They want to guarantee Constitutional rights… by banning free market principles and common sense? Where does the Constitution state that a civil militia is guaranteed an offer of liability coverage without a rate adjustment commensurate with the increased exposure presented by firearms kept in the home?
“Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide in the home.” (Am. J. Epidemiol. (2004) 160 (10) 929-936.doi: 10.1093/aje/kwh309)
Nothing else will spring these politicians into action like the mention of guns. I’ve got to side with Excitebiker on this one (yes, I feel dirty). If these politicians really want to help the public, they would ban homeowner carriers from using driving records in underwriting or stop carriers from turning optional coverages into mandatory coverage on renewals (bet they don’t tell the OIR about this in their filing). Or how about requiring that companies add the animal liability back to policies. I am sure there are more dog bites than gun shot wounds.
“Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide in the home.”
Well no crap. I would bet that having a guillotine in the home shows an increased risk of guillotine homicides. Or civil war era cannons in the home are associated with an increased risk of cannon homicides.
That homicide that may occur in the home of a firearms owner could be the person who tried to break into your home, rob, and potentially murder you. That is honestly the worst propagandizing anti-gun talking point.
Between hurricane exposure and now constraint on underwriting and pricing for those with guns in the home…Florida homeowners may find insurance less and less available…
Aren’t these the same politicians who are so anti-government being involved in business…
Florida is a state whose citizens enjoy their Constitutionally protected freedoms, owning and carrying a firearm among them. For an insurance company to charge an additional premium or decline to write based on a Constitutionally protected activity would be the same as charging more based on religion because Menorah candles present an additional exposure.
There are those carriers whose executives may use underwriting to further their personal political agendas, since there exists little liability in legally owning and legally using a firearm and the illegal use would eliminate coverage from the liability protection afforded by the property policy anyway.
The law simply protects legal firearm owners from discrimination at the hands of insurance carriers.
Wayne says, “Florida is a state whose citizens enjoy their Constitutionally protected freedoms…”
So, that’s why Florida is heavily populated with well regulated militia men. What’s that you say? They don’t belong to a well regulated militia? Hmmm. Wonder what their Founding Fathers would have to say about that.
Amendment II
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.
If you are going to own a firearm it is not unreasonable for the insurance carrier to charge an additional premium in the absence of proof of gun safety education. They do this for young drivers, giving them credit for attending drivers ed &/or having above-average grades. Why is this any different. If you want to own a gun and not complete safety courses, you will pay more for insurance. Your choice.
So are you saying they should get discounts on their insurance for providing proof of completing safety/training courses? Because I think a lot of people would agree with that instead of instantly penalizing people just for owning firearms. And it would make a lot more sense regarding personal and property loss due to home invasion/burglary.
You shouldn’t need to prove that though. Proving that should give you a discount seeing as you have shown yourself to be a responsible and law-abiding gun owner who can potentially stop crime. Not to mention you’re saying babies and toddlers should attend gun safety classes.
I often wonder if people like you think that a person becomes psychotic or suicidal immediately upon having a firearm in the home. That really seems to be the rhetoric the gun-control types tend to stand on.
Fine. Don’t prove anything. Then we’ll surcharge your policy. Your choice.
March 24, 2014 at 11:10 am
Got Insurance?? says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
My company gives discounts to people with central station/monitored burglar alarm systems on homeowners policies. Would it also not be prudent for the company to give a discount to a homeowner who owns a gun and has completed safety/training courses for said gun? Also, The company does not charge more for an insured who owns a pitbull…..they just get cancelled…..but they do charge more for a driver with a bad MVR.
The point being that both sides of the opinion coin have legitimate arguments in regards to this issue. However, it is my option that the only way I should be charged a higher rate on my insurance due to a gun is if I have chosen to schedule it on the policy.
The issue of securing your property against invasion/burlary by owning a firearem is far outweighed by the liability exposure of said firearm. We all have heard hundreds of stories about children getting a hold of a firearm and something terrible happening. If it’s my kid playing there and something happens you’d better believe I will sue the pants off the gun owner. And I’ll win.
Do you think gun owners (especially those with kids) just leave their guns lying around loaded and unsecured? Like just in the couch cushions or something? It’s a matter of responsible vs irresponsible. And yes, if someone is irresponsible with their fire firearms and it negatively impacts you, by all means, sue away.
Perhaps they should impose the ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ rule to questions asked about guns on the homeowner application? Guns don’t kill people, folks. People kill people.
If someone is intent on shooting someone with a gun, there is nothing these laws will do to stop them.
But it’s doubtful that class of person even carries a homeowners policy for a variety of reasons. I’m talking more about accidental shootings, usually involving law-abiding citizens. Shouldn’t gun safety education be required?
No bigotry on this blog. Seriously, Libby? “doubtful that class of person even carries a HO policy?” You need to get out more. I won’t even make any “typical liberal” comment here.
I agree with you 100% on that, Libby…No one should handle a gun without knowing how to handle it..and, no one should own a gun without knowing how to safely store it.
Since the ban is on underwriting criteria, does that mean the state is ok with the insurer excluding all gun related injuries? When I say ALL, I am INCLUDING accidents. An insurer has to be able to charge for the exposure, if they don’t get to ask about guns, then they can’t charge for that exposure. Therefore, they shouldn’t have to cover anything related to guns.
To me, this is a free market issue. Let those companies that wish to have a surcharge (or eliminate a discount – same thing, just change the base rate) charge one. Those that don’t wish to won’t. Customers will vote with their business.
Believe it or not, there is competition in the insurance industry. Let the free market do its thing.
I see no reason for government to get involved with this at all.
There are certainly valid arguments presented above. However, what is behind this is the attempts by the gun grabbers persuading insurance companies to limit coverage. In other areas they are attempting to force owners to purchase $1M liability policies. The activists seek to use emotion, lies and seemingly reasonable arguments with the sole intent to eliminate all gun ownership. They point to the NRA and allege the same tactics when in fact the NRA began and still remains founded in and promoting Safety and Training.
They want to guarantee Constitutional rights… by banning free market principles and common sense? Where does the Constitution state that a civil militia is guaranteed an offer of liability coverage without a rate adjustment commensurate with the increased exposure presented by firearms kept in the home?
“Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide in the home.” (Am. J. Epidemiol. (2004) 160 (10) 929-936.doi: 10.1093/aje/kwh309)
Nothing else will spring these politicians into action like the mention of guns. I’ve got to side with Excitebiker on this one (yes, I feel dirty). If these politicians really want to help the public, they would ban homeowner carriers from using driving records in underwriting or stop carriers from turning optional coverages into mandatory coverage on renewals (bet they don’t tell the OIR about this in their filing). Or how about requiring that companies add the animal liability back to policies. I am sure there are more dog bites than gun shot wounds.
“Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide in the home.”
Well no crap. I would bet that having a guillotine in the home shows an increased risk of guillotine homicides. Or civil war era cannons in the home are associated with an increased risk of cannon homicides.
That homicide that may occur in the home of a firearms owner could be the person who tried to break into your home, rob, and potentially murder you. That is honestly the worst propagandizing anti-gun talking point.
Between hurricane exposure and now constraint on underwriting and pricing for those with guns in the home…Florida homeowners may find insurance less and less available…
Aren’t these the same politicians who are so anti-government being involved in business…
Florida is a state whose citizens enjoy their Constitutionally protected freedoms, owning and carrying a firearm among them. For an insurance company to charge an additional premium or decline to write based on a Constitutionally protected activity would be the same as charging more based on religion because Menorah candles present an additional exposure.
There are those carriers whose executives may use underwriting to further their personal political agendas, since there exists little liability in legally owning and legally using a firearm and the illegal use would eliminate coverage from the liability protection afforded by the property policy anyway.
The law simply protects legal firearm owners from discrimination at the hands of insurance carriers.
Wayne. you are an idiot!!!
Compare John’s reply to Wayne’s comment, then decide who the idiot is. (Hint: It’s John!)
Wayne says, “Florida is a state whose citizens enjoy their Constitutionally protected freedoms…”
So, that’s why Florida is heavily populated with well regulated militia men. What’s that you say? They don’t belong to a well regulated militia? Hmmm. Wonder what their Founding Fathers would have to say about that.
Amendment II
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.
Just because you don’t understand the constitution doesn’t mean you should slander it and those who support it.
Compare ANY remark made by Destro to find out who the true idiot is. Hint: It’s Destro.
ANY!!!!
If you are going to own a firearm it is not unreasonable for the insurance carrier to charge an additional premium in the absence of proof of gun safety education. They do this for young drivers, giving them credit for attending drivers ed &/or having above-average grades. Why is this any different. If you want to own a gun and not complete safety courses, you will pay more for insurance. Your choice.
So are you saying they should get discounts on their insurance for providing proof of completing safety/training courses? Because I think a lot of people would agree with that instead of instantly penalizing people just for owning firearms. And it would make a lot more sense regarding personal and property loss due to home invasion/burglary.
I’m saying you don’t get a surcharge if you can prove all people in your home have attended gun safety classes. That’s different from a discount.
You shouldn’t need to prove that though. Proving that should give you a discount seeing as you have shown yourself to be a responsible and law-abiding gun owner who can potentially stop crime. Not to mention you’re saying babies and toddlers should attend gun safety classes.
I often wonder if people like you think that a person becomes psychotic or suicidal immediately upon having a firearm in the home. That really seems to be the rhetoric the gun-control types tend to stand on.
Fine. Don’t prove anything. Then we’ll surcharge your policy. Your choice.
My company gives discounts to people with central station/monitored burglar alarm systems on homeowners policies. Would it also not be prudent for the company to give a discount to a homeowner who owns a gun and has completed safety/training courses for said gun? Also, The company does not charge more for an insured who owns a pitbull…..they just get cancelled…..but they do charge more for a driver with a bad MVR.
The point being that both sides of the opinion coin have legitimate arguments in regards to this issue. However, it is my option that the only way I should be charged a higher rate on my insurance due to a gun is if I have chosen to schedule it on the policy.
The issue of securing your property against invasion/burlary by owning a firearem is far outweighed by the liability exposure of said firearm. We all have heard hundreds of stories about children getting a hold of a firearm and something terrible happening. If it’s my kid playing there and something happens you’d better believe I will sue the pants off the gun owner. And I’ll win.
Do you think gun owners (especially those with kids) just leave their guns lying around loaded and unsecured? Like just in the couch cushions or something? It’s a matter of responsible vs irresponsible. And yes, if someone is irresponsible with their fire firearms and it negatively impacts you, by all means, sue away.
Yes, that’s exactly what I think. I’ve seen it. With kids around.
Perhaps they should impose the ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ rule to questions asked about guns on the homeowner application? Guns don’t kill people, folks. People kill people.
If someone is intent on shooting someone with a gun, there is nothing these laws will do to stop them.
But it’s doubtful that class of person even carries a homeowners policy for a variety of reasons. I’m talking more about accidental shootings, usually involving law-abiding citizens. Shouldn’t gun safety education be required?
No bigotry on this blog. Seriously, Libby? “doubtful that class of person even carries a HO policy?” You need to get out more. I won’t even make any “typical liberal” comment here.
I agree with you 100% on that, Libby…No one should handle a gun without knowing how to handle it..and, no one should own a gun without knowing how to safely store it.
Since the ban is on underwriting criteria, does that mean the state is ok with the insurer excluding all gun related injuries? When I say ALL, I am INCLUDING accidents. An insurer has to be able to charge for the exposure, if they don’t get to ask about guns, then they can’t charge for that exposure. Therefore, they shouldn’t have to cover anything related to guns.
yes? no? thoughts?
To me, this is a free market issue. Let those companies that wish to have a surcharge (or eliminate a discount – same thing, just change the base rate) charge one. Those that don’t wish to won’t. Customers will vote with their business.
Believe it or not, there is competition in the insurance industry. Let the free market do its thing.
I see no reason for government to get involved with this at all.
Agreed.
There are certainly valid arguments presented above. However, what is behind this is the attempts by the gun grabbers persuading insurance companies to limit coverage. In other areas they are attempting to force owners to purchase $1M liability policies. The activists seek to use emotion, lies and seemingly reasonable arguments with the sole intent to eliminate all gun ownership. They point to the NRA and allege the same tactics when in fact the NRA began and still remains founded in and promoting Safety and Training.