Principles for requiring gun insurance that would protect everyone
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
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
Need For Required Gun Insurance Continue reading
Updated 12/22/2022
Q: What is the purpose of mandating gun insurance?
Required insurance for guns or gun owners should be designed to provide benefits for victims of gun accidents or violence. Insurers will automatically take appropriate steps to encourage gun safety as part of their loss control and underwriting activities.
Related: Insurance-Good for Victims, Safety and Gun Owners
Q: What specifically would be the best insurance system for guns?
Each state should adopt a system of no-fault insurance with a system of delivering medical and cash benefits directly to victims. This insurance should be required to be in place for any firearm brought into or kept in the state in order for that firearm to be legal. It should provide all of the benefits available to victims of motor vehicle or workplace injuries.
We have responsible ways to handle things which are dangerous but which are not made illegal because of their actual or assumed benefits to society. We look carefully at ways to contain the dangers and enjoy the benefits in almost every case. The exception is firearms, but we are just beginning to pull our heads out of the sand and examine this important subject.
One of the most powerful tools to facilitate a dangerous activity is insurance. Unfortunately, requiring insurance to cover gun violence has been looked at only as a way to penalize gun ownership or at least to transfer costs to gun owners. The result is calls for high limit liability insurance, usually with terms that make actual implementation unlikely. This blog argues that the tort/liability model is one of the least effective ways to increase safety and provide for victims. A No-Fault system similar to worker’s compensation or some motor vehicle insurance is much better. It needs to follow a gun that changes hands in a way to insure that all guns are covered.
This blog also is advocating that insurance be required of gun manufacturers or anyone bringing a gun into the system in such a way that the insurer only relinquishes responsibility when another insurer (contracted by a new owner) takes it up. Insurance should remain in effect through any transfer legal or not. This would allow confidence that insurance was always in effect without tracking the gun owners. With a proper No-Fault system the victim would not have to even be told the name of the owner to collect compensation. All transactions by claimants or the government would be with the insurance companies.
Recommended Posts:
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
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
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:
This video is organized by this outline:
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 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.
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.
So, there is a good chance that a gun insurance requirement would have prevented this tragic incident.
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.
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.
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, 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.
Recent mass shootings have awakened a large portion of the public to the dangers of guns and many politicians have responded. The political possibilities of adopting a mandate for insurance to benefit victims of gun violence have never been a high as they are now. If this trend continues, hopefully by a means other than more shootings, then it may become realistic to adopt measures on a national level.
The Mayor of San Jose, CA has a plan to require gun insurance in that city and has published an editorial on the Subject in the Washington Post. This plan covers “intentional acts of third parties who steal, borrow, or otherwise acquire the gun” but not the liability of a policy holder for intentional acts. It could be expanded to cover these acts by paying benefits directly to victims.
There are three big categories of activities that result in deaths and injuries—vehicles, employment and gun ownership. In two of these there is general agreement that the at-risk public should be protected by insurance provided by those who engage in the activities. This results in both in financial benefits to offset some of the losses and in reduction of the harm. The harm reduction comes through insurer loss prevention strategies and in a societal commitment to a culture of responsibility.
Not so with guns. Gun violence produces a quantity of deaths about the same as those from vehicles and several times those from employment accidents. This is in spite of the fact that gun ownership is a much smaller part of the economy than employment or vehicle use.
Even more, most states recognize the need for public protection and provide for benefits to persons harmed when the responsible party cannot be identified or does not provide the required insurance. Contributions to an uninsured vehicle or employer fund in a state are generally required from insurers and ultimately paid by all drivers or employers. The uninsured tend to be less responsible and the cost is substantial when their numbers are significant. This provides an incentive for effective enforcement of the insurance requirement.
Insurance vs. Laws and Regulations
The laws and regulations we use for gun safety in our country have provided only limited relief from the high level of gun injury and death. While they need to be extended and improved, other ways of protecting people are also important. One that would be extremely helpful is to require insurance that protects victims of gun violence.
For decades there has been a war between those who want reasonable regulation of gun ownership and use and those who feel that any restrictions applied to guns are the start of a slippery slope leading to total gun confiscation. The result has been a patchwork that provides substantial impediments to responsible gun ownership as the pool of irresponsible owners and dangerous guns has increased exponentially.