Washington Fines Gun Insurance Company $100K for Illegal Policy Plans

October 25, 2019

  • October 25, 2019 at 1:30 pm
    Bond says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 15
    Thumb down 5

    Ok, so change the wording and allow them to issue policies, any legal gun owner who is confronted with the decision to fight or flight and ends up having to shoot someone to protect their life will almost always be charged with a crime (initially anyway). Not seeing the problem here except that Washington wants to end legal ownership of firearms, and one way to do it is make every gun owner exposed to a liability claim without being able to get coverage!

    • October 25, 2019 at 4:40 pm
      TheOCG says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 5
      Thumb down 0

      That is exactly what the OIC offered.

      “USCCA could sell insurance legally in Washington by changing its policies to not insure criminal activity, and either becoming a registered insurer or by placing insurance business through surplus lines brokers.”

      Obviously USCCA doesn’t want or intend to insure criminal activity, but the policy didn’t have a strong exclusion to coverage if the policy holder ends up being convicted of criminal use of the weapon.

      • October 28, 2019 at 10:44 am
        Joseph S Harrington, CPCU says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 3

        This suggests that Washington insurance regulators are indeed prepared to work with organizations like USCCA.

        Personally, I think the availability of damages to victims outweighs the strength of a criminal acts exclusion. I’m more concerned that victims get compensated than that wrongdoers might inadvertently receive defense costs, especially if the program brings in a party with a financial incentive to discourage recklessness and criminality.

  • October 25, 2019 at 1:35 pm
    Joseph S Harrington, CPCU says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 12
    Thumb down 4

    I’m not a gunowner or a member of any of the organizations providing self-defense coverage, but I think it would be desirable if states could work with these programs to create partners with a financial stake in safe use of firearms.

    • October 25, 2019 at 6:57 pm
      Jon says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 6
      Thumb down 8

      I don’t know if more businesses with a stake in the firearm industry is going to help the issue in this country with firearms. We have business interests that do not care about the american people invested in selling more guns here, more partnerships with these people is going to mean more blood. I don’t know why people in this country still believe more guns will lead to less gun violence when the exact opposite has been proven over and over, but we have a lot of crazy people so maybe that’s really all it is. Common sense is rare these days.

      • October 28, 2019 at 11:00 am
        Joseph S Harrington, CPCU says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 2
        Thumb down 0

        My principal concern in this matter is that people with different outlooks put aside judgment about other peoples’ motivations and identify opportunities to work together on practical approaches to gun safety.

        Like it or not, carrying firearms for self-defense is legal in the United States. Some organizations whose general views I do not endorse are prepared to take a financial stake in seeing that people using defending themselves with are careful in doing so and can compensate victims. I would seek to leverage that, whatever other agendas the sponsors may have.

        This will not solve our gun safety problem, not by a long shot, but it’s one of a number of ways we can incrementally work toward creating a culture of gun safety.

Add a Comment

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