General Discussion

slackmaster

(60,567 posts)

80. Perhaps you don't understand how the insurance business works, or what policies cover.

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 02:44 PM

Dec 2012

A typical homeowner's or renter's policy would cover liability for death caused by an accidental or negligent shooting. At least up to the liability limit stated in the policy. For survivors to recover more than that, they would have to sue.

I know mine would cover my liability, just as it would if one of my trees fell on someone. And my insurer does know that I own firearms. I've discussed it with my agent. He told me that if the value of my collection ever exceeds a particular value, I should catalog the collection and get a rider to ensure that the full value is covered against fire and theft. Otherwise firearms are included under "unscheduled personal property."

If he could increase my liability premium because I have firearms in the home, you can be quite sure he would have done so already.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

125 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Gun Liability Insurance [View all] dooner Dec 2012 OP

I wonder how much it would cost? Recursion Dec 2012 #1

I don't know dooner Dec 2012 #3

If insurance companies could quantify the risk posed by gun ownership, they would be charging for it slackmaster Dec 2012 #45

I've been talking about this for a while Politicalboi Dec 2012 #2

I'd never heard of it before yesterday and think it has a lot of merit. KittyWampus Dec 2012 #13

This used to be proposed in gungeon and gun "enthusiasts" had a laundry Hoyt Dec 2012 #4

At least you now acknowledge it would be classist ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #7

Those poor gun owners... ellisonz Dec 2012 #9

So you support approaches that result in defacto classism and racism? ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #10

Racism? ellisonz Dec 2012 #12

When the effect of a program falls disproportionately on the poor and minorities, that is what it is ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #14

I think you really need to watch who you accuse of racism. ellisonz Dec 2012 #19

In their zeal to do what they consider good things, people often ignore disproportionate impact. ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #24

Those poor gun owners... ellisonz Dec 2012 #26

Protecting the weaker and threatened from those who would attack and prey upon them is pretty ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #37

Yeah, but when you price and market guns to yahoos, you get bigots packing and Hoyt Dec 2012 #25

It is a very full and competitive market with both large and small companies ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #36

You're assuming Abq_Sarah Dec 2012 #39

Yes, I do. Jim Lane Dec 2012 #41

The car analogy fails both ways... ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #57

What part of "well-regulated" is so hard to grasp? Hugabear Dec 2012 #68

Just a question aikoaiko Dec 2012 #79

And who exactly is the militia? Hugabear Dec 2012 #101

You didn't answer my question, but I'll answer yours. Jim Lane Dec 2012 #108

Yeah, but less guns would be to everyone's benefit except those in gun and fear business. Hoyt Dec 2012 #23

Why even fuck around? Why not just make most types of guns illegal? We can do it WastedSaint Dec 2012 #5

Doubtful ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #11

americans are brainwashed to think killing 20 kids is only bad for a week or 2 nt msongs Dec 2012 #18

We always seem to chase the next shiny thing ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #20

Yes. also, what does "nt" mean? WastedSaint Dec 2012 #22

"nt" = "no text" Jim Lane Dec 2012 #44

Appreciate it! nt WastedSaint Dec 2012 #73

What kinds of losses would the insurance respond to? Loudly Dec 2012 #6

What if there were zombies involved ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #15

Relevance? Or harrassment? Loudly Dec 2012 #16

Others have said the only reason for ARs with 30 round magazines is zombies ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #29

Seems you have over nineteen thousand posts. Are they mostly harrassing and abusive? Loudly Dec 2012 #31

How many did you have when you were sharesunited? friendly_iconoclast Dec 2012 #33

Few if any ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #34

Your motivation to stalk and harrass stems from impotent rage. Loudly Dec 2012 #48

Far from it ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #52

Right. The misbehaving man with the guns is the victim here. Loudly Dec 2012 #55

No, the issue here is your zombiehood ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #59

homeowners insurance dooner Dec 2012 #17

Well, we are sort of talking animal behavior here. Hoyt Dec 2012 #28

Classim is never pretty ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #8

crime victims of all races and classes would receive compensation dooner Dec 2012 #21

Same here. WastedSaint Dec 2012 #32

A commercial response to criminality is not right BainsBane Dec 2012 #35

Unreal BainsBane Dec 2012 #27

Good point, view gun cultists as 5%ers and apply a stiff lethal weapons tax. Hoyt Dec 2012 #30

Can we also ask for drinkers pay for the social cost of their privilege? hack89 Dec 2012 #42

Yes, but.... clutter424 Dec 2012 #53

We are talking about taxes in this subthread, not insurance. hack89 Dec 2012 #58

they do BainsBane Dec 2012 #109

And since there are already taxes on firearms and ammo hack89 Dec 2012 #110

20 dead children? BainsBane Dec 2012 #113

So is the tax on alcohol suppose to end all death by drunk drivers? hack89 Dec 2012 #114

Sure, I'm fine with that BainsBane Dec 2012 #115

We were talking about taxes hack89 Dec 2012 #116

I already said yes BainsBane Dec 2012 #117

I have no problem with stronger background checks hack89 Dec 2012 #118

That's a great first step BainsBane Dec 2012 #119

The vast majority of murders are committed by handguns hack89 Dec 2012 #120

1% matters BainsBane Dec 2012 #121

Heller says handguns cannot be banned hack89 Dec 2012 #122

So why not RPDs and nuclear bombs? BainsBane Dec 2012 #123

Heller says that there can be limits hack89 Dec 2012 #124

Good idea. Require gun owners to carry at least as much insurance as I carry on my car. Dems to Win Dec 2012 #38

I love the idea. ywcachieve Dec 2012 #40

It behooves anyone who owns or rents a home to carry liability insurance, guns or no guns slackmaster Dec 2012 #43

The funny thing is, you know who would be the major provider of such insurance? X_Digger Dec 2012 #49

Cost/Benefit analysis clutter424 Dec 2012 #46

Welcome to DU and I hope you enjoy the site. hrmjustin Dec 2012 #111

Love it .. Insurers will love it too. srican69 Dec 2012 #47

If they could justify higher premiums for people who own guns, they would be charging them already slackmaster Dec 2012 #50

As a parent I'd be so comforted to receive a check from an insurance company after my kid's killed riderinthestorm Dec 2012 #51

It's not about the money.... physioex Dec 2012 #54

I proposed this two gun mass killings ago...I was told I was insane. Safetykitten Dec 2012 #56

Doesn't homeowner's insurance go up for gun owners? mainer Dec 2012 #60

Nope, it doesn't. n/t X_Digger Dec 2012 #61

That's just stupid. They charge more for owning a big dog. mainer Dec 2012 #63

Actuaries have ran the numbers- it doesn't represent a tangible risk worth quibbling over. X_Digger Dec 2012 #64

The old games with numbers that NRA-bots play bongbong Dec 2012 #66

What obvious falsehood would that be, bonbong? X_Digger Dec 2012 #67

I already answered you bongbong Dec 2012 #71

The courts and insurers already know how to calculate liability in wrongful death cases, bongbong. slackmaster Dec 2012 #72

Ho Ho Ho bongbong Dec 2012 #75

Perhaps you don't understand how the insurance business works, or what policies cover. slackmaster Dec 2012 #80

Nope bongbong Dec 2012 #83

Scared to call your insurance company and ask? X_Digger Dec 2012 #86

I'll bet bongbong doesn't have a homeowner's or renter's policy. slackmaster Dec 2012 #89

I did! bongbong Dec 2012 #92

CSB slackmaster Dec 2012 #94

Again you are demonstating that you don't have any idea what you're talking about, bongbong. slackmaster Dec 2012 #87

I love it when Delicate Flowers say "you have no idea" bongbong Dec 2012 #90

You've wandered out into the weeds. slackmaster Dec 2012 #93

Sure bongbong Dec 2012 #98

Perhaps you need to study how actuaries calculate such things. X_Digger Dec 2012 #82

That's exactly what my agent told me, and I've heard similar stories from many people slackmaster Dec 2012 #85

Batting .0000 bongbong Dec 2012 #88

It seems you asked the wrong question, if you asked anyone anything at all, which I doubt. slackmaster Dec 2012 #91

HO HO HO bongbong Dec 2012 #96

If I shoot someone with justification, my liability would be zero. slackmaster Dec 2012 #99

DUH bongbong Dec 2012 #102

If I shoot someone with justification and that person thinks I should pay money, slackmaster Dec 2012 #107

If you have no idea where that "nutsy" idea came from, you haven't been following closely. X_Digger Dec 2012 #104

*pat* *pat* *pat* Sure you did. X_Digger Dec 2012 #95

LOL bongbong Dec 2012 #97

Free clue: saying I don't believe you isn't 'calling you a liar'. X_Digger Dec 2012 #100

Try reading my posts bongbong Dec 2012 #103

Try talking about the subject at hand, not whatever you *think* the subject is. n/t X_Digger Dec 2012 #105

Probably more the "payout"game the bankers play galileoreloaded Dec 2012 #112

A big dog poses a liability risk that is significant and easy to compute slackmaster Dec 2012 #70

No, and no insurance company offers a discount for gun-free homes slackmaster Dec 2012 #69

Yeah, and having auto insurance really has cut down on auto accidents? joeybee12 Dec 2012 #62

Not the same thing at all. Zoeisright Dec 2012 #65

But it wouldn't be expensive hack89 Dec 2012 #74

It's not always intuitively obvious what factors can increase or decrease risk, or by how much slackmaster Dec 2012 #76

So the guy who shoots and then kills himself his insurance is upaloopa Dec 2012 #77

Suicides and criminal acts are excluded from coverage under most policies. slackmaster Dec 2012 #81

That's the other thing that folks don't seem to understand.. X_Digger Dec 2012 #84

Make it mandatory and to cover all costs, public and private, associated with firearms in the US. leveymg Dec 2012 #78

I would rather tax them but requiring them to be insured is a good idea too. Ganja Ninja Dec 2012 #106

Why would assault weapons cost more to insure? OneTenthofOnePercent Dec 2012 #125