Wombaticus Rex » Wed Jun 22, 2016 4:58 pm wrote:Seeing a lot of FB chatter about a great new idea: force gun owners to purchase liability insurance. That way, per meme logic, "THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY WILL DESTROY THE GUN INDUSTRY."
Of course, it's not a new idea, nor a particularly great one. It upsets me that I know enough about the details of the insurance industry to recognize this was a bad idea, but I'll let better informed folks make the case:
Via: http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/na ... 287849.htm...
The industry is warning lawmakers against requiring gun owners to carry an insurance coverage that they may not be able to easily purchase.
...
One gun insurance bill has been filed in the House. Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney, D-N.Y., has filed the Firearms Risk Protection Act of 2013 (HR 1369), which would require gun owners to purchase liability coverage and to show proof of that coverage when they purchase a firearm.
Maloney says her bill would introduce a market-based solution to holding gun owners liable for the weapons they own.
“As with car insurance premiums, higher risk gun owners will face higher premiums. Actuarial determinations will be made by insurance companies, as those experts are in the best position to make those determinations based on sound data analysis,” she says.
Maloney says her bill does not establish a federal insurance program. Instead, it imposes no specific requirements on insurance companies, but instead imposes a fine of $10,000 if during the sale of a weapon the seller does not confirm coverage or the buyer has not purchased it.
Several states including California, Connecticut, Massachusetts and Illinois have considered but not passed gun insurance legislation similar to Maloney’s.
Wherever these proposals surface, insurers have been telling lawmakers that such approaches would not only violate basic insurance principles but also be unworkable.
“Though well intentioned, such proposals misunderstand a fundamental principle of insurance—that it is designed to cover fortuitous, or accidental events; not intentional conduct. Property/casualty insurance does not and cannot cover intentional behavior such as criminal acts,” said Willem O. Rijksen, vice president of public affairs for the American Insurance Association.
According to Jimi Grande, senior vice president of federal and political affairs for the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, gun liability insurance measures would neither deter violence nor help victims.
“Liability coverage is designed to protect against accidental damages, most of which involving guns would be covered under a homeowner’s insurance policy. While some policies may provide coverage for liability stemming from the intentional use of a firearm for defensive purposes, no liability insurance product covers intentional acts of malicious violence, whether committed with a gun, a car, or any other instrument that is used as a weapon to deliberately harm people,” said Grande. “It is inconceivable that any insurer would offer such coverage, either as part of a homeowners or renters policy or on a stand-alone basis.”
Just a passing detail, though, no worries -- I'm sure today's sit-in at the House will change everything.
^^^^ Yeah. Call me when they're in the throes of death from their hunger strike.
I really want to address this issue Mr. WRex, and will. I think the article is a bit misleading. In the meantime, let's not forget the rather unique, at least to the gun manufacturing and oil and gas mining industries, to be legislatively protected from any harm their industry causes. Guns are unique among consumer products in being afforded such a protection.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act
Now I'm heading off to eat my first meal of this long day. The brandy will only help my stamina. It seems to go with anything and everything! Later.
Oh, just this, Homeowner's insurance only covers the liability of a gun being lost or stolen, not for damage one may do with it. An insured gun owner who's weapon is listed as a household possession on their homeowner's insurance policy will only be financially compensated for its loss or theft. Just like they would for any other household asset covered by their policy. Some kid finds your gun and shoots someone, that personal liability is not covered by any homeowner's insurance policy.