Mandatory $250K Insurance Policy for Gun Owners in D.C.

Gdud50 said:

So can we require people to carry voter insurance in case they vote and elect someone who causes harm to the country? You know, anyone who voted for Bush or Obama would have to file a claim with the insurance company to recover the dollars lost due to the fiscal policies of the two?

Click to expand...

Jimbob2.0 said:

This is just a way for DC to privatize social services...........they are creating a gangbangers widow's relief fund.

Click to expand...

gmhowell said:

Oh, puhleeze, as if the average banger would marry one of his babymommas...

Click to expand...

fabsroman said:

Exactly. How many firearms accidents happen where somebody is actually held liable. Huge difference between crimes committed with firearms, that an insurance policy will NOT cover, suicides, and torts. For instance, if you intentionally run somebody over with your car, it is NOT covered.

So, the only time the insurance coverage will actually apply is when there is a firearm ACCIDENT with actual damages that the policy holder can be held liable for..

Click to expand...

kiriyama9000 said:

Lol. Have they learned nothing from their handgun ban?!
This is the same exact thing in different skin.

I want that Glock over there.
-You need to have insurance for it
I can't afford it.
-No Glock for you

It's a blatant unconstitutional burden!
Even more-so than requiring a license (which I wholly disagree with).

Click to expand...

rascal said:

No, you can actually get insurance for crimes and certainly torts. What you mean is traditional homeowners policies and traditional homeowners riders don't cover for that.

In my business we do carry insurance for criminal acts by employees and agents of the business as well as tort arising from such acts. Lots of bonded companies do as well.

So a market could be made for such insurance as suggested by Cheh, the think is it would be massively expensive, and massively regressive in at east two ways: a) it would be per se expensive and limit gun ownership to the wealthy; b) it would be especially more expensive in high crime areas.

I am in DC and submitted testimony against this.

Essentially mendelson killed this numbnuts scheme by injecting a $250 cost limit into the consideration. The insurance would likely cost a cou0le thousand per year.

I also asked the committee members months ago when this came up to identify the registered DC weapons (since 2008 when it was allowed) that have been used in crime. The MPD cant find one single case, so apparently the answer is ZERO. that kind of put the lie to cheh argument that this was needed to recompense DC crime victims harmed by registered DC gun owners.

Of note this particular insurance scheme is openly discussed in gun control circles as a targeted harassment

Click to expand...

fabsroman said:

Nope, no insurer will insure against intentional torts. There is a difference between a tort like negligence in an auto accident, and an intentional tort like intentionally running a vehicle into a person. Most insurance policies I know of exclude intentional acts. For instance, if you get into your car and intentionally run somebody over, that somebody would have a cause of action against you but your insurance policy would not cover the claim.

There are so many issues with negligence insurance for firearms. Essentially, the insurance policies would not do what people think they would do. For instance, there is the issue of permissible use and insurable interest. Using auto insurance again, if a person is driving your vehicle without your permission, the insurance policy on the vehicle will not cover that driver for any damage that he/she does, even if it is accidental.

Then there is the insurable interest issue. Business insurance policies usually cover crimes involving dishonesty. If your employee, completely outside of his/her scope of employment, decides to shoot somebody while driving out to one of your job sites, you are not liable for your employees conduct because it would be considered an independent frolic. This deals with the issue of respondeat superior.

There are so many issues with trying to attach liability insurance to firearms. First off, very few of the deaths/injuries are accidents. Most are murders and suicides. Very hard to insure against somebody committing a murder with your firearm after it is stolen. Once it is stolen, it is no longer yours. Also, you are not responsible for the tortious acts of another unless they are your employee AND they are doing something within the scope of their employment. So, you are not legally responsible for acts committed by the gangster that stole your firearm. Same goes if the gansta stole your baseball bat, shovel, hammer, etc. and decided to smash somebody's head in.

If gun owner's could be held liable for what somebody does with their guns other than themselves, I am pretty sure a lot of us would already have liability insurance policies in place and such a policy would be offered. Anybody even know of such a policy that is offered by any insurance company right now?

Click to expand...