<div dir="ltr">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/"><img src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/misc/nytlogo153x23.gif" alt="The New York Times" align="left" border="0" hspace="0" vspace="0"></a>
</div>
<div class="">
</div>
</div>
<br clear="all"><hr align="left" size="1">
<div class="">February 21, 2013</div>
<h1>Buying a Gun? States Consider Insurance Rule</h1>
<h6 class="">By
<span>
<a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/michael_cooper/index.html" rel="author" title="More Articles by MICHAEL COOPER"><span>MICHAEL COOPER</span></a></span> and <span>
<a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/w/mary_williams_walsh/index.html" rel="author" title="More Articles by MARY WILLIAMS WALSH"><span>MARY WILLIAMS WALSH</span></a></span></h6>
<div id="articleBody">
<p>
Both sides in a nation sharply divided over guns seem to agree on at
least one thing: a bigger role for the insurance industry in a heavily
armed society. But just what that role should be, and whether insurers
will choose to accept it, are much in dispute. </p>
<p>
Lawmakers in at least half a dozen states, including California,
Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York and Pennsylvania, have
proposed legislation this year that would require gun owners to buy
liability insurance — much as car owners are required to buy <a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/your-money/insurance/auto-insurance/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier" title="More articles about auto insurance." class="">auto insurance</a>.
Doing so would give a financial incentive for safe behavior, they hope,
as people with less dangerous weapons or safety locks could qualify for
lower rates. </p>
<p>
“I believe that if we get the private sector and insurance companies
involved in gun safety, we can help prevent a number of gun tragedies
every year,” said David P. Linsky, a Democratic state representative in
Massachusetts who wants to require gun owners to buy insurance. He
believes it will encourage more responsible behavior and therefore
reduce accidental shootings. “Insurance companies are very good at
evaluating risk factors and setting their premiums appropriately,” he
added. </p>
<p>
Groups representing gun owners oppose efforts to make insurance
mandatory, arguing that law-abiding people should not be forced to buy
insurance to exercise their constitutional right to bear arms. But some
groups, including the <a href="http://home.nra.org/">National Rifle Association</a>,
endorse voluntary liability policies for their members. And as several
states pass laws making it easier for people to carry concealed weapons
and use them for self-defense, some gun groups are now selling policies
to cover some of the legal costs stemming from self-defense shootings.
</p>
<p>
The United States Concealed Carry Association recently began selling
what it calls Self-Defense Shield. “If you’re forced to justifiably use
your gun in self-defense,” its <a href="https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/membership/#customer_service">Web site</a>
says, “Self-Defense Shield will help pay for your expert pro-2nd
Amendment lawyer by reimbursing your legal-defense expenses following
your acquittal — an ingenious system critical to the arsenal of any
responsibly armed citizen.” </p>
<p>
Premiums for such insurance range from around $200 to $300 per year; in
general, the coverage is narrowly written and excludes cases where a gun
is used to commit a crime. </p>
<p>
Some specialized underwriters are reviewing what their policies cover
when it comes to shootings, and weighing whether they should offer new
types of coverage for gun owners. And as more states pass laws allowing
people to bring guns to public venues — including restaurants, bars,
churches and the parking lots of their workplaces — some business groups
have expressed concerns that they could be held liable for shootings on
their properties, which could drive up their insurance costs. </p>
<p>
On Thursday, when Gov. Dannel P. Malloy of Connecticut outlined his <a href="http://www.governor.ct.gov/malloy/lib/malloy/2013.02.21_Gun_Safety_Summary.pdf">proposals</a>
to reduce gun violence — which included universal background checks, a
ban on large-capacity ammunition magazines and a stronger assault
weapons ban — he called for officials to study “whether owners of
firearms should be required to carry additional insurance.” </p>
<p>
The insurance industry is wary of some of the proposals to require gun
owners to buy liability coverage — and particularly of bills, like one
that was <a href="http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?default_fld=&bn=A03908&term=2013&Summary=Y&Memo=Y&Text=Y">filed in New York that</a> would require coverage for damages resulting not only from negligence but also from “willful acts.” </p>
<p>
Robert P. Hartwig, the president of the Insurance Information Institute,
said that insurance generally covered accidents and unintentional acts —
not intentional or illegal ones. “Insurance will cover you if your home
burns down in an electrical fire, but it will not cover you if you burn
down your own house, and you cannot insure yourself for arson,” he
said. </p>
<p>
Some claims stemming from shootings have been covered by <a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/your-money/insurance/home-insurance/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier" title="More articles about home insurance." class="">homeowners’ insurance</a> — even by policies that said they did not cover illegal acts. </p>
<p>
The families of the two students responsible for the 1999 killings at
Columbine High School in Colorado were able to use money from their
homeowners’ policies to settle <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/20/us/2.53-million-deal-ends-some-columbine-lawsuits.html">a lawsuit</a>
brought by families of most of the victims. In 2001, a California court
ordered an insurance company to defend a policyholder whose 16-year-old
son shot and killed a friend with a Beretta handgun that he had found
in his mother’s coat. But the year before, a North Carolina court ruled
that an insurance company did not have to cover the expenses of a
policyholder who had shot and wounded a prowler on his property. </p>
<p>
Christopher J. Monge, an insurance agent and gun owner in Verona, Wis.,
recently wrote a book, “The Gun Owner’s Guide to Insurance for Concealed
Carry and Self-Defense,” which he sells at gun shows. Mr. Monge said
that the problem with most liability insurance is that it promises
coverage only in cases of a gun owner’s negligence, or an accidental
shooting — and not if the gun owner shoots someone intentionally in
self-defense. “A negligent act is covered by your liability policy, but
if you intentionally shoot somebody, it could be excluded,” he said.
</p>
<p>
So as more states pass self-defense laws, Mr. Monge said that he found
several insurance companies that would specifically offer liability
coverage in cases of self-defense, usually in the form of an “umbrella”
policy that added a higher level of coverage than the routine coverage
for negligence in a homeowners’ policy. An umbrella policy adds coverage
for unusual, but potentially expensive, incidents. </p>
<p>
But he opposes proposals to make liability insurance mandatory. “They’re
barking up the wrong tree, if you ask me,” he said. “Ninety-nine
percent of gun owners are going to be safe and not go crazy.” </p>
<p>
States have been considering mandatory gun insurance bills for years,
but no state has passed one yet, said Jon Griffin, a policy associate at
the National Conference of State Legislatures. When Illinois considered
a bill in 2009, the National Rifle Association <a href="http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2009/2/outrageous-anti-gun-bill-proposed-in-th.aspx?s=illinois+and+insurance+and+liability&st=&ps=">wrote</a> that it would “put firearms ownership out of reach for many law-abiding Illinoisans.” The N.R.A. endorses a <a href="http://www.locktonrisk.com/nrains/about.htm">policy</a> that offers excess liability coverage — “because accidents do happen no matter how careful you are” — and another that offers “<a href="http://www.locktonrisk.com/nrains/defense.htm">self-defense insurance</a>.” </p>
<p>
The recent trend of allowing guns in more public places has alarmed some
business groups. When Ohio enacted a law allowing guns in bars in 2011,
the Ohio Restaurant Association opposed it, writing officials that
restaurant owners “expect that this law would be perceived by insurance
companies as increasing the risk of injury in establishments that sell
alcohol, which of course would result in increased liability insurance
costs.” Owners have not reported higher premiums because of the new law,
said a spokesman for the association, Jarrod A. Clabaugh, but some
worry that a shooting could drive up their insurance costs. </p>
<p>
The current debate over mandatory liability laws is being watched with
interest by Nelson Lund, the Patrick Henry professor of Constitutional
Law and the Second Amendment at George Mason University School of Law.
Professor Lund proposed the idea of mandatory insurance in a 1987
article in the Alabama Law Review, seeing it as a form of gun control
that could be consistent with the constitutional right to bear arms. But
he said that he had not studied any of the current proposals, and noted
that it made a great deal of difference how they are written. </p>
<p>
“If this were done, the private insurance market would quickly and
efficiently make it prohibitively expensive for people with a record of
irresponsible ownership of guns to possess them legally,” he wrote in
the 1987 article, “but would not impose unreasonable burdens on those
who have the self-discipline to exercise their liberty in a responsible
fashion.” </p>
<div class="">
<p>Kitty Bennett contributed reporting.
</p> </div>
<div class="">
</div>
</div>
<br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)<br><a href="mailto:art.deco.studios@gmail.com" target="_blank">art.deco.studios@gmail.com</a><br><br><img src="http://users.moscow.com/waf/WP%20Fox%2001.jpg"><br>
</div>