The hearing was taped and the video is available here.  Written testimony from Dan Gross, Kris Hammond and Chester A. McPherson is here.  News coverage generally ignored the supporters of the bill.  For example see the Washington Post Story.

After preliminary remarks by Committee Chair Vincent Orange and Councilmember Mary M.Cheh (the bill sponsor) the first to present was Dan Gross who gave a good presentation in support of the bill outlining the seriousness of gun violence in the US.  He gave an example illustrating that current insurance does not apply even to many accidents, if it is available at all.  He stated that “it is absolutely unfair to saddle innocent victims with all the costs.

Erin Collins gave a presentation of the industries opposition to mandating insurance for guns.  It stated that this insurance was unnecessary and impractical and repeated that it couldn’t cover intentional acts.

Tom Harvey for this blog gave an oral version of the written statement below but added examples to counter the statement by MS Collins that insurance couldn’t cover intentional acts.

The panel was extensively questioned by Councilmembers Orange and Cheh primarily about issues of cost and effect of covering willful acts.  Chairman Orange had serious doubts about the willful act issue and in light of the opposition to the bill from the Mayor, it is likely that willful act coverage will be dropped.

The second panel consisted of Eric Goldberg, VP of the American Insurance Association and three residents.  All were opposed to the bill.  Mr. Goldberg began by questioning the contributions of this blogger, Tom Harvey, because of his not having experience as an insurance professional.  He stated his opinion that this situation would not meet any of the 3 classic conditions of insurability. (Measurable risk, sharable risk, and risk not subject to adverse selection).

The first panel took about an hour and the second panel about half of that time.  There was a third panel of officials of the Administration which summarized the bill and their role in administering it.  Chester A. McPherson, Deputy Commissioner of the Department of Insurance, Securities and Banking gave the Administration opinion that the bill was not needed.

After the testimony I asked Mr. Goldberg if the insurance industry was quietly studying the matter of insurance to protect gun violence victims and he replied “Why would I tell you that?”

The written submission from this blog is below.

I’m Tom Harvey, I write for Gun Insurance Blog. I’m a retired manufacturer.  I have no connection with the insurance industry.  I am here to support the bill.

Insurance is the way we deal, in our society, with potentially risky activities that can injure or kill.  Think about car accidents and workplace injuries.  Insurance companies make sure that individuals act responsibly or face consequences.  Requiring insurance for gun owners is very similar to requiring insurance for drivers or employers.

Gun insurance in particular will help in two ways.

§ First, it will encourage safe use of guns and safe storage of firearms.

§ Second, it will provide financially for the victims of shootings.

The bill being considered by the Council addresses common gun violence problems.

I think you would be surprised how few shooting situations are covered by insurance today, whether insurance from the NRA or homeowners insurance.  The neighbor kid comes over, gets the gun, and accidently shoots someone.  That victim can usually only get recompense by going to court against the legal gun owner.  This bill is good because it covers shootings by anyone, not just the gun owner.

We also know that most shootings are not accidental.  Guns are involved in homicides ranging from justifiable to heinous.  This bill is good because it doesn’t just cover accidents.  It also covers willful shootings.

A major problem is that guns get into the wrong hands.  There is another reason this bill is helpful.  The bill will require gun owners to promptly report lost or stolen guns.

The concept of requiring gun insurance has been discussed for 20 years.  It is now under consideration in at least 8 states, DC and the US Congress and the time for implementation as come.  After we have this kind of insurance, no one will believe it was once unheard of.

You will hear from others that insurance can’t cover intentional or criminal acts.  This is simply not true. There are many kinds of insurance in common use today that do pay out to innocent persons when insured persons become bad actors.  The key is they are designed to protect others and not just those who buy the insurance.

Gun insurance must be mandatory to be effective, not only to guarantee that it exists, but because only then will a market for the insurance appear. The insurers loss rates will normalize and premiums will adjust to reflect the real risks in the many circumstances of gun ownership.

Insurance trade groups, who seem to reflexively object to any requirements or regulations concerning insurance, claim various barriers to mandating gun insurance.  Few of these claims stand up to even cursory logical scrutiny and the ones that do only apply to the situation of thinly sold protection designed for the benefit of the gun owner

This bill requiring guns to be insured is good for safety, good for victims, good for gun owners, achievable and affordable.

It’s fair to conclude that DC’s strict firearm laws are saving about 14 lives a year from suicide, but would an insurance requirement have a substantial part of this effect in places where firearms are common.  Suicide researchers generally think that most suicides are impulsive and that substitution of means is uncommon.  This is an area where removal of the restrictions on firearm data gathering and research is very much needed.  Insurers requirements for safe storage can make a large difference.  Many informed public health experts believe that even things as small as separate storage of ammunition and keeping guns unloaded will make a substantial difference.  A person who keeps his gun at a range or shooting club rather than at home in order to get a lower insurance rate is far less likely to take an impulsive but irreversible and tragic action with it.

The figures in the table all concern deaths by firearm unless otherwise labeled.  They are totals for the period 2001-2010 and are taken from the CDC’s WISQARS system.  Rates are per 100,000 population and are not age-adjusted.

In a statement made to the Connecticut State Legislature on March 19, 2013 the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America (PCI) made a more carefully worded opposition to such insurance. This allows an analysis of the reasons for the reservations of the insurance industry on this matter.

PCI opposes this legislation because it will be ineffective in curbing gun violence and will create significant burdens for law abiding gun owners and insurers. As a general rule, PCI opposes mandating the purchase of liability insurance. We have found that mandatory insurance requirements are often ineffective and serve only to add enforcement and administrative costs for both government entities and insurers.

The comparison with motor vehicle insurance is relevant here in showing that this is a ridiculous statement. While it varies greatly from state to state, in many states motor vehicle insurance is mandatory, enforced and highly effective in compensating injured persons. In states where it is not effective, it is because insufficient insurance is mandated or enforced.

A particular objection made in this document was that “it is also unnecessary because homeowners and renters insurance policies often provide coverage for accidental discharges and negligent acts by gun owners….” While this coverage usually exists it’s way too narrow to protect victims because most shootings are not accidents. Also to say it’s unnecessary ignores the great number of gun owners who don’t have homeowners and renters insurance. It’s exactly those gun owners who would not voluntarily buy insurance that a mandate seeks to reach.

They then get to the core issue.

While homeowner’s insurance policies often cover an accidental firearms discharge, they also contain a general liability exclusion for intentional and/or criminal acts. This common sense exclusion prevents a criminal from being protected by the insurance policy. In fact, insurance policies generally do not cover intentional acts, as such coverage is contrary to the very premise of insurance — providing coverage only upon the occurrence of a fortuitous event.

This is the reason that insurance specifically designed for protection of victims is needed. Insurance that is to protect the buyer of the insurance is usually written to exclude benefits that can only go to third parties. It is certainly possible to have insurance terms that exclude intentional acts. If written that way it won’t even pay an innocent victim for deliberate shootings by an insured person or often by anyone. It’s not necessary to write insurance that way. If insurance is written to protect victims as it should be mandated to do, then “fortuitous event” in the quote above refers to an event that is fortuitous from the standpoint of the victim. This does not call for an unusual or novel kind of insurance. It’s the usual way to write insurance for this purpose. It only requires to be adapted to the specifics of this situation.

There are many kinds of insurance that do cover intentional and/or criminal acts and are designed to protect victims other than the insurance owner. They don’t, however, pay out directly to the misfeasor. Some have coverage that is mandated by law and some have coverage that is required by a business relationship. There are many, many law decisions on this matter with a simple pattern. The court looks at the terms of the policy and if it allows such coverage it is enforced. It’s very important that laws mandating insurance for guns explicitly mandate that the insurance pay to innocent parties no matter what the intent of the shooter or who the shooter is. A few examples are:

1. In some states required liability insurance for motor pays innocent parties harmed intentionally by insured drivers.
2. Standard homeowners insurance usually has an “open mortgage clause” that would pay a lender for a house burned down by the owner.
3. Business liability insurance often has a “separation of interests clause” that protects the company in the case of intentional acts of employees.
4. Performance bonds often pay if the contractor absconds with the funds.
5. Workers compensation insurance generally covers intentional acts by co-workers.

So why is the insurance industry so resistant to required insurance? I can’t read the minds of the spokespersons, but I can think of several possible reasons.

• Any requirement or restriction around guns is offensive to a very vocal minority of gun owners and insurers don’t want to offend them.
• The insurance industry doesn’t want to seem greedy or looking for a source of revenues.
• Mandatory insurance seems to be a long way from implemented at the moment even though it’s one of the few ways to have both a large number of guns and increased responsibility.
• People in the trade organizations with strong personal feelings about guns may take over the issue within the organization.

A little bit about me:

Because I write exclusively about guns and insurance, I have people who comment thinking that I’m some kind of shill for the insurance industry. I have never worked in that field, but I’m a retired businessman who has bought a lot of many kinds of insurance in my career. I appreciate the things that insurance can do to facilitate and improve activities associated with risks. I have seen insurance companies be reasonable and unreasonable, good and bad, trustworthy and untrustworthy. We need them, but we need to closely watch and regulate them. I think that well designed insurance that is would be a great help in reducing gun deaths and injuries and not be a great burden on gun owners.

It should applied to the gun in such a way that no matter how the gun changes hands it remains in effect until a new insurer takes it over. It should cover all injury done by the gun in a no fault way to eliminate lawsuits. It can replace the need to register guns in many cases so that, if gun owners who don’t trust the government buy their insurance from someone they do trust such as the NRA, a system of responsibility will result.

I write about guns and insurance of my own blog Gun Insurance Blog. A post about the ways of getting coverage to be universal is “Top Down”

Published 5/6/2013 on Daily Kos by guninsuranceblog

(b) The insurance policy required under subsection (a) of this section shall specifically cover any damages resulting from negligent acts, or willful acts that are not undertaken in self-defense, involving the use of the insured firearm while it is owned by the policy holder.

The announcement of the hearing provides for written statements until May 30, 2013.

The post gives a moving presentation of the damage done daily by guns and calls for insurance as a way to deal with the problem.  It makes the comparison to motor vehicles and points out the fact that gun deaths exceed motor vehicle deaths in 10 states currently.  Suicides are handled on a par with homicides and accidents, an position which is often opposed by those supporting the status quo for gun policy.

The part which makes a new contribution is the analysis of the benefits that insurers would provide if they were a part of gun policy as they are for motor vehicle policy.  This starts with the contributions of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and the Highway Loss Data Institute.  These are supported by insurers organizations that provide the knowledge and data that is needed for safety to evolve.  They are resources to be proud of in contrast to the sad state of support for research on firearm casualties.

There is a list of eight benefits for gun  insurance that bears study.  One of these:

3. Agencies could create and maintain an easily accessible database with gun serial number, insurance pin, and insurer that could be quickly checked before a sale yet protect the purchaser’s private information.

The idea of a database which only contains insurer and gun identification data is a central concept for the “Top Down” method of requiring insurance that is advocated by this blog.  This method works by only allowing an insurer to relinquish responsibility when a new insurer takes it up. 

Another interesting item on the list is:

4. Many instances of gun violence, including suicide, seems to be connected to individuals with mental health issues. Background checks can’t resolve this problem since a potential purchaser’s mental health history is protected. Insurance companies could protect this history and still be sure these individuals do not receive insurance coverage allowing them to purchase a gun.

Study of the relationship of suicide and firearms access is sorely needed, it is among the areas where publicly supported research is suppressed.  It is very important to handle all of the forms of gun violence.  The pretense promoted by the NRA and others that the problem is only a few criminals who need to be locked up would prevent any real progress.  There are other benefits listed in the post and they are all important.

This post is very welcome because it goes deeper than the pro and con of mandating insurance as a way to crack down on gun owners.  The recent appearance of such posts is a sign that the discussion of gun violence and of gun insurance is maturing into a new stage.

The authors of the paper are among those who believe that the Second Amendment gives individuals wide gun rights and that the narrow findings of the Heller decision only start to describe the limits of governmental regulation in this area. Others believe that Heller was the product of a momentary and ideological combination of justices which will not be expanded and will eventually fade in importance or even be overturned. The paper takes the view that, even under the broad interpretation of the Second Amendment, mandated insurance may have a role in containing gun violence. It does, however, see that role as being much more limited than does the author of this blog.

While this blog does not consider the Second Amendment as a major barrier to implementing effective gun insurance, many others do. This new academic analysis by widely respected conservative philosophers and thinkers is very valuable in laying out the nature of that objection. The paper should be read and considered carefully by anyone who is serious about understanding the possible role of insurance in dealing with America’s gun violence problem.

After some introductory material on the nature of insurance and the Second Amendment, the analysis begins by breaking the possible gun incidents into categories of intent. The first of these, malicious shootings, is declared to be rare.

The vast majority of these crimes are committed by habitual lawbreakers who would be unlikely to comply with such a regulation. There will be the occasional “crime of passion” committed by an individual who has previously been a law‐abiding citizen, but such incidents appear to be uncommon.

An examination of the many listings of shootings reported in local media, now available on the internet, shows that many apparently law abiding citizens are involved. Until scientific studies of gun violence are resumed, we are dependent on media reports which understate the problems to an unknown degree. The stream of reports is, however, enough to rebut a characterization of “uncommon.”

The authors of the paper also opinionate that legislatures would refuse to require and insurers would refuse to provide insurance that covers malicious acts because such insurance may shield wrongdoers. They point out in a note that court cases allow such coverage in a couple of states, but they think it’s exceptional. This blogger thinks that such cases are not more common simply because such injuries are rare with motor vehicles and because in many motor vehicle cases there are other ways of providing by means of the victims own insurance or no-fault laws.

This blog has pointed out many times that there types of insurance that provide broad protection for third parties when otherwise insured persons commit torts or crimes. The “separation of interests clause” that protects employers from liability for the acts of employees is an example, another is the “open mortgage clause” which pays lenders for building owners who commit arson. The authors do not address these cases which are based on business necessities rather than mandates of law.

The “Top-Down” concept that this blog supports requires insurers, once responsible for a gun, to remain responsible until another insurer takes it up would if properly implemented guarantee that insurance would be in effect for gun users who have improperly acquired their weapons.

The other objections are based on the author’s more expansive view of the Second Amendment.

The fourth category, negligent entrustment and storage, is very interesting. The authors state that liability for clear negligence is not problematic but worry that:

The risk that courts will succumb to the expansionary temptation, and respond to mandatory insurance statutes by adopting constitutionally invalid tort theories for gun owners, provides yet another reason for extreme care in drafting this type of legislation.

There is room for wide disagreement of the unconstitutionality of expanded tort theories. While this blog would support broadening tort theories to include responsibility for guns that are improperly transferred for stolen, no fault insurance would get around this problem. Insurers should be required to view the loss or theft of a gun as an event to be insured against which does not require it to be a source of owner liability.

Regulatory Pathologies

The most important part of the paper for this blog’s readers was under the heading above. It is important to have gun insurance used for the purpose of protecting and compensating the public and shooting victims and not be a covert way to punish gun owners. The Second Amendment aside, this is critical for any foreseeable political process of getting good insurance adopted.

These problems will be discussed in comparison with the insurance methods most recommended by this blog. They consist of a no-fault system with the primary payer being the insurance attached to a specific gun and a hierarchy of payment sources ending with a pool funded by all insurers in proportion to premiums earned. This is very similar to the systems for motor vehicles in Michigan and New York State. The terms of the insurance will include a provision that an insurer, once responsible for a specific firearm, cannot relinquish responsibility until that firearm is taken up by another insurer. This special provision is called “Top Down Insurance” in this blog.

The paper’s first item under this heading is the possibility of “disguised taxes.” The tax envisioned is to have a fund paid for by all gun owners to pay all injured persons. This is, of course, just what is needed. The paper states:

The use of a government regulation to force law‐abiding firearms owners to bear the costs of wrongs committed by those who own and use firearms illegally would violate the Second Amendment whether the coerced transfer occurred on a large scale, as in the foregoing hypothetical, or was introduced in camel’s‐nose fashion.

The essence of “camel’s-nose fashion” is that it leads inevitably to having the rest of the camel in the tent, so we should look at the extent when the system is fully developed of the additional contribution of the premium paying gun owners to the losses from the non-premium payers. This blog assumes that for constitutional purposes the car as the means for the right to travel is analogous to the firearm as the means for the right to self-defense and that, when the dust settles, practices acceptable for cars will be acceptable for guns. Any differences should be based in the actual differences in how the two classes of devices are used in practice.

No-fault car insurance usually has a hierarchy of payment sources with a low priority payer of last resort being a pool funded by all insurers in proportion to the premiums each insurer earns. That hierarchy can start with the injured persons insurance (which I do not recommend for guns, in order to have insurers have a greater stake in safe gun practices) or with the car owners insurance. If the pool is too heavily used there can be problems even with car insurance. For example, there is a lot of current controversy in Michigan where the pool pays for unlimited lifetime medical care for injured persons who exhaust the limits of the regular no-fault insurance. One of the major reasons for the strong means recommended as “Top Down” insurance by this blog is to have enough guns insured to reduce the size of this pool. Controlling the size of the “Uninsured Gun Pool” is also a reason to have strong procedures to trace guns involved in incidents and to exhaust every other kind of insurance including Medicaid before relying on the pool.

Other concerns of the paper are the possibility of using insurance as a “disguised gun registration” and enforcement of the mandate in general. This is primarily presented as a practical problem. There is a suggestion of a constitutional problem with requirement of proof of insurance with each subsequent sale, but the analogy of restrictions on transfer of firearms with prior restraint of speech does not seem valid to this blogger. Top Down Insurance makes registration of individual owners by the government unnecessary. The details are explained in other posts on this blog.

The next topic is the possibility of “Excessive Minimum Coverage Requirements.” The paper suggests the analogy with motor vehicles forbids higher requirements for firearms than for cars. This is based on the paper’s position about the type of constitutional protection afforded to guns themselves rather than to the defense interest of persons. This blog does recognize that this area has possibilities for abuse by those who would use insurance as a backdoor ban on guns. The differences should be grounded in real differences in the uses and risks of guns and cars.

The last topic here is the possibility of “Burdensome Private Regulation by Insurers.” Mandated insurance would establish a large market which is likely to have vigorous competition which would discourage such practices. If the market becomes dominated by one supplier it is likely to be the NRA itself, which currently sells most of the gun insurance purchased by individuals. If insurance requirements or regulations restricted the supply of insurance to create de facto regulation, it could be a problem.

It is very welcome to this blogger to see evidence that the core problems in getting insurance to protect gun violence victims is less a matter of ideology and more a practical matter of accommodating the needs of insurers, gun owners, victims and the wider public.

April 5, 2013 Huffington Post Blog: Rep. Carolyn Maloney: “Inaction on Gun Safety: Unacceptable and Unaffordable.  Defends her two bills on Gun Trafficking and Gun Insurance.

April 4, 2013 What Am I Missing Here: “Mandatory Gun Insurance.”  Rant against insurance.  Blames III’s Robert Hartwig (no friend of gun insurance) as “insurance Mafia consiglierie”

April 4, 2013 Forbes Blog: Personal FInance: John Wasik: “Gun Insurance: An Economic Argument”  Advocates Insurance, looks at current proposed legislation.

April 3, 2013 Rep. Carolyn Maloney Statement on Death Threats Over Legislation Requiring Gun Owners to Have Insurance

April 4, 2013  The Daily Steak: Imyur Huckleberry: “Gun Insurance: An Economic Target“. Analyses Legislation and Economics

April 4, 2013  Huffington Post: Craid Taro Gold: “‘Insuring’ America’s Future With Guns’”  Advocates insurance with comparison with cars, examines some problems.

Article dated 1/31/13  Planet Money NPR Blog

Justin Wolfers, professor of economics & Public Policy, U. of Mich

Russ Roberts, research fellow Hoover Institution & host of EconTalk

Robert Frank, professor of economics Cornell,

4/3/13

http://kavips.wordpress.com/2013/04/02/gun-insurance-hits-congress/

4/2/13

3/29/2013

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2013/0326/Next-big-thing-in-gun-control-7-questions-about-mandatory-gun-insurance/And-the-insurance-industry

Author  Hasna Haq

Insurance industry quote: Robert Hartwig III

Morgan Housel, Motley Fool

Robert Frank, economist Cornell (proponent)

Mar 27,2013

Law firm blog

http://www.weismanlaw.com/Articles/Mandatory-liability-insurance-for-gun-owners-will-ease-burden-on-victims.shtml

Mar 19, 2013

Article on Insure.com by Ed Leefeldt on Jan 13 shows many interesting misconceptions

http://blog.insure.com/2013/01/02/would-firearms-insurance-kill-gun-sales/

March 1, 2013

http://www.toledoblade.com/Editorials/2013/02/27/Gun-insurance.html

http://blog.nj.com/njv_editorial_page/2013/02/new_jersey_should_consider_man.html

Feb 27, 2013

Insurance & Financial Advisor; Benn Gross

http://ifawebnews.com/2013/02/25/state-legislatures-target-gun-owners-for-liability-insurance/

Cato Institute

http://overlawyered.com/2013/02/proposal-make-gun-owners-carry-liability-insurance/

http://www.cato.org/blog/proposals-make-gun-owners-carry-liability-insurance

1999 Usenet Post calling for ‘workmen’s-comp-style’

http://www.cyberussr.com/hcunn/guns/gun-insurance.html

Feb 26, 2013

Savannahnow.com: David Colmans; Got guns? Got Insurance Coverage?

http://savannahnow.com/exchange/2013-02-23/got-guns-got-insurance-coverage

Paul Tetrault: Gun-liability laws won’t help.  http://www.namic.org/pdf/mediatoolbox/tetrault.pdf

http://blogs.providencejournal.com/ri-talks/this-new-england/2013/02/searching-for-solutions-to-gun.html

Commented.

February 23, 2013

Nelson Lund

http://articles.courant.com/2013-01-21/news/hc-green-gun-liability-newtown-20130121_1_gun-owners-liability-insurance-gun-safety

http://www.law.gmu.edu/news/2013/lund_liability_insurance

New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/22/us/in-gun-debate-a-bigger-role-seen-for-insurers.html?pagewanted=all

http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?default_fld=&bn=A03908&term=2013&Summary=Y&Memo=Y&Text=Y

General Reinsurance

http://www.genre.com/sharedfile/pdf/GunSafety201301-en.pdf

Forbes; John Wasik; The Myth of Gun Liability Insurance

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnwasik/2013/02/21/the-myth-of-gun-liability-insurance/

Bloomburg and AIA on resistance to providing insurance.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-19/u-s-insurers-resist-push-to-make-gun-owners-get-coverage.html

2/21/2013

Florida Today; Marshall Frank;
http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20130214/COLUMNISTS0205/302140001/Guest-column-Gun-focus-misdirected
2/14/2013
The Atlantic; Molly Ball; How the Gun-Control Movement Got Smart
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/02/how-the-gun-control-movement-got-smart/272934/
Feb 13, 2013
Huffington Post; Paul Heroux; Why Liberals (and Conservatives) Should Be Careful With Gun Laws
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-heroux/why-liberals-and-conserva_b_2646636.html
Feb 11 2013
Patriot-News of Central PA; David Wenner; Show operator thought tactical weapons ban would bring peace; it triggered a firestorm.
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2013/02/assault_weapons_tactical_ban_b.html
Feb 9 2013
GreenwichPatch; Local Posting; Gun-Owner Liability Insurance–Really?
http://greenwich.patch.com/blog_posts/gun-owner-liability-insurancereally
Lots of good questions.
Times Tribune of Scranton, PA; Get serious on gun safety
http://thetimes-tribune.com/opinion/get-serious-on-gun-safety-1.1441371
WSJ; James Taranto; Insurance as Punishment
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323452204578290151788526728.html?KEYWORDS=JAMES+TARANTO
Salon; Alex Seitz-Wald; Should gun owners have to buy insurance.
http://www.salon.com/2013/02/07/should_gun_owners_have_to_buy_insurance/
aseitz-wald@salon.com
Feb 8, 2013
Josh Blackman’s Blog; Josh Blackman; How to pay for the costs of gun violence! Gun Insurance!?
http://joshblackman.com/blog/2013/02/06/how-to-pay-for-the-costs-of-gun-violence-gun-insurance/
Feb 7, 2013
Huffington Post; Mark Rice; Gun Enthusiasts: Why Not Say You Just Want to Own Your Guns?
Huffington Post; Anushka Fernandopulle; Dharma and Guns
Feb 6, 2013

Privatized Gun Control — Interesting Parallels by backell  Uses insurance to privatize background checks and a pseudo-registration.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/02/05/1184917/-Privatized-Gun-Control-a-Solution-for-Everyoe

Huffington Post; Walker Bragman; Post: Debunking 18 Pro-Gun Myths

Has a lot of links to sources

walkerbragman@gmail.com

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/walker-bragman/gun-myths_b_2585941.html

Yahoo! Voices; John A. Tures; Article: Could Gun Insurance Replace Gun Control?

http://voices.yahoo.com/could-gun-insurance-replace-gun-control-12003832.html?cat=9

Wayland Patch; Mass. Rep. Tom Conroy;  Letter: Considering Gun Violence Nationally, Locally

http://wayland.patch.com/articles/letter-gun-violence-nationally-and-locally

Huffington Post; Donathan Diamond; Own a Gun, Caryy Insurance.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-diamond/own-a-gun-carry-insurance_b_2613303.html

Feb 5, 2013

http://www.programbusiness.com/News/Insurers-Skeptical-of-State-Moves-toward-Mandatory-Liability-Insurance-for-Gun-Owners

Feb 4, 2013

http://articles.courant.com/2013-02-01/news/hc-op-cornell-second-amendment-not-absolute-on-pos-20130201_1_stricter-gun-rules-gun-owners-gun-laws

http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202586633190&Raise_the_cost__of_gun_violence&slreturn=20130103065204

Feb 3, 2013

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/01/31/gun_liability_insurance_liability_is_a_bigger_deal_than_mandatory_insurance.html

Jan 31, 2013

Gun insurance should serve to protect victims and promote safe storage and use of firearms, without being an excessive burden on gun owners (for a description of possible insurance see here).  Unfortunately, conventional liability insurance as sold, for example by the NRA, is designed only to protect the gun owner not third party victims.  Gun insurance, like any insurance that is mandated by government or required as a condition of doing business, should be designed to protect those injured by an incident.  Moreover, it needs to protect the public by encouraging safe practices.  Currently, gun insurance only protects the gun owner from theft and lawsuits.

The insurance should apply to intentional or criminal uses of the firearm

According to the Center for Disease Control, only about 3% of the deaths and a slightly higher percentage of the injuries due to firearms are accidents.  In the vast majority of cases the shooter intended to kill or injure the victim, whether it was a justified homicide, a murder or an injury. Yet, householder’s insurance, which some shooters do have, usually only covers accidents.  If victims of most shootings are to receive compensation, then the intent of the person who shoots them must not be a factor.

Insurers through their trade groups taken a position that “no insurance covers intentional acts.”  For examples, see Insurance Information Institute(here) and  National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies (here). This is baloney! There are plenty of counterexamples. Even though homeowners insurance and the excess liability gun insurance sold by the NRA work that way, there are many kinds of insurance which do cover these acts.

1. In some states such as Massachusetts but not in Texas required motor vehicle liability insurance must pay innocent parties harmed intentionally by insured drivers.
2. Standard homeowners insurance usually has a “open mortgage clause” that would pay a lender for arson by the owner.
3. Business liability insurance often has a “separation of interests clause” that protects the company in the case of intentional acts of employees.
4. Performance bonds often pay if the contractor absconds with the funds.

The point of these examples is that liability and other kinds of insurance can pay innocent third parties for intentional acts of by insured parties.   Mandatory gun insurance should be designed like the examples above to protect the victims.  Public policy, which is often said to prohibit such insurance, only prevents the malefactor from benefiting.

The insurance should follow the gun not the owner

In addition to protecting victims, another reason for having insurance is to encourage safe handling and storage of guns.  A major part of the danger from guns is owners that do not protect their firearms from others who might use them.  Insurers should be offering lower rates and other incentives for owners to lock up and keep control of guns.

In many or even most of the shootings that result in death or injury the shooter is not the legal owner of the gun.  The owner may or may not be present, may or may not have given permission to use the gun and may or may not still have control of the gun.  The victim still needs to be covered in all of these cases.  Insurance that will protect victims should explicitly recognize this reality.  For gun insurance to function properly, it needs to be restructured from the current model that assumes the gun is in the owner’s possession.

Insurance should continue to cover guns that are lost, stolen or diverted

It is extremely unclear whether the bulk of deaths and injuries come from previously responsible gun owners or from criminals who should not have a gun in the first place.  Studies made about 20 years ago show a large percentage of incidents by persons with a criminal history, however that was at the time of a higher murder rate and an epidemic of crack cocaine use.  Fortunately, homicide rates have come down.  Since the reduction, we don’t know whether the percentage has changed so that more shooting are by  apparently responsible persons.  The laws limiting the tracking of guns by the government and the public health sponsored research on this subject make it hard to answer this question.  But in any case, it important that victims of illegal guns be protected.

Clandestine gun factories directly selling illegal firearms are rare or nonexistent.  All the the illegal guns started out as legal firearms and were somehow taken into improper hands.  Most of the firearm criminal and regulatory laws are aimed at slowing this transition.  Insurance can play a large role in that effort.  If the insurer of a legal gun remains responsible when control of the gun is lost, there is a great incentive for keeping that control.  (I have written on this approach here)  Insurers will have loss prevention activities for this purpose.  The best way to accomplish this is to allow an insurer to relinquish responsibility for a certain weapon only if another insurer takes it up.

The insurance should be No-Fault

Proving negligence on the part of a shooter is difficult in many or most shootings.  The circumstances may not be clear.  The victim may need medical care right away not after a prolonged court battle.

One of the most important reasons for No-Fault motor vehicle insurance is so that people needing medical care can get it right away. Even though emergency rooms are required to give certain care at the time of crisis regardless of ability to pay, without follow-up the prognosis for a person with a serious gunshot wound is not good.  Hospitals need to know that they will be paid for persons brought to them after shootings.  While the number of injuries from guns is much less than from motor vehicles, many of them are quite serious.  Approximately one half of the cost of gunshot injuries is now paid by Medicaid.

No-Fault insurance for motor vehicles often has a person collect first from their own insurance.  This is not necessary and in many cases the insurance is No-Fault in relation to negligence but the injured party collects from the insured vehicle’s insurer.  In most states there is a hierarchy of payers with the first available source on the list taking the claim.  A good order for gun insurance is would be:

1. Gun Insurance attached to the firearm causing the injury.
2. Gun Insurance attached to another gun owned or possessed by the shooter.
3. Gun Insurance attached to another gun owned by the owner of an uninsured gun causing the injury.
4. Gun Insurance attached to a gun owned or kept in the household of the shooter.
5. Gun Insurance attached to a gun owned or possessed by the victim
6. Any applicable non-gun insurance such as household, liability, medical, Medicare or Medicaid.
7. A pool funded by insurers in proportion to premiums earned for payment in cases of unknown or uninsured guns.

There should be a means to find the insurer of a gun

Insurance companies should be required to submit the serial numbers of guns that insure to a central database kept by a single authority.  In that way an injured person can inquire to find out with which insurer to make a claim.  If insurance is done in such a way that the only way an insurer can relinquish responsibility is to have a new insurer, then the last insurer or the one on the date of the incident must be responsible.  If there is no insurer in the data base, there should be provisions to find an other possible payer in accordance with the hierarchy above.  For example, a gun owner or shooter involved in an incident should be required to provide insurance information on other guns owned if that is needed to make a claim.  The database does not need to identify the owner of the gun but only the insurer and so is not a form of gun registration.

Can gun insurance be designed that follows all of these principles?

Absolutely.  We have examples of insurance in use today that does all of these things.  The best example at hand is No-Fault motor vehicle in New York State or Michigan as it applies to pedestrians.  They don’t have their own insurance but, even if they are injured by an unknown hit and run driver, they are compensated.  In Michigan the benefits can, if necessary, provide lifetime medical care with no fixed cost limit.  Workers’ Compensation Insurance as it is provided in most states could be also adapted to this need.

HR 1369

This bill is waiting for definition of the insurance required.  It is very important that this insurance be done in accordance with the principles above.  There are many ways the insurance can work, but the principles define the necessities for a system that would be effective in protecting the victims and the public.

This bill, H.R. 1369, has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.  The cosponsors are:

1. Keith Ellison  MN-5
2. Eleanor Holmes Norton DC
3. Michael E. Capuano MA-7 20
4. James P. Moran VA-8
5. Bobby Rush IL-1
6. Niki Tsongas MA-3
7. Stephen F. Lynch MA-8
8. Earl Blumenaur OR-3

This diary was posted in Daily Kos on 4/3/13