They really need to think this through:
Gun safety in the home hasn’t been discussed much in the recent national conversation on gun violence, but the head of the nation’s largest homeowners and auto insurance company acknowledges that it could be.
Edward B. Rust Jr., CEO and chairman of the board of State Farm Mutual Insurance Co., said this week that gun ownership “could be among a multitude of things” considered among the risk factors used by insurance companies to determine the cost of homeowners insurance policies. “But,” he added, “whether someone owns a gun doesn’t necessarily make them a risk. . . . The bigger debate is, Are people competent in gun ownership?”
Rust made his comments following a panel discussion at a forum for property and casualty insurers held at the Waldorf-Astoria hotel in New York on Monday.
I have a rider on my policy for my collection. I have a decent amount of guns, that would need to be replaced in the event of a robbery or a fire. Still is their sentiment even realistic?
Certainly negligent discharges aren’t that big a deal. A little Spackle, and some minor repairs, DONE! Also if you end up shooting your large-screen TV while “Dry” firing, is that even valid for a claim?
If somebody dies as a result of a Negligent discharge, or in the Connecticut story they’re stolen to commit a crime, that certainly doesn’t have anything to do with Homeowner’s insurance.
So what the hell are they talking about?
h/t Mrs. Weer’d
They’re trying to figure out how to charge you more.
It’s all about making gun ownership as onerous and prohibitively expensive as possible. That’s it.
Same idea on taxing ammo, mandatory training and permits. “Safety Rosters”, every step they take they price a few more people out of the market.
And since voters are notoriously selfish, the more people priced out of the market, the less who vote against gun control.
And in MA, you’ll need that insurance if you want to continue to own guns. So, how much is your collection worth to you?
Uh, it’s worse than you think. See, back in the Bad Old Days before the Free States passed Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground Laws, it was not unusual for the Goblins who were shot (or their Surviving Relatives) to go after the Homeowners Insurance of the Home Defender.
And Win.
Mas Ayoob wrote about this YEARS ago.
Thank God, when the Free States passed Castle Doctrine, they also passed Liability Immunity to prevent the Defender from being made Penniless.
Let’s Hope this Crap doesn’t return.
Yes shooting your tv is a valid claim (if you didn’t do it on purpose) and your Homeowner’s Insurance can and does come into play if someone dies of a Negligent Discharge or even possibly the Sandy Hook incident.
As someone who worked in insurance for a while the real issue with this is frequency. Insurance companies are really good and determining frequency of fires and potential for storm damages but siutations with firearms are difficult. Intentional acts such as murder aren’t covered and only occassionally result in a claim. ND that result in injury or death rarely occur both in terms of pure numbers and statistically are insignificant. Those are the instances they are looking at but I really don’t see how they can ever rate for that given that this things are such one offs.