criminal record ever use a firearm for anything but a justified SD situation. If we believe an armed citizen can be responsible, the number should support that belief.

I'm not saying I like the idea, but honestly, I think a general liability policy focused just on wrongful firearm use would be around $500 a year. Personal Liability Umbrella concerning wrongful firearm use would be less than $200 (I would think $100 or so) a year.

Plus the insurance company could require the policy holder to put up some type of collateral on the policy (like say your home, gun collection, 401K) to reduce the cost. This might sound scary, but face it, if you end up in an unjustified shooting, everything you own is now up for grabs. So you don't lose much by offering the collateral.

$1,000,000 = $100 for 10,000 policy holders. I believe if you could show a $80,000 liability for 10,000 policy holders, this would easily fit into the margins. I believe around 1 out of 150 CCW permits in MI are revolked. Thats around 66 people to worry about out of 10,000.

I just don't know. Anyone here sell insurance who can do the math. The insurance is for such a specific coverage for those 66 risks (not every revolked CCW is going to result in a large $ liability). People lose their CCW for many reason unrelated to firearm issues or situations that would involve a wrongful shooting (like say shooting a toilet).

Well the numbers look better at $200 a year (at least for the insurane company). Plus they could bundle this in with say your auto and home insurance as a package. I know as long as it was tied to a shall issue CC permit, I would do it.

Again, I'm not saying it is pro-gun, just suggesting if you lived there, would you consider it progress, if it ment you could now legally CC.

[bandit383]

Again, I'm not saying it is pro-gun, just suggesting if you lived there, would you consider it progress, if it ment you could now legally CC.

If it was all about IL...I'd let them decide. But it isn't...letting the insurance camel's nose under the tent will only embolden other states to do the same. Especially to make a buck in difficult economic times.

Rick

[Pikachu711]

To say that I am shocked is an understatement!

The person who drafted this truly wants to bankrupt the weapon owner. I can't possibly imagine calling my insurance agent and requesting a quote for $1,000,000.00 liability insurance for any "incident" involving a firearm. This is a way for the government to make the cost of owning a firearm unbelievably expensive.
It this ever becomes law I see a great many gun owners spending much need money on ALOT of liability insurance for their firearms. The NRA should be made aware of this draconian bill. I makes me grateful to not live in Illinois if this is enacted into law.

Let's see if we can kill this thing before it goes much further! Really!

[micky mouse]

Unreal. You as a 2A activist = FAIL

You're against it yet you have this policy. You and Illinois deserve each other.

Good luck with that.

I have this policy to protect my assets against lawsuits primarily because my wife is a business owner. It is almost enough to protect all my assets it has nothing to do wityh firearms in my case. THAT IS WHY i SAID THIS IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. I almost didn't post because I knew someone would be confused. I guess I was right.

[DLRM]

First, an umbrella policy isn't going to cover any "intentional" acts. If a BG comes into your home and you shoot him - you shot him intentionally; therefore, no coverage from the umbrella. Now, if your kids are playing in the house and their friend finds your gun and shoots him/herself, that is a different story.

However, you need to look at the exclusions of your homeowner's policy and your umbrella policy. Injury/death from untentional discharge of a firearm could be excluded.

This would almost certainly require an additional insurance policy. Which makes me can't help but think, is a family member of this politician in the insurance business? An insurance business who coincidentally has this type of policy? State governments license who can sell (and what type of) insurance in their own state so it would be interesting to see who gets approved to see this firearm insurance if the bill passes. I'd check the ownership of the company.

[KevinDooley]

Yeah, that sounds like the type of scam Illinois poilticians would run...

[DaveH]

What caught my eye was the "willful acts" and while it is owned.

shall maintain a policy of liability insurance in the amount of at least $1,000,000 specifically covering any damages resulting from negligent [B]or willful acts involving the use of such firearm while it is owned by such person.

[emphasis added]

I carry rather healthy liability insurance at a healthy cost. However, it does not cover willful or criminal acts.

Anyone have a take on the availability of liability insurance for willful acts?

Also, how about the while owned (not just in position of) -- i.e., I still own whatever (a car?); it is temporally off my properties and out of my control (at the garage); and someone else does something dumb (leave it in neutral w/o the brakes set); something happens. Think deep pockets here. Oh, the owner has $1M insurance....

Any insurence company going to put itself in that position?

I'm not sure it is cost that's the big club they are going after. It may be the availability.

BTW -- Most of our legislators are lawyers or insurance agents. Maybe this is just another full-employment act for themselves, not anti-RKBA. Yeah, right!

[Theojt]

This is scary. Not because some Lib propped up a preposterous bill - it's scary because some people on this forum think it might be okay (sorry if I offend anyone). We are the ones supposed to be the proponents of the Constitutional RKBA.

This discussion isn't about whether it makes sense to have an umbrella policy or if these additional fees are reasonable for a CCW permit. This is about a direct and targeted attack on the gun rights of the IL citizens.

If this bill is acceptable here, a forum about defensive carry and use of a firearm, it'll (sadly) pass easily in Illinois I'm sure.

/j

[Thanis]

...The person who drafted this truly wants to bankrupt the weapon owner. I can't possibly imagine calling my insurance agent and requesting a quote for $1,000,000.00 liability insurance for any "incident" involving a firearm...!

I agree the intent is anti-gun, but it is reasonable to assume you already have (an uninsured) $1,000,000 liability. If you are involved in an unjustified SD shooting, there will be costs.

Insurance Co. look to make money and they look at the math. If we really believe an law abiding armed citizen is the solution, not the problem, then you should also believe the numbers would be on pro-gun's side.

I just want to clarify the point I'm trying to make. I don't think the reaction on how much this insurance would cost is unwarranted. I could be wrong, but I'm only reading feelings and no facts. The numbers make me question the feeling that this insurance would be astronomical. There are many other reasons this is a bad idea, but cost is not that strong (compared to what some already pay for their CC permit and back-ground check).

If it was all about IL...I'd let them decide. But it isn't...letting the insurance camel's nose under the tent will only embolden other states to do the same. Especially to make a buck in difficult economic times.

Rick

Now that I can agree with.

[flyflyfun]

First, an umbrella policy isn't going to cover any "intentional" acts. If a BG comes into your home and you shoot him - you shot him intentionally; therefore, no coverage from the umbrella. Now, if your kids are playing in the house and their friend finds your gun and shoots him/herself, that is a different story.

However, you need to look at the exclusions of your homeowner's policy and your umbrella policy. Injury/death from untentional discharge of a firearm could be excluded.

This would almost certainly require an additional insurance policy. Which makes me can't help but think, is a family member of this politician in the insurance business? An insurance business who coincidentally has this type of policy? State governments license who can sell (and what type of) insurance in their own state so it would be interesting to see who gets approved to see this firearm insurance if the bill passes. I'd check the ownership of the company.

A politician making money on the backs of folks, no way.