Fear of Rank

Panther · Post by **Panther** » Tue May 30, 2000 2:14 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by gmattson:

Perhaps the gun lobbiest should redirect some of their attention to this subject.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Professor,

Some of the gun activists are already on the case.

Canna-sempai is correct that your normal homeowner's policy only covers accidents. In fact, that is one of the reasons that you often hear of the tragic gun "accident". If it was "accidental" or "negligent", then the policy covers and many folks don't know until after the smoke has cleared. So, to get the payment, the reports and the story is written as an "accident".

Van Canna · Post by **Van Canna** » Tue May 30, 2000 2:16 pm

Gene,

If you rent you can still buy liability insurance. If your parents who own the house or lease the apartment, want no “addendums” you are out of luck!

As a pharmacist in the hospital are you an employee or an independent contractor?
Do you carry malpractice insurance of your own, are you required by the hospital to carry your own? Have you signed any contracts with the hospital that may contain hold harmless
and indemnification agreements in one or the other’s favor?

Is the hospital requiring you to carry commercial liability coverage? Are you covered under the hospital’s own Commercial liability policy as an additional insured?

The commercial liability policies usually cover for intentional acts and resultant injuries for protection of persons and property. But look into it. Ask questions, and contact your insurance agent and your lawyer with similar questions!

Caveat: I am not a lawyer, and the above is not meant to give advice but just to discuss such matters to stimulate interest and to guide to professional opinions!

Sensei Mattson brings up a salient point: Gun control through the “insurance coverage back door”! Insurance companies are “going to the trenches” in fear or ruinous lawsuits against their gun owning policyholders! The criminals are really dancing on the streets!

------------------
Van Canna

T Rose · Post by **T Rose** » Tue May 30, 2000 2:33 pm

Tony Blauer wrote:
Another .02 for what its worth...
The reality of 'self-defense' must be explained to this person.

His 'actions' will be looked at not his rank.

Negligence is negligence.
Excessive force is excessive force.

It doesn't matter if you're a white belt or black belt.

***********
absolutely true... however in the courtroom battle where I am a white belt, I sure would like to have a heavy weight black belt type lawyer with the same fighting mentality. Look how lawyers have twisted the facts so that interpretation is in their best interest. Classic example is all the hoopla a few years ago about using handloads for self defense. My handloads were built for competition, I knew their characteristics. The twist was "Mr. Rose, didn't you build these handloads just for the purpose of shooting someone? Aren't they more powerful than the factory ammunition that the police use? Why would you need more powerful ammunition? Weren't you just waiting for the chance to use it? Poor Mr. Perp is just looking at a little B&E... etc..." You get the point. Right sometimes has nothing to do with court.... I can guarentee somewhere somehow someone has twisted the black belt movie image into some court case. "Why didn't you just take away his knife, you ARE a karate black belt aren't you?".. The funny things is that the jury will be there shaking their heads in agreement...

oh what a world...

later

Van Canna · Post by **Van Canna** » Tue May 30, 2000 2:34 pm

<blockquote> So, to get the payment, the reports and the story is written as an "accident".</blockquote> [Panther]

Excellent point. In fact any good plaintiff’s lawyer, even if a shooting were intentional against his client, when suing the shooter/defendant with deep pockets [liability coverage], he will very carefully draft his allegations within the four corners of the complaint to include many “points” triggering an obligation to defend, and raise possible coverage and indemnity questions. Even if in the end coverage were not to be found, the triggered obligation to defend on behalf of the insurance carrier carries a heavy cost burden that in most cases coerces the insurance company to settle the case!

The last case I settled along these lines, we paid the policy limit of $100,000.00 as the projected cost of defense and trial would have exceeded that amount, and still there was a chance we might have lost the case before a jury!

------------------
Van Canna

Panther · Post by **Panther** » Tue May 30, 2000 3:10 pm

Hmmm... The whole "accident" issue is why you read about the LEO who has a firearm "accident" while cleaning his gun. All of the LEO policies and city pension plans that I know about exclude payment of benefits for a suicide... but not for a "cleaning accident".

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Tue May 30, 2000 3:31 pm

I'm not in the business of homeowners and liability insurance. I do health services research for a HEALTH insurance company. But I can tell you that listening to this discussion should make EVERYONE realize why insurance companies start getting very specific and technical in their policy language. Insurance companies bristle when ambulance-chasing lawyers and slimy members of our society view them as deep pockets to be milked for their personal benefit. Right now there are litigators out there (one in Mississippi, one in Alabama) who are doing nothing but generating RICO lawsuits against large (read deep pocket) insurers on the remote chance that one of these triple-the-damage suits will stick. In our company, we have a full-time unit - headed by a former FBI agent - that does nothing but investigate and prosecute fraud by members, doctors, and other "providers" of "care". We regularly send people to jail and bring in millions in improper payment. Can you understand what kind of bunker mentality that creates?

Contract language in a policy works both ways. Insurers are in the business of assessing risk and selling coverage to hedge against that risk. Anything can be purchased for a price. The insurance company just needs to make sure that they cover their claims expenses and have enough left over to make it worth selling the policy. If the language of the policy is clear, then the insurer can accurately assess risk and the insured can make a proper decision as to whether or not the coverage is worth having.

Yes, there are slimy insurers out there who try to shirk their fiduciary responsibilities. Those companies should be put out of business.

- Bill

[This message has been edited by Bill Glasheen (edited May 30, 2000).]

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Tue May 30, 2000 6:53 pm

Panther

It's difficult to answer your question directly.

In general, insurers who have agendas other than serving people and staying in business will not last long. The business is pretty cutthroat, and stupid companies hemorrhage before they get too far. Any company with a "PC" agenda will just be shadowed by a smarter, more professional outfit that'll scoop up the lost business. And consumers should shop based on company reputation (for speedy claims payment, clear contract language, and financial stability). The free market has a way of fixing these things.

On the other hand, a company will not have actuarial data to do pricing when a new phenomenon appears on the horizon. Actuaries are always teased about driving the company car by looking in the rear view mirror. Thus new phenomena can cause what appears on the outside to be strange pricing activity. Those insurers who "guess" right are the survivors. In the mean time, the consumer should tread cautiously when selecting their policy.

There are several ways to solve the problem:

* Have state legislators mandate that insurers cannot assess risk or coverage based on firearm ownership. Good luck! If this succeeds, then you spread the risk and the tactic of getting at the gun lobby and gun owners is severely crippled. In the end, insurers don't care as long as they know the rules.

* Make it easier to counter-sue for frivolous litigation. Good luck! Politicians are mostly lawyers.

* Lobby for victim's rights legislation.

I'm with you; I hate parasitic activity like this. It generates more heat than light, and redistributes hard-earned wealth to those that haven't earned it.

- Bill

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Wed May 31, 2000 5:04 am

I might also add that no insurance company wants to get caught in the cross-fire between second amendment defenders and tree huggers. Again...try to look at it from their perspective. Insurance reserves are there to protect covered members in the case of disaster - not to give political activists a means to "get at" the gun lobby. Unless there are laws that would force ALL insurers to cover people regardless of gun ownership, then one cherry-picking company is going to try to select for those who will not be sued by Dewey, Chetham and Howe. Next thing you know, it's impossible for a gun owner to get a reasonably-priced policy.

Don't blame the insurers; solve the problems at the source.

- Bill

Panther · Post by **Panther** » Wed May 31, 2000 5:28 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Bill Glasheen:

Don't blame the insurers; solve the problems at the source.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll assume you mean the over-litigiousness (is that a word?

)society and not some agenda-driven advocates who have started making a "PC" stand in the insurance industry (among others) without regard to real actuarial data that disproves their contentions. Making that assumption, there needs to be some way to balance the individual's rights to redress with the need to limit the frivolous "deep-pockets" attacks that seem to only make certain lawyers wealthy.

Panther · Post by **Panther** » Wed May 31, 2000 4:23 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Bill Glasheen:

It's difficult to answer your question directly.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did a pretty good job though.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
* Lobby for victim's rights legislation.

I'm with you; I hate parasitic activity like this. It generates more heat than light, and redistributes hard-earned wealth to those that haven't earned it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Amen to that!

There's a whole can o' worms in there somewhere.

Even though it'd be in agreement, I think I'll let it stay on the shelf.

[This message has been edited by Panther (edited May 31, 2000).]

RACastanet · Post by **RACastanet** » Tue Jun 06, 2000 1:27 am

One more input on insurance: There is in fact a note in my homeowners policy regarding firearms. Under the comprehensive section, the coverage for firearm losses is a maximum of $2,000. So, at least in Virginia, my carrier does not exclude a firearms owner from coverage, only limits the coverage.
Rich