No-fault is necessary for Gun Insurance

No-fault is necessary for Gun Insurance

A new posting on YouTube by this blog.

Good insurance for protecting persons injured by guns has to be no-fault. No-fault insurance does not require showing the INSURED person – the gun owner – has been negligent. It can be based on victims having their own insurance. But that isn’t the way for gun insurance. In most areas such as cars and jobs with worker’s compensation insurance – the vehicle or company owners take out the insurance.

The video can be accessed at

https://youtu.be/yLOWV9MWPpA

Script

We need to require good insurance to compensate victims of gun violence.

One of the most important principles for effective insurance is that it must be no-fault.

If error or misbehavior on the part of the shooter or of the injured person has to be weighed before benefits can be given, they will be too late and too uncertain.

#####################################

Good insurance for protecting persons injured by guns has to be no-fault. No-fault insurance does not require showing the INSURED person – the gun owner – has been negligent. It can be based on victims having their own insurance. But that isn’t the way for gun insurance. In most areas such as cars and jobs with worker’s compensation insurance – the vehicle or company owners take out the insurance.

A requirement to prove negligence on the part of the insurance buyer is the biggest barrier to insurance being effective for gun injuries.

This may be because the gun owner is not be the shooter.

Many incidents happen when someone else has the gun.

Perhaps, kids in the household have found an improperly stored pistol.

Perhaps, the gun is in the name of an illegal straw purchaser who bought it for her felonious boyfriend.

Perhaps the gun was stolen.

There are many possibilities.

And, it’s hard to prove what happened in an incident.

The shooter is likely to deny responsibility or

To claim it was an unavoidable accident OR

That the victim was in some way responsible.

The person who was shot may have died and only one side of the story is available.

And, then, many states have STAND-YOUR-GROUND laws which block responsibility.

The other side of the fault concept is “blaming the victim.”

This seems to be so common whenever someone is afraid of being responsible for their actions.

From saying it’s the kids fault for getting in the forbidden closet — to saying that the late night visiting friend, unfortunately, seemed to be a criminal breaking in the house, there’s always a way to attempt to shift responsibility.

These issues will take years to settle if it’s done by the legal system.

But the needs of victims are there regardless of fault.

The needs are immediate.

The victim may be dead or lack the means to press a complex claim and to fund a law suit.

The insurers have a massive incentive to fight to the end and to resist.

This is both because the claims can be very large — and because a reputation for an insurer being tough prevents future claims from others.

Running out the clock is an effective strategy for those who don’t want to pay.

But the no-fault concept avoids these problems.

Just two factors to determine benefits—the nature of the injury with resulting needs and that the covered firearm was involved.

So we can concentrate on being able to identify guns to know the proper place to make the claims.

Tracking serial numbers and sampling projectiles or casings can be of potential use.

If most incidents have identifiable insurers, an uninsured gun fund can be established which would be similar to the uninsured vehicle funds found in some states.

No-fault especially simplifies the use of non-monetary benefits such as medical care.

These are for the most time sensitive needs.

There just isn’t time to determine responsibility for the shooting before treatment in an emergency room.

Even payments for burial in fatal cases can’t wait for years.

Certainty and speed go hand-in-hand in providing for real needs.

And, there are other time sensitive needs.

Lost work can so damage the finances of a family that it falls apart — and this can happen quickly.

The injured person can be disabled temporarily or permanently, leaving dependent survivors destitute.

Per-diem payments for lost work should start right away and are provided for in many other kinds of insurance such as worker’s compensation and automotive personal injury protection systems.

The no-fault concept has proven effective in diverse areas when insurance is required by law for those engaging in specific activities.

For example, some states have their automobile insurance systems basically no-fault.

In most cases, this means that you would collect first from your own insurer.

But, if you are in a category, such as being a pedestrian, which does not require insurance, then you can collect on a no-fault manner on the insurance of the car which hit you.

Seventeen states require that car owners have personal-injury-protection (PIP) insurance which covers injuries to people in the insured car in a no-fault manner.

Where the purpose of the insurance is to encourage confidence in the safety of an activity or to compensate those harmed by the activity rather than those ENGAGED in the activity, no-fault is by far the better approach.

There are some interesting federal programs that are essentially no-fault insurance.

One is the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The Health Resources and Services Administration says: “The V I C P is a no-fault alternative to the traditional legal system for resolving vaccine injury petitions.”

Another is the fact that the so-called “liability” insurance requirement for Nuclear Accidents was amended in 1966 to be no-fault.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission says “Price-Anderson claimants would need to show only (1) personal injury or property damage, (2) monetary amount of loss, and (3) causal link between the loss and the radioactive material released.”

The most important no-fault system we have is our Worker’s Compensation system.

This is why it’s the best model for the benefit system for gun insurance.

One is only required to show the injury with a need for compensation or medical services and that the injury was incurred on the job.

Insurers know that prompt and effective medical care is cheaper in the long run.

So that have established a wide variety of systems in various states provide that care.

We need to require gun insurance; and, if it’s going to work to mitigate deaths and injuries, it has to be no-fault insurance.

Good Gun Insurance pays benefits directly to victims

Good Gun Insurance pays benefits directly to victims

This has been posted to YouTube. The link is https://youtu.be/yv_zt2-MkJw Take a look.

We need a system of required insurance as a tool to fight the tide of gun violence in this country. The insurance has to be adapted to the needs of the situation, as insurance is in almost every area. It needs to be real insurance to compensate the people who get shot and their families. Insurance designed just to hold gun owners and shooters responsible won’t cut it.

The time has come legislate such a system. There are some principles which would cause the system to work on a practical level, reduce the carnage and mitigate the damages. They include:

  • Direct payment to the injured persons, their families and medical providers.
  • Insurance that pays on the basis of the injury not fault by the shooter
  • Insurance with a system to cover all of the guns

This video is organized by this outline:

Continue reading

Principles for requiring gun insurance that would protect everyone

Featured

Principles for requiring gun insurance that would protect everyone

A new posting on YouTube by this blog.

For gun insurance to be effective it must be designed for the situation we have with guns. If the wishes of either the NRA which wants guns everywhere or gun control advocates who would have no guns are applied than we would not have effective protection from insurance. This video describes the principles needed.

The posting can be accessed at

https://youtu.be/mrxo3rjl-yc

Continue reading

We need compulsory gun insurance for all guns that compensates anyone injured by shooting

Featured

We need compulsory gun insurance for all guns that compensates anyone injured by shooting

Over 40,000 people a year are killed by guns. More than by cars or on the job, but these activities have insurance now. Current voluntary insurance just protects gun owners and pays for lawyers to block victim lawsuits. We need good insurance that pays to victims, avoids the need for lawsuits, and covers all guns. This will encourage a culture of safety for society as a whole and for each gun owner. Insurers will demand good practices.

Vehicle owners and employers are now required to have insurance, it has not stopped the development of these activities, but it has greatly mitigated the inherent risks. We need to do this for guns now.

Youtube Posting

https://youtu.be/EeR7gpm61VQ

Script

Need For Required Gun Insurance Continue reading

Laws Enacted for Required Gun Insurance NJ and CA

The first local laws have been passed to require gun insurance.  These are for liability insurance requiring fault by the gun owner or shooter and certainly don’t pay directly to victims or cover all guns.  But this is a start on a path that as it evolves will give good protection and promote safety. 

This has been posted on the Gun Insurance Blog YouTube site at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZrFX_aa0Xk

The script is below

                The first gun insurance requirements have been passed into law in the United States.  Let us celebrate the beginnings of a culture of responsibility around firearms.  Two separate jurisdictions at opposite ends of the country have launched on this long awaited return to sanity.       

This video looks at the new gun insurance laws in California and New Jersey.  What they cover, where they came from and where they’re going.

————————————————————————-

                The first local laws to require insurance for gun owners will go into effect in 2023.  They have been passed and signed into law by the Mayor of San Jose, California and the Governor of New Jersey. 

San Jose requires gun permits but exempts those who have concealed carry permits, New Jersey’s new law only applies to those with concealed-carry permits. 

                You can see from this that it is only a step toward the insurance we need.  These laws take great care to avoid various kinds of potential interference with gun ownership.  The exceptions limit the usefulness and protection of the insurance, BUT this care proves that the objections of gun proponents are misguided.  As we learn from the new laws, we’ll find ways to make the insurance more effective. 

Insurance can be tailored to the requirements of a specific risky activity.  This is why it’s a powerful tool both to allow the activity and to mitigate the harm that results. 

                We need insurance that pays benefits to victims, applies without excessive delay and litigation, and which covers all guns.  This current baby step is important but it will need to followed by more steps that lead to the goals. 

                The ordinance in San Jose takes effect in January.   The Mayor, Sam Liccardo, thanked those who helped pass the ordinance  and “the many others who work tirelessly to help craft a constitutionally compliant path to mitigate the unnecessary suffering from gun harm in our community.”  The ordinance only covers accidents that involve firearms.  The city plan envisions that homeowner’s insurance will handle most cases with minimal changes.  That is, no-doubt, the reason excluding intentional shootings. 

Most homeowner’s policies have this exclusion and it would be a major disruption for insurers to require it to change.  Another factor is that there is no specific loss limit required, this would allow existing insurance to apply regardless of its limits.

                San Jose’s requirement does not apply to peace officers.  That is not unusual as police, even retired police, have been exempted from many gun laws.     Also exempted are holders of concealed carry permits. Both exemptions are somewhat illogical as the law isn’t aimed at preventing anyone from having a gun and it applies only to accidents.

                While the new ordinance in San Jose was passed in February 2022, its implementation was delayed by lawsuits from gun supporters.  Most of these have been dismissed and the law is to take effect.  Additional lawsuits are expected.

                The new law in New Jersey on the other hand covers those who have concealed-carry permits.  It was enacted in December 2022 and will take effect in July ‘23.  When he signed the bill Governor Phil Murphy said:

 “today’s law fully respects the Second Amendment while keeping guns out of the wrong hands and preventing them from proliferating in our communities.”       

As expected, lawsuits were immediately filed by gun proponents. 

New Jersey previously had a restrictive law allowing concealed-carry permits.  That law was struck down by the US Supreme Court.  Before in 2021 there were 870 concealed-carry applications, but the number is now expected to rise to about 11,000.  The insurance requirement is part of a new package which governs concealed carry in accordance with this decision.  Applicants for permits will have to demonstrate insurance compliance.

It calls for liability insurance and would only apply if the gun carrier is at fault.  The required insurance limit is $300,000.00  The governor’s statements show that he contemplates that homeowner’s insurance can meet the requirements; but, given the many limitations in typical policies, this will be complex.

These two new laws will launch a process that will require a substantial time to complete.  In addition to the inevitable court battles, there will be bills introduced and debated in other legislative bodies.  This process has happened in other areas before. 

For example, requirements for insurance for cars started in the early 1930’s and were not fully developed until the 1960’s.  In that case, the first laws in many states were “financial responsibility laws” which only required insurance for people who had already been unable to pay for the consequences of car accidents.  While the insurance industry has often claimed that a new requirement can’t be implemented, they have historically been able to adapt to whatever is needed.  They will do that now.

Both of the laws assume that most cases will be handled by some extension of homeowners insurance.  As gun insurance matures and adapts to the needs of supporting victims and providing gun safety, homeowners insurance may continue to play an important part.  The terms will need to be specifically defined to give coverage of all the possibilities and to allow the insurer to be protected from particularly dangerous persons and weapons.  In the less dangerous cases, it should not raise costs greatly.  There will be many situations outside the willingness of home insurance carriers to absorb the risks, and in these cases special insurance will need to be developed and priced. 

                Requiring insurance need not interfere with the safe use of an insured activity or thing.  We continue to drive with an insurance requirement, we work at jobs with workers compensation and we require insurance for many commercial activities.  In all of these cases the protection provided by the insurance mitigates the risks and reduces the need for tight regulation.  Insurance is both a means and a symbol of responsibility.  We need responsibility around firearms if we are to allow their existence and reduce their dangers.

Could an Insurance Requirement Have Prevented the Boulder Colorado Shooting?

It could have made a difference.

Because we don’t have a gun insurance requirement yet in this country, we don’t know what the rules would be. But insurers in other areas watch their losses and costs carefully and set their rates and willingness to insure on the basis of risks. There are a number of factors that would make insurers wary about issuing insurance to this shooter.

  1. The shooter was young only 21 years of age. Automobile insurers have special tighter rules and higher rates at least up to 25 years of age and often higher.
  2. The weapon was of an especially dangerous variety.
  3. The shooter had a record of instability that an insurer could have questioned or uncovered.
  4. Insurers would be likely to insist on additional delays and investigation. The shootings were less than a week after the gun purchase, so delay could have been important.
  5. Parts of Colorado had restrictions on assault weapons which were not overturned until after the purchase.

So, there is a good chance that a gun insurance requirement would have prevented this tragic incident.

There are other benefits

Good gun insurance pays victims directly. While money is a poor recompense for loss of loved ones, the survivors are likely to have serious needs in the future. Had there been more injuries payment for medical care could have been very important.

Insurance can reduce gun deaths and injuries indirectly

The current gun culture expects each individual gun owner to be responsible for safety and for not using weapons inappropriately. The results in some dangerous and irresponsible gun owners mixed into a very large number of others. Insurance is a symbol of responsibility and can change the overall view of society around guns. Insurers, if they remain responsible for stolen guns under the gun insurance requirement, can reduce substantially the number of guns that get into the most dangerous hands.

The Key is Payments to Victims

Insurance to protect persons from gun violence should make payments directly available to the victims or to doctors and hospitals who care for them. This would not only put the benefits where they are needed but would bypass most of the problems of providing coverage for intentional acts and stolen guns.

Liability Insurance

Liability insurance, on the other hand, is designed to protect gun owners and shooters. It pays for legal defense where the deep pockets of insurance companies create a barrier to victims ever being paid–even in egregious cases. insurers of cars, who collectively cover both sides of most cases, have over years worked out agreements between themselves to make liability insurance work. Not so for guns, where insurers would stonewall to the victims last cent.

Continue reading

Insurance for Victims Not Shooters

The most important characteristic of the insurance needed for owning or carrying firearms is the basic structure of who is protected and paid by the insurance.  Voluntary insurance is always designed to protect the insurance buyer or owner first and pays third party victims only when necessary to protect the policy holder.  Required or mandatory insurance is intended to protect the public and persons other than the policy holder, and should promptly pay insured persons.

Continue reading

Concealed Carry Reciprocity and an Insurance Requirement

Proposed bills have been introduced in the House (HR-38) and the Senate (S-446) which would allow holders of permits to carry firearms in all states. They have gathered a substantial number of sponsors. The current language of the bills is very broad and would not only prevent state restrictions on out of state permit holders but allow residents of states without a permit requirement to carry firearms nationwide. There are provisions to allow persons arrested under state laws to recover damages and legal expenses.

If this law passes states will have great difficulty enforcing any restrictions on gun carrying because of the difficulty in establishing that a person is not a resident of another state and because of the difficulty of checking the validity of out-of-state permits. There will be great pressure on states to relax requirements for their own citizens to match those of other states with no restrictions.

In this situation, an insurance mandate could be very important in providing at least some responsibility requirement.

Continue reading

Reducing the Stock of Unwanted Guns—Insurance, Buyback and Amnesty

In a new article “Living on the Edge (of Austrailian Cities: Is Gun Amnesty Effective?” by Isabella Kwai, Adam Baidawi and Tacey Rychter, the New York Times questioned the usefulness of a new three month program to recover illegal guns in that country.

A 2002 buyback program in Australia is widely acknowledged to have removed most of the semi-automatic guns from private stocks, officially counting 659,940 newly prohibited weapons.  The Times article recognizes this program, pointing out that “the current rate of homicides involving guns in the United States is 23 times higher than it is in Australia” and that “Australia has not had a mass shooting since Port Arthur.”  Port Arthur was a very serious mass shooting that initiated the movement to adopt Australia prohibitions and the buyback program.  The buyback was a large program for a country of Australia’s size; and this amnesty will, no doubt, yield a much smaller reduction in the stock of illegal firearms.  But amnesty and other uncompensated programs are inexpensive and can be repeated over time.  The article linked above counts 219,721 additional firearms in uncompensated programs since the buyback.  This is a substantial reduction.

Continue reading