Tag Archives: guns

Hearing Held on DC Gun Insurance Bill

Posted on by
Reply

On Thursday May 16, 2013 the District of Columbia held a hearing on the B20-170, Firearm Insurance Amendment Act of 2013 their Gun Insurance Bill.  The first panel consisted of Dan Gross, President of the Brady Campaign; Erin Collins from NAMIC; Tom Harvey, Gun Insurance Blog and Kris Hammond, Resident of DC.

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.

Firearm Suicide in DC

Posted on by
Reply

This blogger has been researching statistics for presentation to the District of Columbia City Council in relation to their bill B20-170 to require insurance for guns.  Some of the figures are striking.  Firearm homicide for DC over the 10 year period 2001-2010 is over 5 times the national average but firearm suicide is one third of its national average.  This means there are over 15 times as many suicides per homicide nationally than in DC.  Part of this difference is no doubt demographic.  Suicide rates vary dramatically by race, age and gender.  But the non-firearm suicide rate per 100,000 persons in DC is 75% of the national average and the firearm suicide rate is only 32% of the national average.  That difference is probably due to the scarcity of guns in DC even with the large illegal gun problem. If this difference had not existed then there would have been an additional 142 firearm suicides in DC during the 10 year period.

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.

Intent DC US DC Rate US Rate
All Intents 1,453 306,946 25.18 10.21
Accidents 16 6,739 0.23 0.23
Suicide 109 175,221 1.89 5.79
Homicide 1,311 119,246 22.72 4.01
Legal Intervention 13 3,325 0.32 0.11
         
Accidents/Homicides 0.012 0.057 0.010 0.057
Suicides/Homicides 0.083 1.469 0.083 1.444
         
All Suicide Firearm or Not 352 338,043 6.1 11.38
Non Firearm Suicide 243 162,822 4.21 5.59

Looking at PCI Statement on Gun Insurance to Connecticut Legislature

Posted on by
1

The insurance industry through its trade group spokespersons has been very negative on the possibilities of dealing with the gun violence problem by means of requiring insurance. The legislative proposals made so far have all been very narrow calls for conventional liability insurance sometimes with high limits. The trade groups have been quick to jump on the limitations of that approach and on projected difficulties with implementation. The quotes in various new articles have been very hostile to gun (and actually all) insurance.

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.

Continue reading →

DC Bill on Gun Insurance B20-170 Hearing

Posted on by
1

The bill in the District of Columbia Council, B20-170, requiring insurance for guns will have a hearing at 10AM on May 16, 2013.  The text of the bill requires liability insurance of $250,000 for gun owners.  It provides for willful acts.

(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.

PreventingNewtown Blog Points Out Gun Insurance Benefits

Posted on by
1

A new post by Julia Hartman on the PreventingNewtown blog titled “A Case for Gun Liability Insurance” gives a thoughtful and interesting discussion of the benefits of requiring insurance to protect victims of gun violence.

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.

Continue reading →

New Analysis on Guns, Insurance and the Second Amendment by Lund and Gilles.

Posted on by
Reply

A paper “Mandatory Liability Insurance for Firearm Owners: Design Choices and Second Amendment Limits” has been published by Nelson Lund of the George Mason U. School of Law and by Stephen G. Gilles of the Quinnipiac University School of law. While there have been simple calls for requiring gun insurance and comparisons of guns and cars at various times, Nelson Lund’s paper of 25 years ago “The Second Amendment, Political Liberty, and the Right to Self-Preservation” in the Alabama Law Review is the only serious and significant source known to this blog to address the issue prior to the Sandy Hook incident. The title of the new paper fairly describes its focus. Many issues of interest to those who want to think about the possibilities of using insurance to protect the public and compensate shooting victims are raised.

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.

Continue reading →

North Carolina Added to States with Gun Insurance Bills

Posted on by
Reply

A bill HB976 has been introduced in the North Carolina Legislature.  It has several gun control provisions including $100,000 in mandatory gun liability insurance.  This insurance goes farther than in most other states by applying to willful acts and to unreported stolen guns.  The bill introduced by Rep’s Luebke, Insko, Harrison and Adams has 7 sponsors so far.  It was introduced on 4/17/13, showing that momentum to deal with gun violence is continuing and that insurance is seen as a part of the solution.  There have now been bills introduced in 9 states and the US House.

Firearm Risk Protection Act introduced in Congress H.R. 1369

Posted on by
1

For details on the recommendations by this blogger on how to implement this bill and have this insurance see my the April 2 post on Daily Kos

A bill titled the Firearm Risk Protection Act  has been introduced by Rep. Carolyn Maloney in the national Congress. As of March 29, 2013 there is not text available on Congress.Gov but the bill has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. Rep. Maloney’s press release states that the bill will impose a $10,000 fine if an owner does not have the required coverage. It exempts service members and law officers.

Other details have yet to be developed. Rep. Maloney’s press aide stated that in a phone call and email that “like all legislation, it was meant to start a conversation about national priorities” and welcomed input to the process. This blogger will certainly be following the bill and recommending that it be done in a way that provides the maximum protection to victims. It’s likely that the bill authors have in mind a relatively simple model of Liability insurance which could be improved by adding provisions to:

  1. Follow guns as they are lost or stolen
  2. Eliminate provisions to limit coverage for intentional acts
  3. Eliminate requirements for negligence by gun owners
  4. Require steps it aid identification of the responsible weapon

The bill has 8 cosponsors so far:

  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-8 202-225-8273
  8. Earl Blumenaur OR-3 202-225-4811

$100K in Jewelry Stolen From Car

Posted on by
Reply

Yahoo’s OMG reports that an actress who left the jewelry in her car had it stolen while she was at a friend’s Hollywood apartment.

So what’s this got to do with gun insurance?

Well, hundreds of thousands of guns go bad by being stolen each year, many from cars. The value of the object being stolen does not seem to be adequate to prevent this problem. Insurers will limit this exposure if they are going to be responsible for the future damage the guns do. Of course, responsible gun owners don’t leave their guns in cars. Insurance is a way to engender that responsibility.

Oregon SB-758 First State Bill for Effective Gun Insurance

Posted on by
Reply

Senators Dingfelder and Burdick with Representative Denbrow have introduced a bill in the Oregon Legislature (SB-758) which is the first effective plan for gun insurance that would provide for victims. It works by imposing strict liability on a gun owner for injuries associated with a gun even for one year after the gun is lost or stolen. There is no limitation to economic damages as is typical of no-fault motor vehicle insurance. The limits are set quite high at $250,000 for physical injury or death. Continue reading →