liability insurance

[twitch57]

basically just school me on liability insurance for guns.

I am looking into getting some for my new "toys" and i really dont know jack

the nra insurance looks good but in all honesty I have no clue

here is the linky http://www.locktonrisk.com/nrains/epl.asp

thanks

[moulton]

tag (what ever tag means, I see pages and pages of it when ever I go over to ARF )

[Mute]

You can get a rider for your homeowner's insurance or renter's insurance to cover your firearms. However, the NRA insurance is a great deal. On to of becoming an NRA member, you'll also get insurance that will cover your guns outside the home.

[wilit]

3 pages of answers for you.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=70309

[twitch57]

thanks wilit,
but I am looking more for coverage against accidents than self defense

I am already a member of the nra so It seemed like the nra Sponsored insurance would be my best bet but I really dont know anything about it

[CALI-gula]

It's sounds as if you are asking about liability AND property coverage.

Most homeowners general liability policies DO NOT exclude accidental injuries or legally-deemed SELF DEFENSE injuries from guns, even if the convicted criminal sues you. However, if your use of the firearm is considered assault or a criminal act, coverage for injury to the other party would be excluded as are any criminal act; say you beat your neighbor with a baseball bat because you hate the color he painted his house.

If your policy does NOT exclude injuries caused by firearms in writing, and I'm betting it doesn't, your HO or renter's insurance policy limits would cover defense costs and injury to other parties, even if accidental. However, one caveat: note that if you leave a firearm where a child can find it, then uses it without your permission or guidance, and is injured or injures someone else with it, accident or not, that IS a criminal act, and your insurance company may not cover you for liability.

Barring acts deemed criminal or criminally negligent on your part, you're covered (but check your policy). Case in point; MANY homeowner policies exclude dogs, or may even put an additional premium to include CERTAIN breeds on the policy; just too many cases of mail-men being bit in CA. Yet many dog owners don't realize they are not covered if their dog bites someone. And if you HO carrier discovers you own a pit-bull in CA? Don't be surprised if they notify you of the exclusion and/or additional premium is required to cover the pit-bull.

But it is highly unlikely accidents from firearms are excluded in your liability portion of the policy.

HOWEVER, what is often excluded are firearms on the property/valuables portion of your policy. Different aspects of that:

• Sometimes they are excluded on property values/contents, period, depending on what type of policy you buy; you want one that includes owned property/contents and just be sure firearms are not excluded. Ironically, a renter's policy commonly adds them because you are insuring your contents and not the building - but double check.
• They are not covered for breakage from their use/discharge - nor wear and/or rust. That is common even among specially purchased coverage to cover their value.
• Theft is covered to a specific limit (usually quite small, say $1000 to $5000 unless you declare them on a special property coverage endorsement)
• The standard coverage OR special coverage for theft will have different limits whether they are stolen from the home, or when they are away from the home (such as on a trip). For example, you might have coverage for $50,000 if stolen from your home, for any number of guns, but if stolen while they are away from the home, your limit might be up to $5000 max. (And mysterious disappearance will not be covered - make sure you know when, where, and how stolen - and file a police report - i.e., if one day you simply go to your safe and can't find your Wildey .475 that you haven't even looked at in over two years, without evidence of a break in - it's loss will not be covered).
• Without a special endorsement and no exclusion, they often simply fall under "sports equipment" and are covered similar to the way a set of golf clubs might be covered.
• WITH a special endorsement, different carriers may require different proof of value. Depending on the value you declare, some will want an itemized schedule of the firearms you own and some will not (and that may or may not include serial numbers). Request higher replacement-cost* limits, and they may want an appraisal or receipts to back it up, under a Personal Articles Floater scheduling them gun by gun - this is the high end of coverage which may breech offerings from standard companies - thus, you get policies from a "Surplus Lines" carrier like Lloyds (where in that case, you are typically a really rich bastard with quite a collection of guns!). You can bet if there is a substantial loss, they will want to see some back-up documentation as to value.
• Many of the US general HO providers will add the coverage up to average limits (say $50,000 from the home, $5000 if out of the home) without any requirement of a list of serial numbers or a schedule, which is nice. Some will even go so far as to just lump them under "Sports Equipment" so the underlings at these companies don't see you have a big lot of firearms in your home - for privacy.

* Replacement-cost is what you want; beware of co-insurance clauses on your HO coverage, which is common, applying to your contents as well. Especially true if your collection holds many one-of-kind or high-value collectibles that are nearly irreplaceable.

Without getting too cloggy with mathematical details, under a co-insurance clause, you essentially take up part of the risk of their loss. For example, if you have an 80% co-insurance clause on them, you are basically taking a 20% hit of the loss on their total value. The insurance company would only pay you 80% of the loss, for any partial or total loss of your collection. Yet, you can lower your premiums by adding a co-insurance clause. Look it at like this; if you had 10 Glocks, 10 pedestrian SIGs (not P210s), 10 H&K USPs, 10 modern 1911's, while you also had 10 highly collectible Lugers, a co-insurance clause might not be such a bad thing as in the event of your loss of the whole collection due to fire or theft, losing those pedestrian guns is not so bad; they are replaceable (SB15 safety list not-withstanding) and their values are lower. They could very well be worth the risk you take to have lower premiums in the long run, as a loss may never happen. The longer your policy is in force without a loss under a co-insurance clause, the better off you are (pending the guns don't ridiculously increase in value or become unobtanium).

(All insurance policies and coverages are different; none of the advice above should be taken to mean that it applies to you or your coverage; it is hypothetically generalized information. I will not be held responsible if you believe any of the above applies to you or your insurance coverage, and you have a loss that is not covered. Always check with your broker, agent, or policy to determine the actual coverage you hold. Your policy may contain exclusions and endorsements completely contradictory to any and all of the information I've discussed above. So phffffft if you don't like it! )

.

[11Z50]

As a PI with weapons permit, I have to carry a 3 mil policy that costs about 1100/yr. This is a write off for me as a cost of doing business, but it covers me for any SD incident with weapon, liability and damages.

PM for details...

[ryang]

Most homeowners general liability policies DO NOT exclude legally-deemed SELF DEFENSE injuries from guns, even if the convicted criminal sues you.

Can you cite references to back this claim up? Everything I've researched indicates the opposite. Here's the executive summary: homeowner liability insurance covers accidents. Accidents are unintentional acts. Shooting someone in self defense is an intentional act. Therefore self defense is not covered as an accident.

You will often find wording that states intentional acts are not covered under liability insurance. There are only two ways self defense (whether with a gun or not) is covered: if state law says so, or if the insurance policy has an exception that specifically says self-defense is covered.

I have spoken with a regional office for State Farm (one step higher than local agents) and they confirmed State Farm does not cover self defense as part of umbrella liability. Most major insurance companies do not in California.

[CALI-gula]

Can you cite references to back this claim up? Everything I've researched indicates the opposite. Here's the executive summary: homeowner liability insurance covers accidents. Accidents are unintentional acts. Shooting someone in self defense is an intentional act. Therefore self defense is not covered as an accident.

You will often find wording that states intentional acts are not covered under liability insurance. There are only two ways self defense (whether with a gun or not) is covered: if state law says so, or if the insurance policy has an exception that specifically says self-defense is covered.

I have spoken with a regional office for State Farm (one step higher than local agents) and they confirmed State Farm does not cover self defense as part of umbrella liability. Most major insurance companies do not in California.

The reference is me, for one, and I've got more than enough under my own belt to prove it - but I do that in the real world every day, so I have no care whether anyone online would believe me or not. It's the internet - it was struggle enough just to get people online to understand the OLL/OLR issue, I have no desire to beat people over the head with information, especially when I'm not getting paid for the message. Second, certain actions are covered but do not have to be "accidents" when stopping harm to oneself - as you noted, under Federal and State law, when acting in self-defense for the protection of your life, you are covered by default. I've seen enough claims of this nature in my life to know this is true; too bad I can't cite any of them as none made the press, and the details are confidential (mostly, my clients). Third, you obviously spoke to the wrong person at State Farm. You've also got some of your jargon confused; first to respond is the general liability; the umbrella is an excess layer that does not respond until your general liability limits are exhausted. It can very well be that your general liability is with one carrier, and your umbrella with another. WIth State Farm, it is likely both are with them - talk to another person at State Farm for a second opinion. If you get that same opinion, switch agents; State Farm agents only rep State Farm. It';s even possible YOUR State Farm policy does not cover you but someone else may have a policy that does. If that does not suit you, talk to a broker that deals with many different carriers: the coverage is available.

And re-read this again, which was in my post above, should you still disagree:

(All insurance policies and coverages are different; none of the advice above should be taken to mean that it applies to you or your coverage; it is hypothetically generalized information. I will not be held responsible if you believe any of the above applies to you or your insurance coverage, and you have a loss that is not covered. Always check with your broker, agent, or policy to determine the actual coverage you hold. Your policy may contain exclusions and endorsements completely contradictory to any and all of the information I've discussed above. So phffffft if you don't like it! )


.

[ryang]

The reference is me, for one, and I've got more than enough under my own belt to prove it - but I do that in the real world every day, so I have no care whether anyone online would believe me or not.

Are you referring to insurance claims or legal prosecution?

I have no desire to beat people over the head with information, especially when I'm not getting paid for the message.

Trolling, flame wars and all that aside, the main benefit I see to the 'net is dissemination of information. In that regard I truly want to know what is and is not covered. This isn't a case of "I'm right; you're wrong" but rather "this is what I know and if you know something different I'd like to hear why".

certain actions are covered but do not have to be "accidents" when stopping harm to oneself - as you noted, under Federal and State law, when acting in self-defense for the protection of your life, you are covered by default.

Are you referring to legal or civil liability? Recall the case of quarterboregunner who shot a criminal. It was a clear-cut case of justifiable self-defense and while no criminal charges were filed, he was sued by the criminal. My study of both homeowner policies and umbrella liability add-ons indicates that unless the policy explicitly states self-defense is covered, it is not.

I've seen enough claims of this nature in my life to know this is true; too bad I can't cite any of them as none made the press, and the details are confidential (mostly, my clients).

Actual cases aren't necessary. Simply citing the relevent section of the insurance policy (which shouldn't be confidential) would suffice.

talk to another person at State Farm for a second opinion. If you get that same opinion, switch agents; State Farm agents only rep State Farm.

I talked with the regional office, not an agent.

So phffffft if you don't like it!

It's not a matter of liking it or not, I simply want to know the truth. Here are some examples of the info I researched:

http://library.findlaw.com/1998/Jan/1/126459.html

Insurance policies containing an exclusionary clause for intentional acts are effective to preclude indemnification against "intentional or expected" behavior by an insured, including self-defense, as a matter of law. In 1995, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that, even if Harrington acted in self-defense, his action was still intentional and expected as a matter of law and, therefore, the exclusion under the insurance policy precluded coverage.

http://www.irmi.com/Expert/Articles/2006/Cooper01.aspx

As with all coverage disputes, the determination of whether the intentional injury exclusion applies to injuries caused by acts of self-defense depends on the exact wording of the exclusion and the policy as a whole. Some liability policies include an exception to the intentional injury exclusion for "bodily injury resulting from the use of reasonable force to protect persons or property." If the exclusion includes this exception, or one similar, the intentional injury exclusion will not apply to circumstances where the insured uses reasonable force in defending himself, others, or property.

[twitch57]

now im kinda confused...

[ryang]

I only talked about civil liability. Here's a case where an on-duty LEO confronted an armed suspect. The suspect ignored orders to drop the weapon, pointed it at the officer and was killed. Open and close self-defense right? A grand jury indicted the officer and now he's looking at up to $100k out of his own pocket for legal defense.

http://omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2798&u_sid=10364547

If you ever shoot someone, you can expect hefty legal defense fees for both criminal and civil cases regardless of whether the shoot was justified or not. Anyone contemplating that situation would be well served to make sure they have an insurance policy that covers them for all legal fees.

You may also have to move out of fear of retaliation, but that's another story.

[ryang]

now im kinda confused...

What's there to be confused about? The two links I provided cite case law that shows how "intentional act" exclusions can apply to self-defense. Do some google searches to find more information, then have an informed talk with your insurance agent. Explain what you found and ask if you have (or can get) a policy that specifically states self-defense is covered. If the policy does not, then repeat until you find one that does. Don't rely on the agent's verbal assurances. If it isn't written in the policy then you don't have coverage.

Oh, and the NRA's coverage amounts are a joke. You need at least $1m liability coverage. More if you can afford it.

[ibanezfoo]

I have AAA homeowners insurance and when I set it up the agent said the guns are covered under personal property in the event of a fire or whatever disaster but they offer specific firearms insurance for other firearms related issues.

-Bryan