Ok, ignore the gun control debate for a moment…
This is an insurance forum. Read carefully the portions of the policy the DFS took issue with, not the rebating or unlawful commissions, but the coverage they say was unlawful. Then read the Supplementary Payments section of the standard ISO CGL CG0001. Am I nuts or are half of those “illegal provisions” in every single policy written in NY on forms approved by the Superintendent? I’m not sure about the legality of all of the provisions, but there are definitely a few that DFS said were illegal that are in the standard ISO form. Take a look at the ISO CGL “Expected or Intended Injury” Exclusion: “This exclusion does not apply to “bodily injury” resulting from the use of reasonable force to protect persons or property.” Isn’t that exception to the exclusion providing the same coverage that was intended in CarryGuard? Please don’t respond with “yea but guns are bad” or the “NRA are criminals.” Read the article, read the form and let me know why these provisions are illegal. Thanks.
This isn’t applying to reasonable force, it is covering essentially unreasonable force, when the person using the gun (or possibly other things) gets paid for intentional wrongdoing. It’s essentially specifically providing coverage for intentional gun crimes.
Who told you that? The actual policy language says it covers BI or PD arising out of the use of a legally possessed firearm ONLY while engaged in:
1. Hunting or trapping or recreational shooting on public or private land;
2. Shooting at competitions or for recreation at hunt clubs, gun clubs or supervised commercial or private “ranges”;
3. Shooting other than as listed in 1. or 2. where such shooting is an “accidental discharge”, and not prohibited or restricted by any local, state, federal, or provincial law; or
4. Caused by the use of a “legally possessed firearm” by the “individual insured member” while engaged in an “act of self-defense.” ; or
5. Caused by the use of a “legally possessed firearm” by a “resident family member” while engaged in an “act of self-defense” occurring at the “residence premises.”
Also, exclusion O. excludes “any claim arising out of a criminal act” except “self-defense”.
Tell me where the unreasonable force, intentional wrongdoing, or intentional gun crime coverage is?
I am an NRA Carry Guard policy holder. My understanding is, the coverage offers supplemental payments for anything OTHER THAN your legal defense costs during the process. Once you are adjudicated not guilty, they reimburse you for those costs (up to policy limits). Yes, they offer lawyer retainers and help with bail which has nothing to do with paying for the defense. A lawyer being retained to protect your rights before any charges are filed isn’t part of a defense.
And NRA CG is different than other brand policies in that they only cover self defense with a firearm. Some cover self defense with ANY weapon, or with no weapon.
This is just more anti-gun-owner BS. First they argue gun owners should be required to have insurance, then they sue so anyone offering insurance is run out of business.
I believe you are correct and those were my thoughts as I was reading the article. And for those unaware how the law works, killing someone in self defense is not murder.
I’m having a hard time understanding how the defense costs coverage for criminal proceedings violations NY law…
The defense cost coverage were on a reimbursement basis and only applied if 1) charges were dismissed; 2) individual was acquitted; or 3) the prosecuting attorney announced their intent not to press charges.
This is more restrictive than the standard exclusion found on most professional liability policies.
This policy does NOT cover criminal activity. Per page 1 it covers BI or PD arising out of the use of a legally possessed firearm ONLY while engaged in:
1. Hunting or trapping or recreational shooting on public or private land;
2. Shooting at competitions or for recreation at hunt clubs, gun clubs or supervised commercial or private “ranges”;
3. Shooting other than as listed in 1. or 2. where such shooting is an “accidental discharge”, and not prohibited or restricted by any local, state, federal, or provincial law; or
4. Caused by the use of a “legally possessed firearm” by the “individual insured member” while engaged in an “act of self-defense.” ; or
5. Caused by the use of a “legally possessed firearm” by a “resident family member” while engaged in an “act of self-defense” occurring at the “residence premises.”
Also, exclusion O. excludes “any claim arising out of a criminal act” except “self-defense”.
This is a useful policy for gun owners and doesn’t need to be demonized. If arrested for an act of self defense, this policy will respond appropriately.
“unlawfully provided liability insurance to gun owners for acts of intentional wrongdoing and improperly provided legal services insurance for costs and expenses,”
would read on a policy… I wonder how they came to this being the intention?
Section I.C. does talk about defense costs in criminal investigations and criminal proceedings arising out of an act of self-defense. That is the provision which New York deems illegal.
However, Section II.B. provides that the only benefits paid are reimbursement of the insured’s expenses only after a nolle prosequi, no bill from a grand jury, dismissal of charges, or acquittal. I can see the policy being illegal if it paid for criminal defense on the same basis as payment for defense in a civil suit. Surely there are other types of insurance that provide reimbursement of expenses for criminal defense if charges are ultimately determined to be unfounded.
Insurance Company sued for offering coverage through Planned Parenthood to women who get abortions.
California Insurance Commissioner fines insurance company executives for exaggerating Climate Change in order to scare businesses and consumers into buying more insurance.
are you actually in the insurance industry? The only time I ever see you post anything is when you’re voicing your political opinion. This is a business site. There are literally tens of thousands of other sites out there devoted to politics.
The only reasons this is being published is because of the political hot potato called GUNS, and the fact that the left is pushing it’s way into every aspect of our society, including insurance.
Are you a thinking insurance person?
The California Insurance Commissioner keeps pushing Climate Change onto insurance companies. Climate Change has nothing to do with the job of the Insurance Commissioner.
“According to the DFS press release, Illinois Union has agreed, in addition to the fine, to refrain from…Entering into any other agreement, including any affinity-type insurance program, involving any line of insurance involving a contract of insurance involving the NRA, directly or indirectly.”
Banning any involvement with the NRA for the marketing of ANY & ALL insurance products to its membership?
In what universe is it appropriate for a State to impose such an incredibly broad restriction of commerce affecting legal commerce in other States?!?!
Hi everyone. I’m happy to find everyone here nice and mad. I’m also happy to say I’m the one who filed the shareholder resolution with Chubb that embarrassed them into backing down.
My shareholder resolutions reads as follows. I couldn’t be more proud of it. Boy, did those wimps at CB back down when faced with unassailable reason backed up by American Bar Association research!
SHAREHOLDER RESOLUTION
WHEREAS: Institutional investors, who hold nearly 90% of Chubb’s publicly-traded stock, increasingly apply Environmental-Social-Governance (ESG) criteria and ‘norm- based exclusions’ to stock selection and investment.
One exclusion is ‘controversial weapons’ companies. These are companies involved in producing or selling land mines, cluster bombs, handguns or assault weapons.
In Europe ‘controversial weapons’ investment exclusions are expanding. One is ‘financing of weapons’ causing ‘indiscriminate effects and disproportionate harm.’
Chubb’s Carryguard ‘Stand Your Ground’ shooting product may meet this definition. That, in turn, could lead to increasing ethical divestment from Chubb and reputational damage.
Chubb’s Carryguard insures against legal and other costs incurred if/when policyholders wound or kill others with firearms should they feel threatened under America’s unique state ‘Stand Your Ground’ laws. Chubb markets ‘Carryguard’ through the National Rifle Association, a gun rights lobby.
Some ‘Stand Your Ground’ laws impose little or no obligation on shooters to retreat from a perceived assailant or attempt de-escalation of a situation before shooting. Others legally protect shooters using deadly force against a person in retreat. Others offer civil immunity to shooters even if they are the initial aggressors.
The laws are controversial. So is Carryguard. Guns Down America, a civil society group, calls Carryguard ‘Murder Insurance.’
The American Bar Association, America’s largest professional organization for lawyers, urges repeal of all Stand Your Ground laws. The association’s research concluded the laws don’t reduce crime, but instead increase homicides and are marked by racial bias in application.
The association also concluded Stand Your Ground laws violate the U.S. Constitution’s provision: “no person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
Few Stand Your Ground cases go to court, a key requirement for a Carryguard payout. Prosecution is often hindered by a lack of disinterested witnesses. Given that acquittal or dismissal of charges is required for a successful Stand Your Ground insurance claim, potential Carryguard policyholders may consider the coverage unnecessary.
Carryguard presents Chubb with reputational and divestment risk through providing financial products (insurance) to a ‘controversial weapons’ market (Stand Your Ground shootings) causing ‘disproportionate harm’ (firearm woundings and/or killings).
In the United States, firearm murders have a history of altering corporate behavior.
Under civil society pressure following the 1999 Columbine massacre, US retailer Kmart stopped selling handgun ammunition. After the 2012 Sandy Hook massacre, the California Public Employees Retirement System and New York State’s retirement fund divested from gun makers.
BE IT RESOLVED: Shareholders request the Board publish a report, at reasonable expense and omitting proprietary information, discussing the Company’s options for adoption of policies above and beyond legal compliance to prevent or minimize public health harms from insurance products (Carryguard) serving ‘controversial weapons markets’ (Stand Your Ground shootings) causing ‘disproportionate harm’ (gun killings and woundings occurring under murky circumstances with few if any surviving disinterested witnesses).
When you throw crap into the universe and it falls back to earth and hits you in the head, that’s karma.
Ok, ignore the gun control debate for a moment…
This is an insurance forum. Read carefully the portions of the policy the DFS took issue with, not the rebating or unlawful commissions, but the coverage they say was unlawful. Then read the Supplementary Payments section of the standard ISO CGL CG0001. Am I nuts or are half of those “illegal provisions” in every single policy written in NY on forms approved by the Superintendent? I’m not sure about the legality of all of the provisions, but there are definitely a few that DFS said were illegal that are in the standard ISO form. Take a look at the ISO CGL “Expected or Intended Injury” Exclusion: “This exclusion does not apply to “bodily injury” resulting from the use of reasonable force to protect persons or property.” Isn’t that exception to the exclusion providing the same coverage that was intended in CarryGuard? Please don’t respond with “yea but guns are bad” or the “NRA are criminals.” Read the article, read the form and let me know why these provisions are illegal. Thanks.
This isn’t applying to reasonable force, it is covering essentially unreasonable force, when the person using the gun (or possibly other things) gets paid for intentional wrongdoing. It’s essentially specifically providing coverage for intentional gun crimes.
Who told you that? The actual policy language says it covers BI or PD arising out of the use of a legally possessed firearm ONLY while engaged in:
1. Hunting or trapping or recreational shooting on public or private land;
2. Shooting at competitions or for recreation at hunt clubs, gun clubs or supervised commercial or private “ranges”;
3. Shooting other than as listed in 1. or 2. where such shooting is an “accidental discharge”, and not prohibited or restricted by any local, state, federal, or provincial law; or
4. Caused by the use of a “legally possessed firearm” by the “individual insured member” while engaged in an “act of self-defense.” ; or
5. Caused by the use of a “legally possessed firearm” by a “resident family member” while engaged in an “act of self-defense” occurring at the “residence premises.”
Also, exclusion O. excludes “any claim arising out of a criminal act” except “self-defense”.
Tell me where the unreasonable force, intentional wrongdoing, or intentional gun crime coverage is?
I am an NRA Carry Guard policy holder. My understanding is, the coverage offers supplemental payments for anything OTHER THAN your legal defense costs during the process. Once you are adjudicated not guilty, they reimburse you for those costs (up to policy limits). Yes, they offer lawyer retainers and help with bail which has nothing to do with paying for the defense. A lawyer being retained to protect your rights before any charges are filed isn’t part of a defense.
And NRA CG is different than other brand policies in that they only cover self defense with a firearm. Some cover self defense with ANY weapon, or with no weapon.
This is just more anti-gun-owner BS. First they argue gun owners should be required to have insurance, then they sue so anyone offering insurance is run out of business.
This is all part of their plan.
I believe you are correct and those were my thoughts as I was reading the article. And for those unaware how the law works, killing someone in self defense is not murder.
I’m having a hard time understanding how the defense costs coverage for criminal proceedings violations NY law…
The defense cost coverage were on a reimbursement basis and only applied if 1) charges were dismissed; 2) individual was acquitted; or 3) the prosecuting attorney announced their intent not to press charges.
This is more restrictive than the standard exclusion found on most professional liability policies.
I hope they hook Hannity into this – he’s always advertising insurance for concealed carry permit holder listeners…
I responded to a prior article about this policy being labeled “murder insurance”. The coverage form can be found here:
https://lockton.nracarryguard.com/pdfs/individual-state-policy.pdf
This policy does NOT cover criminal activity. Per page 1 it covers BI or PD arising out of the use of a legally possessed firearm ONLY while engaged in:
1. Hunting or trapping or recreational shooting on public or private land;
2. Shooting at competitions or for recreation at hunt clubs, gun clubs or supervised commercial or private “ranges”;
3. Shooting other than as listed in 1. or 2. where such shooting is an “accidental discharge”, and not prohibited or restricted by any local, state, federal, or provincial law; or
4. Caused by the use of a “legally possessed firearm” by the “individual insured member” while engaged in an “act of self-defense.” ; or
5. Caused by the use of a “legally possessed firearm” by a “resident family member” while engaged in an “act of self-defense” occurring at the “residence premises.”
Also, exclusion O. excludes “any claim arising out of a criminal act” except “self-defense”.
This is a useful policy for gun owners and doesn’t need to be demonized. If arrested for an act of self defense, this policy will respond appropriately.
Good one Lauren. I see you take your training seriously.
Sounds like politics as normal in the not so great State of New York.
Good to see the NRA suing New York State for their actions.
Thanks, I was wondering how:
“unlawfully provided liability insurance to gun owners for acts of intentional wrongdoing and improperly provided legal services insurance for costs and expenses,”
would read on a policy… I wonder how they came to this being the intention?
Section I.C. does talk about defense costs in criminal investigations and criminal proceedings arising out of an act of self-defense. That is the provision which New York deems illegal.
However, Section II.B. provides that the only benefits paid are reimbursement of the insured’s expenses only after a nolle prosequi, no bill from a grand jury, dismissal of charges, or acquittal. I can see the policy being illegal if it paid for criminal defense on the same basis as payment for defense in a civil suit. Surely there are other types of insurance that provide reimbursement of expenses for criminal defense if charges are ultimately determined to be unfounded.
Headlines You will Never Read:
Insurance Company sued for offering coverage through Planned Parenthood to women who get abortions.
California Insurance Commissioner fines insurance company executives for exaggerating Climate Change in order to scare businesses and consumers into buying more insurance.
are you actually in the insurance industry? The only time I ever see you post anything is when you’re voicing your political opinion. This is a business site. There are literally tens of thousands of other sites out there devoted to politics.
Are you reading the articles?
The only reasons this is being published is because of the political hot potato called GUNS, and the fact that the left is pushing it’s way into every aspect of our society, including insurance.
Are you a thinking insurance person?
The California Insurance Commissioner keeps pushing Climate Change onto insurance companies. Climate Change has nothing to do with the job of the Insurance Commissioner.
Man, have a sense of humor and some perspective.
APRIL 19, 2018 AT 2:53 PM
Craig Cornell says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
1
Thanks, third grader!
“According to the DFS press release, Illinois Union has agreed, in addition to the fine, to refrain from…Entering into any other agreement, including any affinity-type insurance program, involving any line of insurance involving a contract of insurance involving the NRA, directly or indirectly.”
Banning any involvement with the NRA for the marketing of ANY & ALL insurance products to its membership?
In what universe is it appropriate for a State to impose such an incredibly broad restriction of commerce affecting legal commerce in other States?!?!
Hi everyone. I’m happy to find everyone here nice and mad. I’m also happy to say I’m the one who filed the shareholder resolution with Chubb that embarrassed them into backing down.
My shareholder resolutions reads as follows. I couldn’t be more proud of it. Boy, did those wimps at CB back down when faced with unassailable reason backed up by American Bar Association research!
SHAREHOLDER RESOLUTION
WHEREAS: Institutional investors, who hold nearly 90% of Chubb’s publicly-traded stock, increasingly apply Environmental-Social-Governance (ESG) criteria and ‘norm- based exclusions’ to stock selection and investment.
One exclusion is ‘controversial weapons’ companies. These are companies involved in producing or selling land mines, cluster bombs, handguns or assault weapons.
In Europe ‘controversial weapons’ investment exclusions are expanding. One is ‘financing of weapons’ causing ‘indiscriminate effects and disproportionate harm.’
Chubb’s Carryguard ‘Stand Your Ground’ shooting product may meet this definition. That, in turn, could lead to increasing ethical divestment from Chubb and reputational damage.
Chubb’s Carryguard insures against legal and other costs incurred if/when policyholders wound or kill others with firearms should they feel threatened under America’s unique state ‘Stand Your Ground’ laws. Chubb markets ‘Carryguard’ through the National Rifle Association, a gun rights lobby.
Some ‘Stand Your Ground’ laws impose little or no obligation on shooters to retreat from a perceived assailant or attempt de-escalation of a situation before shooting. Others legally protect shooters using deadly force against a person in retreat. Others offer civil immunity to shooters even if they are the initial aggressors.
The laws are controversial. So is Carryguard. Guns Down America, a civil society group, calls Carryguard ‘Murder Insurance.’
The American Bar Association, America’s largest professional organization for lawyers, urges repeal of all Stand Your Ground laws. The association’s research concluded the laws don’t reduce crime, but instead increase homicides and are marked by racial bias in application.
The association also concluded Stand Your Ground laws violate the U.S. Constitution’s provision: “no person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
Few Stand Your Ground cases go to court, a key requirement for a Carryguard payout. Prosecution is often hindered by a lack of disinterested witnesses. Given that acquittal or dismissal of charges is required for a successful Stand Your Ground insurance claim, potential Carryguard policyholders may consider the coverage unnecessary.
Carryguard presents Chubb with reputational and divestment risk through providing financial products (insurance) to a ‘controversial weapons’ market (Stand Your Ground shootings) causing ‘disproportionate harm’ (firearm woundings and/or killings).
In the United States, firearm murders have a history of altering corporate behavior.
Under civil society pressure following the 1999 Columbine massacre, US retailer Kmart stopped selling handgun ammunition. After the 2012 Sandy Hook massacre, the California Public Employees Retirement System and New York State’s retirement fund divested from gun makers.
BE IT RESOLVED: Shareholders request the Board publish a report, at reasonable expense and omitting proprietary information, discussing the Company’s options for adoption of policies above and beyond legal compliance to prevent or minimize public health harms from insurance products (Carryguard) serving ‘controversial weapons markets’ (Stand Your Ground shootings) causing ‘disproportionate harm’ (gun killings and woundings occurring under murky circumstances with few if any surviving disinterested witnesses).