The remark by Dr. Hartwig of the Insurance Information Institute that insurers “Don’t cover illegal acts, ever, period.” is not true. Many kinds of insurance pay innocent third parties for illegal acts by insured persons. That’s the point of insurance that is required by laws or by business arrangements. For example, you bank gets paid if you commit arson on your house. You would not get anything (and would go to jail) but the mortgage holder gets paid under an “Open Mortgage Clause” which is usual in homeowners fire insurance. I have informed the III about this in the past but they still keep saying it.
That’s because mortgage holders, just like auto lien holders are considered a separate “insured” under the policy. So if the actual insured commits a crime, (ie, arson to their own vehicle for the insurance payout) the lienholder is still considered an innocent insured.
It’s not the same as providing coverage for the illegal discharage of a firearm.
Ok, so there is an insurer willing to write stand alone personal gun liability insurance. The coverage though, based on this very short article, would not pay anything for people injured/killed in a shooting NOT self defense. Am I reading this correctly?
More government intrusion..and another way for them to know who the gun owners are and aren’t. Wake the h*** up, people!! History is repeating itself!!
The remark by Dr. Hartwig of the Insurance Information Institute that insurers “Don’t cover illegal acts, ever, period.” is not true. Many kinds of insurance pay innocent third parties for illegal acts by insured persons. That’s the point of insurance that is required by laws or by business arrangements. For example, you bank gets paid if you commit arson on your house. You would not get anything (and would go to jail) but the mortgage holder gets paid under an “Open Mortgage Clause” which is usual in homeowners fire insurance. I have informed the III about this in the past but they still keep saying it.
That’s because mortgage holders, just like auto lien holders are considered a separate “insured” under the policy. So if the actual insured commits a crime, (ie, arson to their own vehicle for the insurance payout) the lienholder is still considered an innocent insured.
It’s not the same as providing coverage for the illegal discharage of a firearm.
Ok, so there is an insurer willing to write stand alone personal gun liability insurance. The coverage though, based on this very short article, would not pay anything for people injured/killed in a shooting NOT self defense. Am I reading this correctly?
More government intrusion..and another way for them to know who the gun owners are and aren’t. Wake the h*** up, people!! History is repeating itself!!
People are the problem, not the guns.