Illinois HB0687, $1,000,000 Insurance - Page 4

Illinois HB0687, $1,000,000 Insurance

This is a discussion on Illinois HB0687, $1,000,000 Insurance within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by DLRM First, an umbrella policy isn't going to cover any "intentional" acts. If a BG comes into your home and you shoot ...

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 74

Thread: Illinois HB0687, $1,000,000 Insurance

  1. #46
    VIP Member Array Thanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    2,362
    Quote Originally Posted by DLRM View Post
    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...
    Your understanding of intentional acts in a SD situation are not factual. That would be like saying if you were in a car accident you intended to cause an accident because you drove a car.

    In addition, how many of you have life insurance. If we believe having a firearm is important for self-defense, then we should believe the life insurance company would be greatful you protected yourself during a justified SD. You could make the policy part of a life insurance policy and make a requirement that you own a firearm (just like a requirement that you wear a seat belt).
    NRA Member
    S&W 642 (no-lock) with .38 Spl +P 135 GR Gold GDHP
    Glock G31 & G33 with .357 Sig 125 GR. SXT Winchester Ranger


  2. #47
    Member Array bbernard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Fort Myers, FL
    Posts
    100
    "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

    We have enough gun laws on the books that infringe....

    The second ammendment is a "right" not a "privilege". Politicians are in bed with these insurance companies... The whole idea sets a bad precedent for all gun owners in America.

  3. #48
    VIP Member Array Thanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    2,362
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveH View Post
    ...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?...
    The insurance could have a clause requiring collateral, so that if the policy holder did commit a criminal act they could collect on the collateral against the liability.

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveH View Post
    ...Any insurence company going to put itself in that position?...
    Yes. If you believe as a whole that people who would go through the legal process would naturally be low risk gun owners.

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveH View Post
    ...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!
    Ya, with all the screaming about anti-gun, this was my first thought. This is more about pro-insurence company then it is anti-gun.
    NRA Member
    S&W 642 (no-lock) with .38 Spl +P 135 GR Gold GDHP
    Glock G31 & G33 with .357 Sig 125 GR. SXT Winchester Ranger

  4. #49
    VIP Member Array matiki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    N.W.
    Posts
    2,917
    Quote Originally Posted by Thanis View Post
    Your understanding of intentional acts in a SD situation are not factual. That would be like saying if you were in a car accident you intended to cause an accident because you drove a car.(sic)
    Actually, depending on the wording of your insurance policy and the jurisdiction in which the event occurs, he is not incorrect.

    Here is a good primer that I think everyone with a HO policy should read and consider:
    Homeowners Policies and Acts of Self-Defense
    "Wise people learn when they can; fools learn when they must." - The Duke of Wellington

  5. #50
    VIP Member Array Thanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    2,362
    Quote Originally Posted by bbernard View Post
    "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?....
    A reasonable restriction would not infringe or invalidate 2A.

    When ever someone states "What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?." I am baffled why they think that is the end to the conversation. If you think infringed equates unlimited, your wrong. Reasonable standards always apply.

    We can go round and round now with want reasonable is, but from adult material to firearms, the courts have done this already. We are not going to solve this on an internet thread.

    Note: I'm not making the argument that per OP topic, this insurance requirement is reasonable. However considering that reasonable standards vary from place to place, if combined with some type of shall-issue CC permit, this insurance would be more reasonable then the current limitations in IL.
    NRA Member
    S&W 642 (no-lock) with .38 Spl +P 135 GR Gold GDHP
    Glock G31 & G33 with .357 Sig 125 GR. SXT Winchester Ranger

  6. #51
    VIP Member Array Thanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    2,362
    Quote Originally Posted by matiki View Post
    Actually, depending on the wording of your insurance policy and the jurisdiction in which the event occurs, he is not incorrect...
    Ya, I heard about that MI case.

    The one thing this tread is starting to do is make me worry I might need more insurance. For this, I hate you guys. But good info.
    NRA Member
    S&W 642 (no-lock) with .38 Spl +P 135 GR Gold GDHP
    Glock G31 & G33 with .357 Sig 125 GR. SXT Winchester Ranger

  7. #52
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    12,087
    I'm of the opinion here that the requirement being proposed is not by itself a good idea and may well have an anti- dimension and purpose.

    But, anyone who is no sue proof because they have no assets to protect, owes it to themselves and to potential victims of their negligence, (whether in driving, gun handling, or setting the back yard bar b q a flame during a burn ban) and their neighbors, to act responsibly by maintaining appropriate levels of insurance. This is no different really than the situation with financial responsibility laws for car owners. Sure, they harm the poorest or near poor. OTOH, they are a thoroughly reasonable and necessary part of car ownership. If IL wants you to buy liability insurance to own your guns, or if they want you to post a bond against negligent acts, that by itself is not only not unreasonable, it is actually in your own interest and in the interest of society.

    That said, I think the idea stinks and it should be left to the individual to decide if they want to buy personal liability insurance.

    Fortunately, both negligent acts and intentional acts by lawful gun owners are so rare that the price of insurance should be a minor issue.

  8. #53
    Member Array bbernard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Fort Myers, FL
    Posts
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Thanis View Post
    A reasonable restriction would not infringe or invalidate 2A.
    I understand what you are saying. However, who is that determines what is reasonable and what is not....

    How is it reasonable to force someone to get insurance coverage for something where insurance just does not exist today. What guidlines will be given to the insurance company to make the new insurance "reasonable". What statistics would they use to formulate the insurance plan? The Brady campaign?

    Seems to me that the downside of a bill like this would be to force someone whois unemployed or simply cannot afford the insurance would now have a choice to own it illegally (criminal) or to sell their only means of the security for themselves and love ones. There are many, many people losing their jobs and cannot take on additional expenses. To me this seems very unreasonable.

    Someone said that this may be about pro-insurance more than it is about anti-gun. I believe it to be both.....

  9. #54
    Senior Member Array rhinokrk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Salt Lake City, Utah
    Posts
    1,036
    I think most are missing the point of this bill... this is not a CC issue. If you live in IL and want to get or maintain a F.O.I.D. card, you need to have "...at least $1,000,000 specifically covering any damages resulting from negligent or willful acts involving the use of such firearm.."

    I am lucky enough to have a good job right now, it's a job that pays well. I have been cut back to 32 hours a week. That means I no longer have steak a couple times a week, it also means my savings account deposits are smaller than before. Sadly I don't see things getting better anytime soon.

    The sole purpose of this bill is to take hunting rifles, and handguns out of the hands of the law abiding lower class. Those who may count on a downing a deer for meat to help there income, those can't afford to live in the best of neighborhoods and have a real need to defend themselves.

    I called my insurance agent (State Farm), and asked what a $1,000,000 liability policy specifically for the purpose of covering me for "any damages resulting from negligent or willful acts involving the use of a firearm" would cost. After a few seconds of silence, he stated that he was not aware of any such policy and would call me later when he had a definitive answer. 3 hours later, I haven't heard back.

    With all do respect people, think.
    Get the U.N. out of the U.S.
    Get the U.S. out of the U.N.

  10. #55
    VIP Member
    Array kentuckycarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    kentucky
    Posts
    2,219
    Quote Originally Posted by rhinokrk View Post
    I think most are missing the point of this bill... this is not a CC issue. If you live in IL and want to get or maintain a F.O.I.D. card, you need to have "...at least $1,000,000 specifically covering any damages resulting from negligent or willful acts involving the use of such firearm.."

    I am lucky enough to have a good job right now, it's a job that pays well. I have been cut back to 32 hours a week. That means I no longer have steak a couple times a week, it also means my savings account deposits are smaller than before. Sadly I don't see things getting better anytime soon.

    The sole purpose of this bill is to take hunting rifles, and handguns out of the hands of the law abiding lower class. Those who may count on a downing a deer for meat to help there income, those can't afford to live in the best of neighborhoods and have a real need to defend themselves.

    I called my insurance agent (State Farm), and asked what a $1,000,000 liability policy specifically for the purpose of covering me for "any damages resulting from negligent or willful acts involving the use of a firearm" would cost. After a few seconds of silence, he stated that he was not aware of any such policy and would call me later when he had a definitive answer. 3 hours later, I haven't heard back.

    With all do respect people, think.
    Yeah, what he said.......
    For anyone to tell me that they will come and take my guns because I may not be able to afford the insurance any longer, for whatever reason, is a scary thought. Just one more way Illinois can take away your rights.
    If I want to carry a million dollar policy to protect myself, thats MY business.
    Prepare for the worst and hope it never happens

  11. #56
    Senior Member Array KevinDooley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    657
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    But, anyone who is no sue proof because they have no assets to protect, owes it to themselves and to potential victims of their negligence, (whether in driving, gun handling, or setting the back yard bar b q a flame during a burn ban) and their neighbors, to act responsibly by maintaining appropriate levels of insurance.
    So you're saying that if I don't have any assets that can be taken from me by a civil suit, I should still shell out money for insurance so that if someone decides to sue me I'll be able to give them money (via my insurance). Uh-uh. No way. I have insurance to cover what little I own. To carry extra insurance only ENSURES that I'll be sued if someone decides to get litiguous with me. If I don't have an umbrella policy, when whoever this sue-happy person is goes to a lawyer he'll take one look at me and say... "We've got nothing to gain by this case, I won't take it." Carrying insurance for the purpose of giving someone money because our society is bass-akwards is bass-akwards in and of itself. No thank you.
    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes

    The will to win is worthless if you do not have the will to prepare. -Thane Yost

  12. #57
    New Member Array jamesonondolton's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1
    Any and all policies will contain exclusions for willful, intentional and criminal et-al... acts. A general liability policy may be modified to provide "Final Adjudication" language; meaning the insurance policy may provide defense coverage for the cost of defending the "insured" against the plaintiffs allegations up until the courts rules that the action(s) were either illegal or intentional. At that time, the insurance policy will cease paying for any defense cost and/or indemnity payments.

    An insurance policy will not, can not provide any sort of indemnification (payments) to a third party for an intentional/criminal act as it is against "public policy". Now the caveat, insurance companies will act in the best interest of their insureds and attempt to settle (out of court). The decision to settle will be based on the potential settlement amount compared to the cost of litigation up to final adjudication period.

    In order for this legislation to pass, numerous state legal statutes will need to be modified. I highly doubt this law could be passed without further modifications.

    On that note I would advise everyone to purchase at the minimum a $1,000,000 personal umbrella through your existing homeowners/auto insurance agent. It is the cheapest one million dollar coverage you can afford. My personal umbrella cost roughly $200 per year.

  13. #58
    VIP Member Array Patti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Show Me State
    Posts
    2,734
    Dunkin's bill will require $1M liability insurance for negligent AND intentional shootings.

    You might be able to purchase an umbrella for negligence, but no insurance company is going to sell you a policy for INTENTIONAL shootings.

    Dunkin the democrat is a commie.
    Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy. Winston Churchill

  14. #59
    Member Array DLRM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Cordova, TN
    Posts
    33
    My money is on a new insurance company offering just this type of policy. I simply can't see any of the big five insurance companies changing their existing HO (and umbrella) policy to fit this legislation.

    This also open the door for families members of the BGs to sue the homeowner in hopes of getting a settlement from the insurance company.

    An obvious attempt to control who owns guns.
    Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? -- Patrick Henry

  15. #60
    Senior Member Array rhinokrk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Salt Lake City, Utah
    Posts
    1,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Patti View Post
    Dunkin's bill will require $1M liability insurance for negligent AND intentional shootings.

    You might be able to purchase an umbrella for negligence, but no insurance company is going to sell you a policy for INTENTIONAL shootings.

    Dunkin the democrat is a commie.
    Thank You!
    Get the U.N. out of the U.S.
    Get the U.S. out of the U.N.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Sponsored 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
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Ammo and Insurance
    By volfan in forum Defensive Ammunition & Ballistics
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: January 22nd, 2010, 11:00 PM
  2. Liability Insurance
    By Kahrdoor in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: January 17th, 2010, 01:11 AM
  3. Gun insurance
    By Pro2A in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: September 1st, 2009, 10:34 PM
  4. Illinois One Million $ Gun Insurance Policy
    By Bart in forum Defensive Ammunition & Ballistics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: February 20th, 2009, 02:03 AM
  5. Insurance
    By DaveInTexas in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: November 18th, 2008, 12:31 AM

Search tags for this page

1,000,000 insurance premium to have a gun
,
concealed carry liability insurance
,

illinois if hb 0687

,
illinoishb 1263
Click on a term to search for related topics.