As Active Shooter Incidents Increase, Industry Addresses Coverage ‘Gray Area’

By | August 11, 2016

  • August 11, 2016 at 10:58 am
    Vox Sanitus says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 9
    Thumb down 2

    It saddens me that such “active shooter” atrocities have become so common that they are now given a euphemism, “active shooter”, and they’re considered a workaday issue for businesses. It’s hard to believe that things have gotten this bad, but even subtracting the religious (you know who you are) terrorists leaves us with a lot of active shooters. Nowadays we don’t have mass murder, we have an
    “active shooter”.

    • August 15, 2016 at 10:26 am
      Jack says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      Some homeowners policies now have reduced liability coverage if a gun is involved as well.

  • August 11, 2016 at 2:02 pm
    Dave says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 4
    Thumb down 3

    Hats off to these folks for generating premium for duplicate coverage.

    If you believe that the lack of an affirmative coverage statement in your GL precludes coverage for this, you need an upgrade in your Agent and/or attorney.

    • August 11, 2016 at 2:38 pm
      Marshall says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 2
      Thumb down 0

      My guess is you or client have never been involved in an Active Shooter event. If so please explain.

      If not I encourage you to ask Cinamark’s position. After being shut down for 6 months and in litigation for three years. With out of pocket expenses over $1M.

      • August 11, 2016 at 3:10 pm
        Doubtfull says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 6
        Thumb down 0

        I don’t know Marshall, I think Dave has a point. I thought the bread and butter of coverage analysis was that any ambiguity in language or intent in the policy finds in favor of the insured.

      • August 11, 2016 at 4:16 pm
        Dave says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 6
        Thumb down 0

        Cinemark’s $250k SIR aside, are you saying that their Carrier denied coverage/defense causing an additional $750k loss to Cinemark?

        If so, it sounds like a Bad Faith action in the offing.

    • August 12, 2016 at 3:11 pm
      CTE says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 0

      It’s likely that the insured is covered for 3rd party claims by the victims and families of victims – however GL will not address the needs of the 3rd party victims themselves only defend the insured. This policy if I’m understanding it’s intent correctly is to provide crisis services as well for the victims and their families rather than simply defending the insured against claims.

  • August 11, 2016 at 2:33 pm
    Marshall says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 3
    Thumb down 0

    The coverage is a scary reminder of the world we live in, Marshall said, but the job of those who work in insurance is to take care of their clients and “help make people whole.”

    “Once we got past the denial factor that these incidents occur and made the coverage affordable for everyone, it was, ‘OK, how do we get it in the hands of everyone in the country?’”

    PMarshall – McGowan Programs

  • August 11, 2016 at 5:45 pm
    BDiaz says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 13
    Thumb down 0

    There is much merit in this effort. Clearly, someone has gone out of their way to provide something not offered in GL. Take Orlando, there were bodies that needed to be flown back other States or crowdfunding started to pay for medical expenses Funeral arrangements delayed due to lack of resources, etc. This coverage sends a team to take care of those things for the families. This is SOP in airline accidents, a team is dispatched to care for all families, all needs are cared for. So if the GL spells out the action plan, dispatches the emergency response team to location, implements the plan, and begins to pay for all required to get things back to normal, then I agree it’s redundant; however, that is not the case.

  • August 15, 2016 at 10:25 am
    Jack says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 3
    Thumb down 5

    Don’t you love the liberal spin on words again as we have an “active shooter”? How about we call them active killers, killers, gunman ? I’m an active shooter myself. You should be if you have your CWP. Practice makes perfect. :)

  • August 17, 2016 at 2:11 pm
    Lastfrontier says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 2
    Thumb down 1

    It makes me wonder if the designation of “gun free” zones actually creates a “duty to protect” or assurance of safety to invitees and employees from violence? Such an emerging insurance product deals with the aftermath. What about prevention? Since most – if not all – active shooter events have occurred in marked or designated “weapon free” zones, maybe one recommendation for prevention might be NOT to designate your campus or facility as such a zone. The criminal/terrorist will not comply – and may actually pick such a marked or designated location as a “soft target” with the potential for high victim counts…

    • August 17, 2016 at 2:38 pm
      JACK says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      You must really hate people lastfrontier. Just thought I’d beat the liberals to it. :)

  • November 22, 2016 at 2:19 pm
    Patti says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Our family is a casualty of the Va Tech massacre. Our future son-inlaw was murdered there. Our daughter also graduated there in May 2007 (shooting was April 2007). We have seen first-hand what absolute devastation this causes. The campus was a “gun free zone”, and look what happened. I am glad the Insurance Industry is addressing this issue. Unfortunately it’s the sign of the times.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*