Ed Compulsory insurance for gun owners.

[Trebuchet]

Question: How many of you owners/shooters have insurance that covers you if a firearm you own is involved in an accidental shooting?

Interesting question. I actually have no idea.

 

[Giordano]

This idea can be extended to other forms of insurance.

Have a gun in the house? Pay more for life insurance.
Have a gun in the car? Pay more for car insurance.
Come off as pro-gun on a forum? Pay more for troll insurance.

Multiple wins here.

People often have to pay more for home liability insurance if there are significant liability risks, such as a pool, in their home. People often have to pay more for car liability insurance if they drive model of a sports car that statistically is in more than the average number of car accidents. So the concept is not strange nor illegal: insurance companies typically only care about the statistics and demonstrated facts, and not about one's claims to good behavior or personal philosophy.

 

[Ranb]

My homeowners insurance covers me if I accidentally injure someone away from home. The insurer knows I have guns; I did not buy the additional theft protection so I'm SOL if they are stolen but covered for most of it if they're destroyed in a fire.

Ranb

 

[marplots]

People often have to pay more for home liability insurance if there are significant liability risks, such as a pool, in their home. People often have to pay more for car liability insurance if they drive model of a sports car that statistically is in more than the average number of car accidents. So the concept is not strange nor illegal: insurance companies typically only care about the statistics and demonstrated facts, and not about one's claims to good behavior or personal philosophy.

Which, I gather, is a strong motivation to see past the agenda-driven obfuscation and figure out the data for themselves.

In practice, I think it would be done from the opposite direction - not a premium increase because there's a gun in the house, but a discount for certifying a home as "gun free."

This is attractive for insurers because, should you so certify, get the discount, and then later, file a claim when a gun goes off, they can deny the claim because of a false representation of a material fact.

 

[BStrong]

Question: How many of you owners/shooters have insurance that covers you if a firearm you own is involved in an accidental shooting?

I've had a big (over 1 M) liability umbrella for years, but the cost increased significantly in 2013 when I sold my home.

It wasn't enough to price me out of the market, but I can see where it would for many people.

I'm willing to pay the price for peace of mind.

 

[Metullus]

Question: How many of you owners/shooters have insurance that covers you if a firearm you own is involved in an accidental shooting?

I do now and have had such coverage for years, not because anyone required it, and not because there is any significant chance of an accidental shooting involving any of my firearms, but because the world is filled with overly litigious ******* who are likely to sue anyone with whom they disagree on any subject. Hell, we once had a neighbor (a renter) who called the police when another neighbor (her landlord) was target shooting with a BB gun with his kids in his garage. She told the officers that she felt threatened. The houses are not in view of one another. The BB gun was a circa 1960s Red Ryder.

 

[Aepervius]

Can we guesstimate our own actuarial? 100 million gun owners, X number of accidents, y number of dollars?

But then minus the lower cost of other insurance that currently covers Z much ? Because I guess that current liability coverage does cover a bunch?

And does anybody really think the gangbangers and drug dealers, and those with violent pasts,who account for 95% of gun crime, will ever buy insurance? Do you REALLY think murderers or muggers are concerned with breaking insurance laws?

Unfortunately my (very cursory) work in life insurance in a big company where my sister worked (student work) tells me it is not that simple.

You would need to slice by gender as women are less likely to murder/kill/accident with a gun. Then you need to slice by age, by regions, possibly by familial status (are there kids at home?), activity involving the gun (sport ? Self defense ?) the place used to store it etc...

Then there is the liabilities involved in the accident, how much a wrongful death is capped at (if there are caps), etc... How much security, is the gun locked in a safe, how many guns, is the gunownership advertised....

My gut feeling is less than 50$ more than 5$ per gun , with a cap after a certain number of gun.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Anybody know off-hand if the NRA has a position on liability insurance for gun owners?

 

[Aber]

Anybody know off-hand if the NRA has a position on liability insurance for gun owners?

Yep, they'd like to sell you some:

This NRA-endorsed insurance offers peace of mind that your personal assets are covered.

Protect yourself with Personal Firearms Liability Insurance. Buy online today!

https://www.locktonaffinity.com/nrains/excess.htm

Round figure pricing suggest that it is not a competitive market and that rates could be lower:

$200 annually:
$1,000,000 combined single limit

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Thanks.

 

[casebro]

Which, I gather, is a strong motivation to see past the agenda-driven obfuscation and figure out the data for themselves.

In practice, I think it would be done from the opposite direction - not a premium increase because there's a gun in the house, but a discount for certifying a home as "gun free."

This is attractive for insurers because, should you so certify, get the discount, and then later, file a claim when a gun goes off, they can deny the claim because of a false representation of a material fact.

Guns and dogs are ubiquitous. Neither will cause insurance problems. So there must be an over riding advantage to ownership that save insurance companies money. With dogs I suspect lower theft rates make up for the liability of having to pay for the occasional bite. With guns, there must also be some advantage to the companies. Probably centered around the fact that mere brandishing prevents a bazillion crimes a year.

Hmmm, what are the comparative stats- People who live in a house with a gun stand a 10x chance of being shot, vs a 1/1,000 chance of being robbed? The fact that somebody is selling that insurance is enlightening.

The basic business model for insurors is to break even on the policy, and make a profit off the investing of the premiums in the mean time. So if we look at the 200/$1,000,000 policy, minus sales commission from the $200, that leaves $1 for each $10,000 of pay out? That means pay outs for legal gun owners are VERY rare. Of course the actuaries did take NRA membership into account, I doubt they cover gang bangers at all.

Do you anti-gunners see how safe guns are in the hands of law abiding citizens? Let the capitalist insurors show you. And NOBODY is more capitalist than an insurance company.

 

[marplots]

Guns and dogs are ubiquitous. Neither will cause insurance problems. So there must be an over riding advantage to ownership that save insurance companies money. With dogs I suspect lower theft rates make up for the liability of having to pay for the occasional bite. With guns, there must also be some advantage to the companies. Probably centered around the fact that mere brandishing prevents a bazillion crimes a year.

Hmmm, what are the comparative stats- People who live in a house with a gun stand a 10x chance of being shot, vs a 1/1,000 chance of being robbed? The fact that somebody is selling that insurance is enlightening.

The basic business model for insurors is to break even on the policy, and make a profit off the investing of the premiums in the mean time. So if we look at the 200/$1,000,000 policy, minus sales commission from the $200, that leaves $1 for each $10,000 of pay out? That means pay outs for legal gun owners are VERY rare. Of course the actuaries did take NRA membership into account, I doubt they cover gang bangers at all.

Do you anti-gunners see how safe guns are in the hands of law abiding citizens? Let the capitalist insurors show you. And NOBODY is more capitalist than an insurance company.

I think your argument is correct, but we don't have enough yet to go on. For example, what exactly is being insured for/against? It may be only a slice of what we think of as negative outcomes from gun ownership.

It would be interesting to see the details of a claim (if there are any) that was paid off by the insurance we are discussing. The language in the actual policy would be nice to see as well. The exclusions would be as informative as the coverages.

 

[tsig]

Guns and dogs are ubiquitous. Neither will cause insurance problems. So there must be an over riding advantage to ownership that save insurance companies money. With dogs I suspect lower theft rates make up for the liability of having to pay for the occasional bite. With guns, there must also be some advantage to the companies. Probably centered around the fact that mere brandishing prevents a bazillion crimes a year.

Hmmm, what are the comparative stats- People who live in a house with a gun stand a 10x chance of being shot, vs a 1/1,000 chance of being robbed? The fact that somebody is selling that insurance is enlightening.

The basic business model for insurors is to break even on the policy, and make a profit off the investing of the premiums in the mean time. So if we look at the 200/$1,000,000 policy, minus sales commission from the $200, that leaves $1 for each $10,000 of pay out? That means pay outs for legal gun owners are VERY rare. Of course the actuaries did take NRA membership into account, I doubt they cover gang bangers at all.

Do you anti-gunners see how safe guns are in the hands of law abiding citizens? Let the capitalist insurors show you. And NOBODY is more capitalist than an insurance company.

Those two sentences contradict each other. How can there be no insurance problems while there is liability for a dog bite?

 

[casebro]

Those two sentences contradict each other. How can there be no insurance problems while there is liability for a dog bite?

Overall. no problem. Too late for me to edit, but take in the context of the paragraph.

 

[BStrong]

Yep, they'd like to sell you some:



https://www.locktonaffinity.com/nrains/excess.htm

Round figure pricing suggest that it is not a competitive market and that rates could be lower:

Unfortunately the NRA coverage is only for liability during specific events, and is not an umbrella policy.

It wouldn't cut it locally for the purposes of satisfying the liability insurance prerequisite for concealed carry license issuance.