NY Proposal to Screw Gun Owner's a Little Bit Further

[WildCat]

Accident isn't mentioned

It's all over the policy you cited.

 

[uk_dave]

It's all over the policy you cited.

Please refer to the road traffic act.

C'mon, insurance is required for any liability arising from use of a vehicle.

 

[uk_dave]

eta: still stands even after your edit.

Does the road traffic act mention 'accident'?

Insurance has to be provided in accordance with the road traffic act.

The same could apply to NY gun insurance.

 

[jimbob]

http://www.directline.com/pdf/motor/car-policy-document.pdf

My policy:

What is not covered
We will not cover:
• loss of or damage to any car you drive or any trailer or vehicle
you tow;
• anyone who has other insurance covering the same liability;
• death or injury to anyone while they are working with or for the
driver of the car; except as set out in the Road Traffic Act;
• damage caused by any driver insured by this policy to any property
they own or are responsible for;
• liability for more than £20,000,000 for any claim or series of claims
for loss of or damage to property including any indirect loss or damage
caused by one event (including all costs and expenses);
• liability caused by acts of terrorism as defined in the Terrorism Act 2000 except as is strictly required under the Road Traffic Act;• legal costs or expenses related to charges connected with speeding,
driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or for parking offences;
• any liability that is not required to be covered under the terms of the
Road Traffic Act whilst you are loading or unloading directly from
your van; or
• liability for death, injury or damage when your van is not on a public
road and is in the process of being loaded or unloaded by any person
other than the driver or attendant of your van.

Looks as if the only criminal act that isn't covered is if the car was used for terrorism.

ETA: Speeding fines etc are not covered but the liability is.

 

[WildCat]

Please refer to the road traffic act.

C'mon, insurance is required for any liability arising from use of a vehicle.

Nope. Read the policy you cited.

What is not covered

...deliberate damage caused to your car by anyone insured under
this policy

 

[Newtons Bit]

Crikey, someone is cranky.

Here: http://www.directline.com/motor/policy.htm

The policy documents are a pdf, so I'm afraid you'll have to do some work, sorry about that, it being a sunday and all....

...basically that particular insurance company does have some restrictions on third party liability....such as when the claim is covered by other insurance, and the *********** cheapskates put a limit of £20million on a property claim (damn them), but everything else is covered by the road traffic act....

...let me google that for you.....

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/40/contents

There you go, socialism at work.

ETA: My Apologies..... this is a much better link....

http://www.ukmotorists.com/third page liabilities.asp

From your DirectLine link

1a. Cover for you
We will cover you for your legal liability to other people arising from
an accident which involves your car and:
• you kill or injure someone;
• you damage someone else’s property.

So DirectLine isn't going to cover intentional death, injury or property damage committed by the driver.

 

[jimbob]

From your DirectLine link

So DirectLine isn't going to cover intentional death, injury or property damage committed by the driver.

However it will provide liability cover for an accident caused whilst drunk driving or speeding.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Nope. Read the policy you cited.

Which one? Because most insurance companies in the UK cover vandalism.

 

[Newtons Bit]

From Wikipedia:

Generally, liability insurance covers only the risk of being sued for negligence or strict liability torts, but not any tort or crime with a higher level of mens rea. This is usually mandated either by the policy language itself or case law or statutes in the jurisdiction where the insured resides or does business.

You'll probably find case law in the UK stating that intentional criminal acts aren't covered by liability insurance.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Which one? Because most insurance companies in the UK cover vandalism.

Those are both negligent crimes and lack "mens rea". While some firearm killings (excluding suicide, obviously) are negligent, the vast majority aren't.

 

[jimbob]

I don't see how homes are used for criminal intent, unless you mean it is like this: (Not very safe for work but a bit silly - from the Chris Morris Series "Brass Eye")

Automobiles: if the number of criminal injuries caused by automobiles is significant them yes they should be.

Few crimes are planned in the street, homes (where OPSEC can easily be maintained) are the preferred location. Criminals use them as bases from which to carry out crimes, storage facilities to secure their unlawful gains and weapons, and distribution points for the sale of weapons, stolen merchandise and drugs. Kidnappers use them to sequester their victims. Hardly a serious crime in the US (and probably the world) doesn't have its origins in somebody's home.
Many, if not the majority of, serial killers prefer to use their homes as killing grounds for their victims.

Automobiles are used in bank robberies, drive by shootings, burglaries, drug smuggling and just about any other violent crime you can envision. It is the preferred method for transportation to and escape from in most crimes.

... but reasonable law abiding gun automobile owner does not guarantee they will not make a mistake or turn and kill. There should be insurance against that paid for by the gun automobile owners.

That assumes there are two separate groups the always law abiding and the never. What happens when the law abiding make a mistake or go rogue? Who pays then? I say gun automobile owners should.

To reiterate, I am advocating insurance for third-party illegal use of gunsauotmobiles based on the fact that a lot of criminals obtain guns through straw purchases blind sales, and that a lot of gunsautomobiles are stored with inadequate security.

If a mining companyautomobile owner stored dynamite an automobile where bank robbers could easily steal it, and it was subsequently stolen and used in bank robberies shouldn't they be liable?

Automobiles are easily stolen, and usually stored in plain sight with easy public access; on the street, in a driveway, etc. The average auto thief can defeat the ridiculously simple lock on virtually all cars in 60 seconds or less.
The theory by which you claim law abiding gun owners should be held accountable for the actions of criminals applies in exactly the same way to homes and automobiles.

.[/QUOTE]

Cars are rarely used as weapons. Sometimes they are, but nowhere as often as guns... They are used as weapons far more frequently than houses though.

You're trying to move the goal posts, Jim.
The theory that NY is using is that the insurance in necessary based on a presumption of criminal intent.
Not all weapon use is criminal. People can, and do, use them for legitimate purposes, specifically for self defense.
Your objection to firearms is that they are often used offensively, and that requires intent. No one accidentally or negligently robs a bank, performs a drive by, or kidnaps someone.
Firearms are rarely used as secure areas from which to plan a robbery, hide loot, or sell drugs. Houses frequently are, though.

I'm sorry I don't follow your reasoning. I've said I don't like the NY proposals as I'd prefer liability whilst they are the legal owner, or up to a certain time after being reported stolen if the gun had been stolen from a situation with inadequate security.

Mandatory insurance could cover that, and recover the costs from the state if the storage was reasonable 9% per decade is far too high an attrition rate.

Nessie's first paragraph is fairly self evident.

They way the home and car is used in a bank robbery is completely different to the way a gun is. The gun has a unique, deadly role not shared with the house the robbery was planned or the car used to get there. That difference is important.

But since you insist cars and guns need to be treated the same I would be very happy to see all guns with security measures that mean they are locked and could take 60s for a thief to get it to work. That would be a great safety feature.

 

[WildCat]

Which one? Because most insurance companies in the UK cover vandalism.

Not if you're the vandal.

 

[uk_dave]

Nope. Read the policy you cited.

deliberate damage caused to your car by anyone insured under
this policy

Is not third party insurance.
It would be another named driver who, if you had a third party fire and theft policy, would have caused damage to your car (you being the insured).
You only get your car covered if you have a fully comprehensive policy.

From your DirectLine link

So DirectLine isn't going to cover intentional death, injury or property damage committed by the driver.

Define 'accident'.

Is the result of drink driving an 'accident'?
Similarly with speeding or driving intentionally at someone.

The insurers are governed by the requirement of the road traffic act
That talks about ...

any liability which may be incurred by him or them in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to property caused by, or arising out of, the use of the vehicle

... not just 'accidents'

 

[jimbob]

Which one? Because most insurance companies in the UK cover vandalism.

Not if you're the vandal.

But if you vandalise your own car, then that wouldn't be a third party.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Not if you're the vandal.

True enough, though it's insurance fraud on that case.

 

[Nessie]

Prove it.

Edited by LashL: 

Edited for civility.

Section 145 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 states what is required of insurance.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/part/VI

3(a) must insure such person, persons or classes of persons as may be specified in the policy in respect of any liability which may be incurred by him or them in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to property caused by, or arising out of, the use of the vehicle on a road [F27or other public place] in Great Britain, and must, in the case of a vehicle normally based in the territory of another member State, insure him or them in respect of any civil liability which may be incurred by him or them as a result of an event related to the use of the vehicle in Great Britain.

3(c) must also insure him or them in respect of any liability which may be incurred by him or them under the provisions of this Part of this Act relating to payment for emergency treatment.

4 The policy shall not, by virtue of subsection (3)(a) above, be required—
4(b) to provide insurance of more than [F31£1,000,000] in respect of all such liabilities as may be incurred in respect of damage to property caused by, or arising out of, any one accident involving the vehicle, or
4(c) to cover any contractual liability.

So run the ex over and the insurance has to cover that and the cover needs not be over £1million. That is further evidenced with this insurance terms and conditions from a large UK company called Admiral. Read pages 13 and 14 on liability to others, which includes the potential to pay for a trial from killing the ex.

http://www.admiral.com/policyDocs/AD116%20_policybook_1213.pdf

"reasonable legal services which we will arrange to defend a charge of manslaughter or causing death by dangerous or reckless driving" So the company

As for robbing a bank this policy may not cover the person driving as it states on page 20 "You will not be covered for any liabilities you may have for any of the following:

used by you or any driver shown on your current Certificate of Motor Insurance for criminal purposes or deliberately used to cause harm, loss or damage"

So in this case the criminal is not covered, but anyone else hurt is. Ideal for gun owners who go rogue. They are not covered, but by law anyone they murder (or other homicide) is.

That is exactly the kind of insurance gun owners should be compelled to have.

Next time you accuse me of being full of it, do a few checks first, or risk looking very stupid.

 

[Newtons Bit]

The insurers are governed by the requirement of the road traffic act
That talks about ...



... not just 'accidents'

I already answered this, if you had bothered to read my posts. In effect, there are different types of liability. The Road Traffic Act only covers up to strict liability, which excludes things like murder.

 

[uk_dave]

4 The policy shall not, by virtue of subsection (3)(a) above, be required—
4(b) to provide insurance of more than [F31£1,000,000] in respect of all such liabilities as may be incurred in respect of damage to property caused by, or arising out of, any one accident involving the vehicle, or
4(c) to cover any contractual liability.

I believe the third party liability for injury or death is unlimited (or limited only by what the courts would assess to be a reasonable amount of compensation)

 

[uk_dave]

I already answered this, if you had bothered to read my posts. In effect, there are different types of liability. The Road Traffic Act only covers up to strict liability, which excludes things like murder.

And if you bothered to read the Road Traffic Act you would see that third party insurance is mandatory for ....

any liability which may be incurred by him or them in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to property caused by, or arising out of, the use of the vehicle

 

[Nessie]

From Wikipedia:



You'll probably find case law in the UK stating that intentional criminal acts aren't covered by liability insurance.

No one is saying that the owner of the car/gun is covered. What is important is that their victim is if they use the car/gun to kill or try and kill them. We have shown (I have posted the same stuff as others not realising they had already posted it) that the victim is covered.

That is all we ask for is gun owners insure themselves to pay for the people who they shoot, whether by accident or deliberately or recklessly. That is how UK car insurance works, so it is doable.