This is absurd and shows that Lemonade does not understand gun owners:
1. Gun owners easily own more than $2,500 in firearms — a single firearm can easily be around that amount of cost.
2. They call semi-automatic rifles “assault weapons” — a classification that simply does not exist. Just because a rifle is semi-automatic (as the vast majority are) and it has a couple of features like a pistol grip, that does not make it an “assault rifle.”
Their new policy simply alienates gun owners while pandering to popular opinions. It’s obvious that this is political, because they have a quote with a tweet button on their page that says that they support gun ownership but not gun worship. Having a semi-automatic rifle or owning more than $2,500 in guns is not gun worship just like having more than $2,500 in ornate jewelry is not jewelry worship.
Its actually very smart and calculated. The policy already had a $2,500 sublimit for firearms due to theft. So they can trumpet that and spin it as a positive. Lets be honest as a smaller insurer focusing on the urban/young demographic they know they will gain more policyholders over this statement then lose potentially. Again smart and calculated.
While the statement may be polarizing, a limit of $2,500 seems entirely reasonable. I feel like people with more expensive or a greater number of firearms would be the ones to need limits in excess of that.
Does anyone in personal lines know a lot about how firearms are insured and are you willing to explain the potential impacts of this to commercial lines folks?
Most home policies have a theft limit for guns along with other target items such as jewelry. Most have options to schedule. If they do not there are standalone markets for covering those items.
1. Insurance has always been a ‘social good’ since the industry emerged hundreds of years ago
2. Hopefully this will cut into any growth Lemonade hopes for in the South, Big Sky, and Western states.
3% of all people own about 1/2 the guns, this will affect few people. Households with guns are more dangerous than those without. This makes sense from a risk perspective as well.
$2,500 is the norm without schedules or increased limits. And no, not all other companies offer policy holders the ability to schedule or increase limits.
Down here in Florida you get what you get and if you want more than that, go buy a collectors policy.
Guess what happens when you go buy a collectors policy? They treat you the exact same way as if you are buying a jewelry policy.
They require a schedule of each and every item. Certain items need receipts or appraisals. They want to know which are fired (if it were the case of jewelry it would be which are worn) and which are simply collector pieces, not to mention they can use separate rate based off what pieces are in locked safes (vaults) and which are not, and apply separate deductibles accordingly. On top of it all, they are going to require a home alarm once you get to a certain value.
Guns or jewelry, I see no big difference. A collection is a collection and Insurance Services Office’s (ISO) language has already determined where the cut off point is for a number of items.
Now if your insurer affords endorsements up and over, that’s their thing and super for you if you want to go that route. But note at the end of the day your probably paying a higher premium to schedule on an HO form, not to mention that increased risk of having a gun or jewelry loss on your homeowners.
I would rather have the specialized market adjust my loss and keep it off my homeowners!
Right on! I love trees and I hate to have them senselessly wasted by making furniture, instruments and sports equipment out of them. Plastic is fine. I am proposing an endorsement to Homeowners insurance to limit coverage on wooden products. Save the trees!
First of all I understand what they are trying to do. I don’t agree with it, but I understand.What I don’t understand is how they came up with $2500. Most casual gun owners own “the big 3”, a pistol, a shotgun, and a hunting rifle. Now even a budget version of each of those together can easily be more than $2500, not to mention the fact that nearly everyone who has a hunting rifle is going to have some sort of optic on it, which run anywhere from $300 to several thousand dollars.
Second I agree with Clete, there is no official classification for “assault rifles”. States like California have made up their own interpretation, but no Federal classification exists. And why would it?
It’s a term made up by the media.
Regardless of my feelings on the second amendment, they should change the $2500 limit to something more reasonable like $5k or $7500.
The ISO policy form has limitations on items such as: Cash, bullion, gold or silver including coins; jewelry, watches, furs, precious stones; firearms; silverware and silver/gold/puterware and trophies; personal watercraft and electronic apparatuses… etc., etc.
If your company wants to offer you up to $7500 on unscheduled guns, jewelry, cash, etc. then they can set the rate and go file with the state but they sure don’t have to.
This is true, but what I am saying is that they aren’t giving the option to endorse the policy with higher limits. Which is stupid. $2500 is too low of a limit to not be able to endorse, like I said, it should be more reasonable like $5k or $7,500.
This is an attempt at social engineering by a group of knuckleheads who happen to be insurance company executives.
Reducing choices for your customers is rarely a good idea. Not having optional coverage choices that your competitors do is even worse. A custom trap gun can easily exceed $2500 and they are never used in crimes. I’ll guarantee they client who owns one will have a very nice home.
The potential insured with the $10,000 trap gun and the $1.5M house is not Lemonade’s target right now. If in ten years they grow and want to get into more segments very few people will remember this statement if they have competitive prices and a good operations model…
I completely understand what Lemonade is gearing up to do. I also agree that it is socially responsible for an insurance company to do something to discourage “gun worship” as they call it. They pay the claims associated with gun violence. So this is loss control. The policy limitation of $2,500 for firearms is pretty standard. No big change there. Most carriers already do this. Other carriers may allow you to increase the limit by scheduling your guns. Most “gun worshippers” aren’t really keen on insuring their guns and believe in the conspiracy theory that this will eventually lead to BIG BROTHER taking their precious guns. I would like to see other carriers follow suit but in a way that still allows for a licensed professional to assess whether insured’s are simply collecting firearms as a hobby or preparing for a killing spree. And How? The insurance carrier could ask you to provide medical proof that you were not a lunatic before insuring your firearms or maybe the industry could ask for medical certification for someone trying to add to their collection, once or if they have more than 5 firearms on their schedule. This might curb the issue but it’s not going to protect everyone….just like it won’t stop people from buying illegal firearms on the black market. Gun owners would just not insure their firearms, especially the crazy ones.
The insurance product is always evolving to meet the needs of victims…that is why we now have Active Shooter Liability policies and also why Cyber Liability/Data Breach policies were launched as a new product. I don’t have any issue with the personal lines market also evolving and trying to keep up with the times. It’s WAY PAST TIME to do something PROACTIVE!
You have a long comment, so I’m going to break it down below. I’ll quote you and respond.
“I also agree that it is socially responsible for an insurance company to do something to discourage “gun worship” as they call it.” No, their job is to insure for risks that are insurable and that their customers want to insure.
“They pay the claims associated with gun violence.” No they don’t. If someone shoots someone else, it’s not homeowners that pays out.
“Other carriers may allow you to increase the limit by scheduling your guns. Most “gun worshippers” aren’t really keen on insuring their guns and believe in the conspiracy theory that this will eventually lead to BIG BROTHER taking their precious guns.” Gun owners are absolutely interested in insuring their guns. It’s not a conspiracy that there are many who want to take away guns. Just see Piers Morgan and others calling for “assault weapon” (a made up term) bans.
“I would like to see other carriers follow suit but in a way that still allows for a licensed professional to assess whether insured’s are simply collecting firearms as a hobby or preparing for a killing spree. And How? The insurance carrier could ask you to provide medical proof that you were not a lunatic before insuring your firearms or maybe the industry could ask for medical certification for someone trying to add to their collection, once or if they have more than 5 firearms on their schedule. This might curb the issue but it’s not going to protect everyone….just like it won’t stop people from buying illegal firearms on the black market. Gun owners would just not insure their firearms, especially the crazy ones.” You just defeated your own argument here. Adding insurability requirements will just stop people from seeking insurance from their valuable possessions, and adding these restrictions won’t prevent gun violence.
“The insurance product is always evolving to meet the needs of victims…” No, insurance is designed to protect from risks.
“that is why we now have Active Shooter Liability policies and also why Cyber Liability/Data Breach policies were launched as a new product. I don’t have any issue with the personal lines market also evolving and trying to keep up with the times.” Most homeowners don’t buy additional policies like these, nor do they even buy personal articles policies. Most consumers prefer simplicity. As long as underwriting standards can understand the riders to your average homeowners form, there is no reason to require gun owners to buy a separate policy. That will just lead to more uninsured losses, just like forcing flood insurance to be run by the government has only lead to decreased percentages of people having flood insurance.
“It’s WAY PAST TIME to do something PROACTIVE!” Given that everything you proposed here will do nothing to stop gun violence, I think this statement is pure political grandstanding and virtue signaling.
Virtue signaling is good. Lemonade has signaled they don’t support people who worship guns and they won’t cover people who have items designed solely to kill people. Good. It’s no different than the virtue signaling done here everyday,eg a deleted story where most conservatives showed they were fine with Nazis, White supremacists and attacks on non-violent protestors. Or the thousands of comments attacking people who are not well off financially, or the comments supporting sexual assaulters and praising them as ‘the finest men’ people know.
You keep repeating an idiotic, false line. There are definitions for assault rifles ajd assault weapo. Most use the 1994 federal ban definition, while many add or redefine it. It’s a “made up term” like outer space, speeding, pollution, idiot, or liar. Everything is a made up term. You are just repeating NRA propaganda word-for-word.
If people have to pay more to insure their house because they have guns, which studies confirm make a household more dangerous, making this a reality-based market solution, many will choose to get rid of their guns. If you don’t believe this you need to provide evidence overturning almost all of basic economics.
It’s pretty telling that stories about guns and climate change bring commenters who have never commented before and recite long arguments almost verbatim from the groups opposing these things.
I noticed this as well. Tons and tons of additional commenters on any gun related topic. And every single one of them supporting the NRA line. Always “nothing could have been done”, etc
And you making no suggestions that could have done anything.
I recently spelled out your belief on the matter, and why us on the right use that line in reaction to your lines.
This is old.
October 25, 2017 at 4:44 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
“Good. It’s no different than the virtue signaling done here everyday,eg a deleted story where most conservatives showed they were fine with Nazis, White supremacists and attacks on non-violent protestors”
No they didn’t, they simply pointed out that the people who came to the protest were violent themselves and were bound to have pushback. There was violence on both sides.
Also, you yourself said violence is a means of civil protest, you actually have done what you just accused the right of doing.
I personally agree with most of Lemonade’s stances on gun control/gun violence. I am not upset about this decision from a gun-control perspective in anyway. I am a bit annoyed at yet another display of Lemonade and their management having no knowledge of insurance and coverage forms.
1. All they have done is used the ISO form everyone else uses and decided not to offer additional scheduled limits for guns. Their rhetoric sounds nice but in reality they havent changed their policy.
2. The coverage they are referring to is for theft of damage to guns from something like water leakage or a housefire. There is no real link to how a gun is used by the owner and when/if it is damaged or stolen, There is no way they will be able to follow through on this claim. Requiring storage is doable but this is already something done by other companies.
3. The dollar value of a gun in no way correlates to its danger to society. FOr example an antique civil war era rifle could be worth 100s of thousands while being barely usable. The same goes for shotguns. My dad has a standard shotgun that shoots two shells at a time and then takes 10s of seconds to reload etc. but it it gold plated and made of great material making it $10k plus.
In the end Lemonade is using the property insurance of guns as a marketing ploy knowing full well they are not doing anything differently.
These boys have chosen their field to plow and this stance is a simple marketing ploy and a good one at that.
If this was anything other than a marketing ploy, they’d simply charge exorbitant rates on the xs over $2,500 and drive away the gun crowd. These folks are next level in that they using an underwriting restriction to promote themselves to the anti-gun segment.
While I scoff at their lack of understanding of gun ownership, I applaud their marketing tactic. Brilliant!
I agree on this. They are definitely aligning themselves with the 65% or so of Americans who don’t own guns for whatever reasons, including the probably 30-40% of Americans who are outrightly anti-gun.
It’s all marketing, and it is pretty brilliant in many regards. The dyed-in-the-wool hardcore gun types weren’t going to be the ones to try a new-age insurance quoting platform anyway, so they are basically losing nothing and gaining free press on something that they are not even really that unique on.
Its ABSURD! Most policies limit guns to $2,500. Seriously, I don’t want to sell to any prospect that buys insurance because of ‘perception’ instead of reality. As an agent, ‘perception’ will get you sued once a claim has occurred. And fyi, I don’t believe in guns, but I do believe in knowing the reality of a situation as a consumer and a voter.
Hometowns policies usually have standard limits, per item, on certain, owned property. Jewelry, furs, fine art, go read the policy limits section and details about limits. Companies ALWAYS have the right to expand or limit coverage by endorsement.
Kathleen above simply does not understand the issue being discussed.
Firearms have a sub-limit on the policy — same a jewelry, furs, silverwear, etc. The difference here is you can’t schedule a higher amount for firearms. You can schedule a higher amount on other like items such as jewelry, furs, silverwear, etc.
It is not what Schreiber (CEO) of Lemonade has said and what his company is doing, it is the TONE in which it is presented. Hostile! He could become a speech writer for President Donald Trump!
I can understand the difficulty with this issue, and the reason it’s so polarizing. Firearms were essentially created as weapons and designed for the fastest way to kill an individual human or animal. The issue is do we need access to these weapons to kill humans and animals in society today?
If I were living in the U.K., I would probably say, “No, I don’t need access to weapons because I get my food from the grocery stores, and law enforcement in the U.K. is attentive, and there are cameras everywhere to assist in justice.”
But I live in the U.S, and not in a heavily populated area, it could take time for the police to arrive in the event of an emergency, and there aren’t any cameras around to ensure my safety. This means I’m responsible for my safety, and if I get stranded out here, I might need to kill and eat an animal to survive.
In densely populated cities, if the police force was up to par, I would say they probably could eliminate the needs for firearms, but not in rural areas. America covers too many miles, and there are many areas that I would not be comfortable traveling too without a firearm. We’re still more Wild, Wild West out here than most people think.
Lemonade is also refusing to insure Make America Great hats. They are promising not to insure American flags for more than actual cash value in blue states and also pledging not to insure gun racks on pick up trucks. Their social justice position is so honorable that Harvey Weinstein mentioned them in his attack on the NRA.
Why don’t they amend the company name to Social Activists Insurance! One way we will compete against these Activists is to point out to our freedom-valuing clientele that these operations have ulterior motives beyond risk financing & transfer. Given the # of empty seats in NFL stadiums, it appears that the thinking populace is waking up to the fraud of this social engineering. Caveat emptor!
All homeowner policies I’ve seen have a special limit for theft of firearms. Will the changes Lemonade is taking limit coverage to $2,500 for perils outside of theft?
NRA- has great gun coverage and you can buy a great liability policy for that self defense shooting.
USCCA- also has a great liability policy for a self defense shooting.
Rockwood Insurance- has a great liability policy for a self defense shooting.
You see guys and girls, it’s not the $3000 gun that gets stolen that’s going to cost you an arm and a leg, it’s your liability expense that’s going to bankrupt you when you find out your homeowners policy ain’t going to pay for shitz!
All of my liberal friends who believe in expanding gun laws have educated me. You see, in 2015, there were a little more than 4,000. homicides in America by use of a gun. And the Federal Government reports that 60,000. incidents of violence were stopped by a private citizen who had a gun.
I am so impressed by the compassion of my liberal friends for caring so much about the issue that they actually educated themselves fully on the topic.
(Florida State research estimates over 1,000,000. incidents of violence are stopped with a gun annually.)
Prediction: ignorant name calling to follow immediately from people who don’t have enough compassion to study the issue . . .
This is absurd and shows that Lemonade does not understand gun owners:
1. Gun owners easily own more than $2,500 in firearms — a single firearm can easily be around that amount of cost.
2. They call semi-automatic rifles “assault weapons” — a classification that simply does not exist. Just because a rifle is semi-automatic (as the vast majority are) and it has a couple of features like a pistol grip, that does not make it an “assault rifle.”
Their new policy simply alienates gun owners while pandering to popular opinions. It’s obvious that this is political, because they have a quote with a tweet button on their page that says that they support gun ownership but not gun worship. Having a semi-automatic rifle or owning more than $2,500 in guns is not gun worship just like having more than $2,500 in ornate jewelry is not jewelry worship.
Its actually very smart and calculated. The policy already had a $2,500 sublimit for firearms due to theft. So they can trumpet that and spin it as a positive. Lets be honest as a smaller insurer focusing on the urban/young demographic they know they will gain more policyholders over this statement then lose potentially. Again smart and calculated.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Most home policies have a theft limit for guns along with other target items such as jewelry. Most have options to schedule. If they do not there are standalone markets for covering those items.
Lemonade has officially jumped the shark….
Maybe snark as well.
Just a few points:
1. Insurance has always been a ‘social good’ since the industry emerged hundreds of years ago
2. Hopefully this will cut into any growth Lemonade hopes for in the South, Big Sky, and Western states.
3% of all people own about 1/2 the guns, this will affect few people. Households with guns are more dangerous than those without. This makes sense from a risk perspective as well.
Lemonade on the cutting edge of ISO policy language. Read any ISO HO-3, HO-6, HO-4 and what do you find? A $2,500 theft limitation for firearms.
God bless Lemonade for doing what every other insurance carrier is doing!
Yes but other carriers allow extensions on the coverage to insure excess, just like jewelry. This limitation is senseless.
$2,500 is the norm without schedules or increased limits. And no, not all other companies offer policy holders the ability to schedule or increase limits.
Down here in Florida you get what you get and if you want more than that, go buy a collectors policy.
Guess what happens when you go buy a collectors policy? They treat you the exact same way as if you are buying a jewelry policy.
They require a schedule of each and every item. Certain items need receipts or appraisals. They want to know which are fired (if it were the case of jewelry it would be which are worn) and which are simply collector pieces, not to mention they can use separate rate based off what pieces are in locked safes (vaults) and which are not, and apply separate deductibles accordingly. On top of it all, they are going to require a home alarm once you get to a certain value.
Guns or jewelry, I see no big difference. A collection is a collection and Insurance Services Office’s (ISO) language has already determined where the cut off point is for a number of items.
Now if your insurer affords endorsements up and over, that’s their thing and super for you if you want to go that route. But note at the end of the day your probably paying a higher premium to schedule on an HO form, not to mention that increased risk of having a gun or jewelry loss on your homeowners.
I would rather have the specialized market adjust my loss and keep it off my homeowners!
This is so a non-issue.
Right on! I love trees and I hate to have them senselessly wasted by making furniture, instruments and sports equipment out of them. Plastic is fine. I am proposing an endorsement to Homeowners insurance to limit coverage on wooden products. Save the trees!
First of all I understand what they are trying to do. I don’t agree with it, but I understand.What I don’t understand is how they came up with $2500. Most casual gun owners own “the big 3”, a pistol, a shotgun, and a hunting rifle. Now even a budget version of each of those together can easily be more than $2500, not to mention the fact that nearly everyone who has a hunting rifle is going to have some sort of optic on it, which run anywhere from $300 to several thousand dollars.
Second I agree with Clete, there is no official classification for “assault rifles”. States like California have made up their own interpretation, but no Federal classification exists. And why would it?
It’s a term made up by the media.
Regardless of my feelings on the second amendment, they should change the $2500 limit to something more reasonable like $5k or $7500.
The ISO policy form has limitations on items such as: Cash, bullion, gold or silver including coins; jewelry, watches, furs, precious stones; firearms; silverware and silver/gold/puterware and trophies; personal watercraft and electronic apparatuses… etc., etc.
If your company wants to offer you up to $7500 on unscheduled guns, jewelry, cash, etc. then they can set the rate and go file with the state but they sure don’t have to.
This is true, but what I am saying is that they aren’t giving the option to endorse the policy with higher limits. Which is stupid. $2500 is too low of a limit to not be able to endorse, like I said, it should be more reasonable like $5k or $7,500.
Why does every business feel the need to lecture us?
Owning $2,500 in guns is not “gun worship” nor is owning a $50k car “car worship.” Glad I won’t have a problem with this company as a customer.
This is an attempt at social engineering by a group of knuckleheads who happen to be insurance company executives.
Reducing choices for your customers is rarely a good idea. Not having optional coverage choices that your competitors do is even worse. A custom trap gun can easily exceed $2500 and they are never used in crimes. I’ll guarantee they client who owns one will have a very nice home.
The potential insured with the $10,000 trap gun and the $1.5M house is not Lemonade’s target right now. If in ten years they grow and want to get into more segments very few people will remember this statement if they have competitive prices and a good operations model…
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
You have a long comment, so I’m going to break it down below. I’ll quote you and respond.
“I also agree that it is socially responsible for an insurance company to do something to discourage “gun worship” as they call it.” No, their job is to insure for risks that are insurable and that their customers want to insure.
“They pay the claims associated with gun violence.” No they don’t. If someone shoots someone else, it’s not homeowners that pays out.
“Other carriers may allow you to increase the limit by scheduling your guns. Most “gun worshippers” aren’t really keen on insuring their guns and believe in the conspiracy theory that this will eventually lead to BIG BROTHER taking their precious guns.” Gun owners are absolutely interested in insuring their guns. It’s not a conspiracy that there are many who want to take away guns. Just see Piers Morgan and others calling for “assault weapon” (a made up term) bans.
“I would like to see other carriers follow suit but in a way that still allows for a licensed professional to assess whether insured’s are simply collecting firearms as a hobby or preparing for a killing spree. And How? The insurance carrier could ask you to provide medical proof that you were not a lunatic before insuring your firearms or maybe the industry could ask for medical certification for someone trying to add to their collection, once or if they have more than 5 firearms on their schedule. This might curb the issue but it’s not going to protect everyone….just like it won’t stop people from buying illegal firearms on the black market. Gun owners would just not insure their firearms, especially the crazy ones.” You just defeated your own argument here. Adding insurability requirements will just stop people from seeking insurance from their valuable possessions, and adding these restrictions won’t prevent gun violence.
“The insurance product is always evolving to meet the needs of victims…” No, insurance is designed to protect from risks.
“that is why we now have Active Shooter Liability policies and also why Cyber Liability/Data Breach policies were launched as a new product. I don’t have any issue with the personal lines market also evolving and trying to keep up with the times.” Most homeowners don’t buy additional policies like these, nor do they even buy personal articles policies. Most consumers prefer simplicity. As long as underwriting standards can understand the riders to your average homeowners form, there is no reason to require gun owners to buy a separate policy. That will just lead to more uninsured losses, just like forcing flood insurance to be run by the government has only lead to decreased percentages of people having flood insurance.
“It’s WAY PAST TIME to do something PROACTIVE!” Given that everything you proposed here will do nothing to stop gun violence, I think this statement is pure political grandstanding and virtue signaling.
Clete- Heather is caught up in her emotions again.
You know how that works out so well when commonsense and intelligence is needed…right?
How’s this fer ya? JOIN THE NRA AND GET ALL THE GUN INSURANCE YA WANT!! THEY SELL IT EVERYDAY!!!
Liberal heads exploding now I know, but ya had it coming to ya.
Virtue signaling is good. Lemonade has signaled they don’t support people who worship guns and they won’t cover people who have items designed solely to kill people. Good. It’s no different than the virtue signaling done here everyday,eg a deleted story where most conservatives showed they were fine with Nazis, White supremacists and attacks on non-violent protestors. Or the thousands of comments attacking people who are not well off financially, or the comments supporting sexual assaulters and praising them as ‘the finest men’ people know.
You keep repeating an idiotic, false line. There are definitions for assault rifles ajd assault weapo. Most use the 1994 federal ban definition, while many add or redefine it. It’s a “made up term” like outer space, speeding, pollution, idiot, or liar. Everything is a made up term. You are just repeating NRA propaganda word-for-word.
If people have to pay more to insure their house because they have guns, which studies confirm make a household more dangerous, making this a reality-based market solution, many will choose to get rid of their guns. If you don’t believe this you need to provide evidence overturning almost all of basic economics.
It’s pretty telling that stories about guns and climate change bring commenters who have never commented before and recite long arguments almost verbatim from the groups opposing these things.
I noticed this as well. Tons and tons of additional commenters on any gun related topic. And every single one of them supporting the NRA line. Always “nothing could have been done”, etc
And you making no suggestions that could have done anything.
I recently spelled out your belief on the matter, and why us on the right use that line in reaction to your lines.
This is old.
“Good. It’s no different than the virtue signaling done here everyday,eg a deleted story where most conservatives showed they were fine with Nazis, White supremacists and attacks on non-violent protestors”
No they didn’t, they simply pointed out that the people who came to the protest were violent themselves and were bound to have pushback. There was violence on both sides.
Also, you yourself said violence is a means of civil protest, you actually have done what you just accused the right of doing.
Also, deleting a post of conservatives supporting white supremacists would also not be virtue signaling by the way.
You are beyond comprehension on your ability to rationale and perform logic intensive scenarios.
I personally agree with most of Lemonade’s stances on gun control/gun violence. I am not upset about this decision from a gun-control perspective in anyway. I am a bit annoyed at yet another display of Lemonade and their management having no knowledge of insurance and coverage forms.
1. All they have done is used the ISO form everyone else uses and decided not to offer additional scheduled limits for guns. Their rhetoric sounds nice but in reality they havent changed their policy.
2. The coverage they are referring to is for theft of damage to guns from something like water leakage or a housefire. There is no real link to how a gun is used by the owner and when/if it is damaged or stolen, There is no way they will be able to follow through on this claim. Requiring storage is doable but this is already something done by other companies.
3. The dollar value of a gun in no way correlates to its danger to society. FOr example an antique civil war era rifle could be worth 100s of thousands while being barely usable. The same goes for shotguns. My dad has a standard shotgun that shoots two shells at a time and then takes 10s of seconds to reload etc. but it it gold plated and made of great material making it $10k plus.
In the end Lemonade is using the property insurance of guns as a marketing ploy knowing full well they are not doing anything differently.
I am seriously wondering how many of you have ever read your home insurance policy…
These boys have chosen their field to plow and this stance is a simple marketing ploy and a good one at that.
If this was anything other than a marketing ploy, they’d simply charge exorbitant rates on the xs over $2,500 and drive away the gun crowd. These folks are next level in that they using an underwriting restriction to promote themselves to the anti-gun segment.
While I scoff at their lack of understanding of gun ownership, I applaud their marketing tactic. Brilliant!
I agree on this. They are definitely aligning themselves with the 65% or so of Americans who don’t own guns for whatever reasons, including the probably 30-40% of Americans who are outrightly anti-gun.
It’s all marketing, and it is pretty brilliant in many regards. The dyed-in-the-wool hardcore gun types weren’t going to be the ones to try a new-age insurance quoting platform anyway, so they are basically losing nothing and gaining free press on something that they are not even really that unique on.
Its ABSURD! Most policies limit guns to $2,500. Seriously, I don’t want to sell to any prospect that buys insurance because of ‘perception’ instead of reality. As an agent, ‘perception’ will get you sued once a claim has occurred. And fyi, I don’t believe in guns, but I do believe in knowing the reality of a situation as a consumer and a voter.
Don’t like their policy…take your business elsewhere! It ain’t rocket science.
Hometowns policies usually have standard limits, per item, on certain, owned property. Jewelry, furs, fine art, go read the policy limits section and details about limits. Companies ALWAYS have the right to expand or limit coverage by endorsement.
Kathleen above simply does not understand the issue being discussed.
Firearms have a sub-limit on the policy — same a jewelry, furs, silverwear, etc. The difference here is you can’t schedule a higher amount for firearms. You can schedule a higher amount on other like items such as jewelry, furs, silverwear, etc.
It’s not rocket science.
It is not what Schreiber (CEO) of Lemonade has said and what his company is doing, it is the TONE in which it is presented. Hostile! He could become a speech writer for President Donald Trump!
I’m guessing he’d be waaay to the left of the President, so maybe a Bernie Sanders speechwriter.
I can understand the difficulty with this issue, and the reason it’s so polarizing. Firearms were essentially created as weapons and designed for the fastest way to kill an individual human or animal. The issue is do we need access to these weapons to kill humans and animals in society today?
If I were living in the U.K., I would probably say, “No, I don’t need access to weapons because I get my food from the grocery stores, and law enforcement in the U.K. is attentive, and there are cameras everywhere to assist in justice.”
But I live in the U.S, and not in a heavily populated area, it could take time for the police to arrive in the event of an emergency, and there aren’t any cameras around to ensure my safety. This means I’m responsible for my safety, and if I get stranded out here, I might need to kill and eat an animal to survive.
In densely populated cities, if the police force was up to par, I would say they probably could eliminate the needs for firearms, but not in rural areas. America covers too many miles, and there are many areas that I would not be comfortable traveling too without a firearm. We’re still more Wild, Wild West out here than most people think.
In the UK, since they’ve outlawed guns, they’ve been having a BIG problem with knives.
Ditto Chicago
Lemonade is also refusing to insure Make America Great hats. They are promising not to insure American flags for more than actual cash value in blue states and also pledging not to insure gun racks on pick up trucks. Their social justice position is so honorable that Harvey Weinstein mentioned them in his attack on the NRA.
AH HA! Lemonade has come up with the solution. There is a direct correlation between guns being insured and violations of gun laws and gun violence.
Why don’t they amend the company name to Social Activists Insurance! One way we will compete against these Activists is to point out to our freedom-valuing clientele that these operations have ulterior motives beyond risk financing & transfer. Given the # of empty seats in NFL stadiums, it appears that the thinking populace is waking up to the fraud of this social engineering. Caveat emptor!
All homeowner policies I’ve seen have a special limit for theft of firearms. Will the changes Lemonade is taking limit coverage to $2,500 for perils outside of theft?
NRA- has great gun coverage and you can buy a great liability policy for that self defense shooting.
USCCA- also has a great liability policy for a self defense shooting.
Rockwood Insurance- has a great liability policy for a self defense shooting.
You see guys and girls, it’s not the $3000 gun that gets stolen that’s going to cost you an arm and a leg, it’s your liability expense that’s going to bankrupt you when you find out your homeowners policy ain’t going to pay for shitz!
READ YOUR POLICY PEOPLE!!
Jack, quit making so much sense. It is beyond some on the left.
All of my liberal friends who believe in expanding gun laws have educated me. You see, in 2015, there were a little more than 4,000. homicides in America by use of a gun. And the Federal Government reports that 60,000. incidents of violence were stopped by a private citizen who had a gun.
I am so impressed by the compassion of my liberal friends for caring so much about the issue that they actually educated themselves fully on the topic.
(Florida State research estimates over 1,000,000. incidents of violence are stopped with a gun annually.)
Prediction: ignorant name calling to follow immediately from people who don’t have enough compassion to study the issue . . .