Travelers insurance won't cover 'Assault Rifles'


PDA






Joe Link
September 18, 2009, 07:45 PM
In an effort to save money, I called my AAA insurance agent today to see how much money I'd save on by switching from State Farm renters insurance (which I shopped for and purchased independently) to Travelers (who I have my auto insurance with, purchased through AAA). I was telling them about my situation, coverages and deductibles, etc. when the topic of firearms came up and I explained that I'll need extra coverage for my collection. The agent asked me about the type of firearms, specifically if I owned any "pistols, shotguns, or assault rifles". I knew right away there was going to be a problem.

I told her all of the above and gave her an estimate of the value, then waited for her to call back with confirmation of whether or not they have a policy against insuring 'assault rifles'. As I was on the phone with a client she called and left a message saying that Travelers will not insure 'assault weapons'. At this point I was rather upset, and decided to confirm this with Travelers themselves.

I called Travelers and spoke with an agent.

Him: Thank you for calling Travelers, may I help you?

Me: Yes, I just spoke with my AAA agent through whom I purchase my Travelers auto insurance. I was hoping to switch to you guys for my renters insurance as well, but she informed me there are limitations as to what types of firearms you're willing to insure.

Him: That could be true, let me check my documentation and get and answer for you. Please hold for a second.

<puts me on hold>

Him: I can't seem to find anything in here stating specific types or models, what type of firearm are you trying to insure?

Me: The AR15's in my collection seem to be the ones the agent said you wouldn't insure.

Him: Ok, now are those assault rifles?

Me: What's an assault rifle? Assault is an action, not a type of object. Do you have a list of types or models of rifles you won't insure?

Him: Well no, all this says is assault rifle here. I agree with you though, I have no idea what they consider an assault rifle. Are they fully automatic or semi automatic?

Me: They're semi-automatic.

Him: Ok, let me go check with our underwriters.

<puts me on hold>

Him: Yeah, that's something they're not willing to insure.

Me. Ok, thanks.

Now I'm not only shopping for renters insurance, but auto insurance as well. If any of you have Travelers or do business with any other company that chooses to discriminate against us for our lawful activities, I urge you to vote with your dollars and find alternatives.

If you enjoyed reading about "Travelers insurance won't cover 'Assault Rifles'" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
General Geoff
September 18, 2009, 07:49 PM
Never heard of an insurance agency not covering "assault weapons" before. What is their definition of "assault weapon"?

geronimo509
September 18, 2009, 07:55 PM
Me: What's an assault rifle? Assault is an action, not a type of object. Do you have a list of types or models of rifles you won't insure?

I love that line!!

Good luck finding a new insurance company. Next time just tell them that you have rifles, pistols, and shotguns and that some are semi, pump, etc.. I wouldn't say what they are unless they ask and then try and say semi automatic rifle. I don't know though.

HexHead
September 18, 2009, 08:03 PM
Get ahold of these guys...

http://www.collectinsure.com/index.html

Or insure through the NRA if you're a member.

spartywrx
September 18, 2009, 08:16 PM
Join Date: April 9, 2008
Location: PA
Posts: 563
Quote:
Me: What's an assault rifle? Assault is an action, not a type of object. Do you have a list of types or models of rifles you won't insure?
I love that line!!

Good luck finding a new insurance company. Next time just tell them that you have rifles, pistols, and shotguns and that some are semi, pump, etc.. I wouldn't say what they are unless they ask and then try and say semi automatic rifle. I don't know though.

The problem I can see with that is god forbid that the rifles get stolen the insurance company won't make you whole when you have to tell them what got stolen.

I'll be crossing Traveler's insurance off my list when I need insurance in the future.

geronimo509
September 18, 2009, 09:06 PM
thats true

HK G3
September 18, 2009, 11:15 PM
Why not just use the NRA's gun-insurance for the firearms, and then worry about everything else with another insurance?

D94R
September 18, 2009, 11:23 PM
I have State Farm for all my insurances, great people to deal with (never had a problem with claims), and they have no silly discrimination's.


Why not just use the NRA's gun-insurance for the firearms, and then worry about everything else with another insurance? Sometime's it's convenient to have all your ducks in the same pond. If something were to happen to your house, and you had to make auto, house, and firearm claims, just how many different companies are you really going to want to deal with?

9mmepiphany
September 19, 2009, 12:35 AM
i would think the downside of having two different policies would be two separate deductables.

i have my homeowners and auto insurance through AAA and they didn't have any problem with my guns. i wonder if it's specific to renters insurance

Joe Link
September 19, 2009, 04:02 AM
Which company does AAA have you going through? I don't believe they sell insurance, though I could be wrong, I think they just shop for you and get you a discount.

bigfatdave
September 19, 2009, 04:54 AM
Thanks for the info. Good luck finding a goor Renter's policy ... please share when you fond a good company.

NMGonzo
September 19, 2009, 06:08 AM
Next time I call my insurance agent (customer of mine) I will ask him to insure my "pistol of mass destruction", my "genocide rifle", and "regime suporter handgun"

What the hell is an "assault rifle" anyhow?

Queltor
September 19, 2009, 06:58 AM
Me: What's an assault rifle? Assault is an action, not a type of object.Outstanding line!

All my insurance needs are handled by USAA.

bigfatdave
September 19, 2009, 07:06 AM
Next time I call my insurance agent (customer of mine) I will ask him to insure my "pistol of mass destruction", my "genocide rifle", and "regime suporter handgun"Make sure to point out which ones are black and nasty looking, and the select-fire (safe and semi-auto are selections!) nature of some of them.
"I just wanted to make sure you were insuring my black, semiautomatic, select-fire (or safteyless, if applicable), Saturday-night-special, chambered-in-a-military-caliber, loaded-with-cop-killer-bullets, easily-concealed, unregistered, unlicensed, no-paperwork handgun"

Bo
September 19, 2009, 08:23 AM
I called my State Farm agent, ask about firearms coverage. I was told State Farm covers $2500.00 for 1 gun or $5000.00 maximum. So I bought a rider that covers the true value of my collection plus, with the rider, there's no deductible. I think he said it was 16 dollars per 1000 dollar coverage annually. Not bad for peace of mind.

D94R
September 19, 2009, 10:47 AM
Bingo!

Beelzy
September 19, 2009, 02:31 PM
Buy a Safe.

As another chap mentioned, State Farm will insure firearms. I can't reacall any limit on
value.

Zundfolge
September 19, 2009, 02:52 PM
Keep in mind that as an NRA member you $1000 in free coverage for your firearms (and can add to it easily) http://www.locktonrisk.com/nrains/armscareplus.htm

HOME DEPOT GEORGE
September 19, 2009, 04:28 PM
After what state farm did to the folks in Florida including some of my neighbors I wouldn't insure a fart with them.

D94R
September 19, 2009, 04:55 PM
So then I assume you won't be buying any Ruger firearms?
Or gas for your car?
Or any food for your family?
Not to mention EVERY OTHER insurance company out there.

etc etc

I could go on forever, my point is, any company or place you do business with has had it's hands in screwing over someone at some point. If you're spiting State Farm on principal, then you'd better be up to spiting the rest of the Country and world.

22-rimfire
September 19, 2009, 05:56 PM
I think he said it was 16 dollars per 1000 dollar coverage annually. Not bad for peace of mind.

Unless you own a $100,000 worth of firearms; that's $1600 a year....

D94R
September 19, 2009, 06:06 PM
I'm betting if you own $100,000 in firearms, you're financially able to afford $1600/year ($133/month) for insurance on your arms.

22-rimfire
September 19, 2009, 07:00 PM
Some one who has collected for a long time could easily own $100K in firearms and still barely pay the rent monthly. Consider 40 years of collecting at only a few thousand a year and you're there.... one Python will run you well over $1000 for the gun. One AR....$1000+. Special guns will run a lot more. You would probably be surprised how many members here own that much and more. Few will admit it however.

Artiz
September 19, 2009, 07:07 PM
Anti-gun insurance companies are not all that uncommon.

D94R
September 19, 2009, 08:25 PM
Some one who has collected for a long time could easily own $100K in firearms and still barely pay the rent monthly. Consider 40 years of collecting at only a few thousand a year and you're there.... one Python will run you well over $1000 for the gun. One AR....$1000+. Special guns will run a lot more. You would probably be surprised how many members here own that much and more. Few will admit it however.
Which proves my point. If you're so poor you can afford to buy a $1000+ gun, but can barerly make rent, you can afford to forgo that gun purchase and pay the insurance on your very healthy stash of arms.

Second point: priorities are not where they should be if you're buying $1000+ guns, but can barely make rent.




Now, if you inherited such a large collection, you'd have a valid standing.

22-rimfire
September 19, 2009, 08:50 PM
Which proves my point. If you're so poor you can afford to buy a $1000+ gun, but can barerly make rent, you can afford to forgo that gun purchase and pay the insurance on your very healthy stash of arms.


Your point is noted. I disagree with you conceptually; it is reality versus common sense. I don't have this "problem", but I know some that do. Wish I did in some ways. But I'd probably sell off some stuff in this example. Paying for insurance is like pouring money down a hole or posting bail through a bondsmen in a legal scenario.

It is about acquiring assets at reasonable risk.

I will use a comparison to make my point.... let's say you owned 1000 acres of land valued at $4-5K per acre. You paid $800 per acre years ago. The land is paid for, but there are still costs to own said land. Many landowners may be quite wealthy on paper, but would have a very hard time putting together $1000 at one time. The obvious response is to sell some land... but what if the landowner doesn't want to sell. He/she lives the life that they like but have very little money; cash flow is hence very poor but sufficient for their needs. The same comparison could be made with firearms. They're paid for. They have value. But you don't want to sell them to ease cash flow issues. Hence a $1600 insurance payment per year on top of other insurance payments may seem quite a waste of money. Depending on the firearms, you can easily get $50K worth of guns in one safe and that safe will run about what the annual insurance cost is. My suggestion is buy a safe and forget the insurance unless you have lots of cash on hand.

N003k
September 19, 2009, 08:53 PM
I think his point is if you've accumulated the collection over several years...

If in a good year, you managed to spend $10,000 on guns, and still have plenty of money left over for everything you NEED to do, but then suddenly income decreases or expenses increase, insurance is still a nice thing to try to hold on to....even if you aren't still buying any guns at that time, your collection could still have become WORTH a good amount prior to the financial difficulties.

leadcounsel
September 19, 2009, 09:09 PM
I bought a policy from Armscare, which has a relationship with the NRA. No papertrail of types, serial numbers, etc for individual guns valued less than $2500. Just a flat monetary policy.

9mmepiphany
September 19, 2009, 11:24 PM
Which company does AAA have you going through? I don't believe they sell insurance, though I could be wrong, I think they just shop for you and get you a discount.

AAA (or is CA, CSAA) does indeed sell insurance. i started with them when i was 18 and got my first car, had renter's insurance with them when i was a student and changed over to home owner's insurance when i bought my first home.

i've been with them since 1972...i can't be canceled, but they can raise my rates

thub
September 19, 2009, 11:31 PM
Don't give these people the chance to call semi automatic guns assault weapons. I use a Remington 7400 30-06 rifle for deer hunting, which could be called an assault rifle if a bigger clip is added to it. Please don't put words in people's minds.

Iam2taz
September 20, 2009, 12:09 AM
Find a local independent insurance agent who has several companies. They can insure your firearms. The real problem is that the average person has no idea what they have, don't have and need when it comes to insurance coverage.
You might try Auto-Owners Insurance Company. They are out of Michigan. I have my insurance there with no problem covering my guns. Yes you will have to give serial numbers and appraisals.
If you own a gun, the biggest problem you have is liability. You should have an Umbrella policy. - Bet Travelers didn't tell you that either! Almost every direct sales call company is 1-800-dial an idiot. Find a local guy you know to help you out.
All of that being said, get a good safe. It won't burn, somebody can't walk off with it, and it makes a nice piece of furniture.

kablooie
September 20, 2009, 03:10 AM
quoted from a "Farm" company Renters policy
"The limit for each numbered group is the total limit for any one loss for all property in that group.
...
8. $1,000 on theft of firearms."

Firearms is not defined by the policy, so it would cover anything considered a firearm, unless it is illegal.

This is from a "full coverage" type home owners policy:
"3. Firearms.
$3,000 limit on theft of firearms. This includes their scopes or mounts whether attached or not, and all other firearm related equipment and ammunition."

**Note the word theft. If damage is caused by any other type of covered loss (fire, water, etc) then the limit does not apply.

-> I'm an adjuster :neener:

tanstaafl72555
September 20, 2009, 08:41 AM
You could beat this in court, because an "assault rifle" has no legal definition. The "underwriter" is almost certainly some 20 something girl who knows NOTHING about firearms but is checking a list she has. It probably does not contain a list of prohibited guns (although it may). These girls (and guys sometimes, but usually women) will always play it safe. If it says "assault rifle" it doesn't matter that it is a made up phrase that has crept into the public vocabulary. I own an insurance brokerage, and I deal with many of these folks every day. I can tell you that 1) you would expect the claim to be denied and 2) you could collect by going to court. Who needs that kind of hassle? However, you can be a change agent. Before you go to another company, write a nice, polite letter to the head of underwriting, the head of sales, and the president of the company. Don't insult, berate, threaten or demean them, but tell them that you are disappointed that they have chosen to insert vague, legally imprecise and legally unsupportable language into their contracts re: "assault rifles." Tell them the correct LEGAL usage of that term means a fully automatic machine gun type rifle, and not just something that looks frightening to the uninitiated. Tell them there are thousands semi automatic rifles legally sold to shooting enthusiasts around the nation who use them legally, responsibly, and carefully for hunting, target and competitive events. It is not inappropriate to state that most owners of semiauto rifles take great pains to keep them secured and locked away, so that the theft rate is LOW from house breakins. Mention that we/you have them secured in safes almost every time. Tell them you are disappointed that they APPEAR to have allowed a shrill, uninformed, and irresponsible element of society to cause them to shun a huge and growing element in our society, and that those people are extremely politically and socially sensitive. If they knew Travelers had such a policy they would move their homeowners/fire policies to other, more reasonable companies immediately. Then I would add something like this. "I wanted to give you the opportunity to clarify Travelers' position on this issue. After all, in some states, the insurance commissioner does not even allow companies to disallow items considered distasteful to the religious, racial, social or political predilections of the company employees, so this may -in fact- be an illegal practice. Before I make a statement in numerous electronic and print forums (including the National Rifle Association, which has an impressive financial and political clout), I just thought it fair to ask if this might be the false statement of an uninformed underwriting clerk who confuses automatic weapons with legal items that can be purchased with no more than a driver's license and a criminal background check in many states. Please clarify Traveler's position on so called "assault rifles," for me, if you would be so kind. I would love to do business with your company and have good and positive things to say about it."

Send them something like that, saying you await their response. You MAY be a change agent. I have seen things like that happen. There is idiotic hostility to guns among the ranks of all big corporate insurance companies (far less so if you find a small local company with no affiliation with the east coast, in my experience), but NEVER attribute to evil and maliciousness what you can chalk up to bureaucratic stupidity and ineptness. You might just help them out, believe it or not.

My first post here. Sorry to write a book.

ChCx2744
September 20, 2009, 08:51 AM
This thread is actually "reading out loud" in my head...I've learned alot :p

Jim K
September 20, 2009, 10:10 PM
It is not only about insuring your firearms. At one time one company (I will not name it since I don't know if the rule is still in effect) would not pay off on any policy if the claimant owned a gun of any kind. And they didn't notify the policy holder in advance except by a note on the policy that other restrictions may apply.

So a guy's half-million dollar house burns down, and they find he had a shotgun, they just refuse to pay. The name of the game with some insurance companies is to use any excuse to avoid paying out money. If they actually paid, the CEO might not get his $20 million bonus that year.

Jim

Jorg Nysgerrig
September 20, 2009, 10:14 PM
At one time one company (I will not name it since I don't know if the rule is still in effect) would not pay off on any policy if the claimant owned a gun of any kind
I find this hard to believe. Do you have any information cites this?

And they didn't notify the policy holder in advance except by a note on the policy that other restrictions may apply.

Again, I'd sure like to see proof of this.

mxl
September 20, 2009, 10:44 PM
Insurance companies write policies to cover, and pay, certain things and calculate rates accordingly. Unfortunately, some people think insurance policies cover absolutely everything under the sun. Also, unfortunately, some bleading heart, liberal, nimcompoop judges agree. Quite frankly, I think some of the preceeding posts are BS. I worked in the claim dept. for State Farm for over 32 years [now retired] and I know a bit about what I'm talking about. I was never asked, or told not to pay a legitimate claim. In fact, we gave the benefit if doubt to the policyholder. I find the idea that an insurance co. would deny a fire claim because of owning a particular gun as nonsense--unless the policyholder lied about something on the application that was material to the risk. Few businesses would succeed if they cheated their customers. If some company doesn't want to insure a particular item then you are free to go elsewhere. If insurance companies where to insure everything under the sun with a single homowner's policy none of us would be able to afford it. It's the same as auto companies. Some give a better or worse warranty, and charge accordingly for their product.

ny32182
September 20, 2009, 11:26 PM
There is a low cap on firearms on every general homeowner policy I looked at when I was last buying insurance. Best thing to do would be get a rider on your homeowners, or go through one of the smaller companies that specializes in collections of things, etc.

If you've got $100k in firearms and can't easily afford $1600 to insure them, you've got serious personal finance issues in general... I don't know where you are going to insure $100k worth of anything, other than house itself, for less than that.

22-rimfire
September 20, 2009, 11:43 PM
If you've got $100k in firearms and can't easily afford $1600 to insure them, you've got serious personal finance issues in general...

Why is that? I ask this because I believe there are quite a few folks on this forum that have way more than $100K value in firearms alone and don't necessarily have an extra $1600 to pour down the toilet every year on firearm insurance.

I don't know where you are going to insure $100k worth of anything, other than house itself, for less than that.

That is a good point. My homeowners policy has way more than 100K for contents on it and it runs less than $1000 per year in addition to the house.

I bring all of this up because it is easy to say... go through your home owners insurance company for collectables. Collectables include things like stamp collections, art work, guns, Coca Cola materials, catalogs, coin collections, and so forth to name a few. What about ammunition for those that have a substantial cache?

This thread has made me curious. Think I'll contact the NRA affliated insurance company and see what they say.

By the way, I wish I had $100K in firearm value. But it is a good figure to work from. It sounds like a lot, but anyone who buys 10 quality firearms a year for 15 to 20 years and has not sold them has accumulated more than 100K in firearm value.

ny32182
September 20, 2009, 11:58 PM
If you have spent 100K on firearms but can't afford the insurance (along with who knows what else), then you can't really afford 100K in firearms. Just like a car, house, or anything else... if you can't afford the insurance, you can't afford it. Look into a less expensive item(s) on which you can afford the upkeep...

"Poor down the toilet"? Sure, if you don't mind being out $100K if someone breaks in and carts them off, then be my guest and don't pour that money down the toilet...

mljdeckard
September 21, 2009, 12:18 AM
The guy you got on the phone asked his boss, who obviously cares more about covering his butt than helping his customers.

If they asked me if I had assualt weapons, I would say no. I do not in fact own any Sturmgewehrs. Assualt rifle is a ficticious term invented by the anti-gun lobby. The only law (incorrectly) defining assault rifles expired in 2004. I do not nor will I own any assault rifles.

As suggested above, if you want 'over and above' protection for your guns, JOIN THE NRA.

freakshow10mm
September 21, 2009, 12:18 AM
Never had a problem with State Farm. Machine guns and suppressors are covered under the policy and they had no problem with it.

tanstaafl72555
September 22, 2009, 06:39 AM
It is not only about insuring your firearms. At one time one company (I will not name it since I don't know if the rule is still in effect) would not pay off on any policy if the claimant owned a gun of any kind. And they didn't notify the policy holder in advance except by a note on the policy that other restrictions may apply.

So a guy's half-million dollar house burns down, and they find he had a shotgun, they just refuse to pay. The name of the game with some insurance companies is to use any excuse to avoid paying out money. If they actually paid, the CEO might not get his $20 million bonus that year.

Jim
I call a Penn and Teller on this one.

eflatminor
September 22, 2009, 10:39 AM
I bet Travellers actuall does cover your AR15. Look at their actual policy and you'll probably find coverage for guns, subject to a deductible, that doesn't not exclude any specific type of firearm. What you heard was an Underwriting position. I suspect they're not interested in "scheduling" your firearms. That is, listing them as "valuable articles" separate from your general contents coverage. This is not unusual as valuable articles coverage is meant for belongings that are not subject to normal use. For instance, Travellers may be willing to insure your collection of antique firearms, but not the ones you use in the field. That said, all of your guns may be covered under general contents anyway. Check the contract.

eflatminor
September 22, 2009, 10:45 AM
It is not only about insuring your firearms. At one time one company (I will not name it since I don't know if the rule is still in effect) would not pay off on any policy if the claimant owned a gun of any kind. And they didn't notify the policy holder in advance except by a note on the policy that other restrictions may apply.

So a guy's half-million dollar house burns down, and they find he had a shotgun, they just refuse to pay. The name of the game with some insurance companies is to use any excuse to avoid paying out money. If they actually paid, the CEO might not get his $20 million bonus that year.

Jim ]

Jim, this is FUD! I worked in the Personal Insurance industry for nearly 20 years and I can tell you that you are wrong. There is no way, not in ANY state, that a company could deny a claim because someone owned a firearm unless that was SPECIFICALLY spelled out in the exclusions section of the contract. Even then, they could not deny a claim that had nothing to do with the firearm. No frickin' way.

Lastly, what's wrong with a $20million bonus? If a CEO gets that, the company should of had a GREAT year. So what? Do you not think the market should reward those that outperform expectations? Should the market not determine who get's paid what? If you don't like was a CEO gets paid, prove that you can do the job for less or get another insurance carrier.

From the imortal words in The Godfather..."We are not Communists". I hope you are not either.

Blackbeard
September 22, 2009, 11:47 AM
It is not only about insuring your firearms. At one time one company (I will not name it since I don't know if the rule is still in effect) would not pay off on any policy if the claimant owned a gun of any kind. And they didn't notify the policy holder in advance except by a note on the policy that other restrictions may apply.

So a guy's half-million dollar house burns down, and they find he had a shotgun, they just refuse to pay. The name of the game with some insurance companies is to use any excuse to avoid paying out money. If they actually paid, the CEO might not get his $20 million bonus that year.

It seems that just as the non-gunners have a lot of incorrect perceptions about guns, so do non-insurers have a lot of misinformation about how insurance companies work. Every insurance contract has to be approved by the state's department of insurance before it can be sold. There is no way a contract containing unspecified "other restrictions" would be approved in any state.

Also, the majority of property & casualty insurers are mutual companies. That means the company is owned entirely by the policyholders. The policyholders elect the board of directors who choose the CEO. So if you don't like your CEO getting paid that much, elect a new board. If he's doing his job and keeping your premium rates down, though, I'd suggest he might deserve a nice bonus.

xsquidgator
September 22, 2009, 11:53 AM
I use USAA, never a problem, EBRs or anything else.

:)

waterhouse
September 22, 2009, 11:58 AM
Paying for insurance is like pouring money down a hole

Right, until you need it.

Your advice is to spend money on a safe. What about a fire? I've seen pictures of guns that were in a fire rated safe. At least pictures of what was left of them. They were a total loss.

So the guy who had $100,000 in real value that didn't have insurance now has $0 value.

Insurance is a pain to pay, and seems totally worthless for the 7 years you drive without an accident or 15 years you go without a burglary or 40 years you go without a fire. But when those things happen, you are sure glad you've been paying your premiums.

Vern Humphrey
September 22, 2009, 01:27 PM
I buy insurance for my benefit. If a company doesn't give me what I want, I go elsewhere.

My insurer is USAA.

feltonfitz
September 22, 2009, 02:15 PM
Hello all. Sorry for jumping in on your discussion but we get alerts whenever our company is mentioned in a blog (www.collectinsure.com). We insure all types of guns (no discrimination here). In fact my husband has his guns insured with us which includes an "assault" rifle. Here are some quotes to get an idea of cost (they may vary very slightly by state):

$10,000 = $71
$25,000 = $165
$50,000 = $325
$75,000 = $475
$100,000 = $616

We also offer a 5% discount off the first term premium for member based groups. Hopefully I have not broken any major rules in providing this information but it seemed relevant to the discussion.

ArfinGreebly
September 22, 2009, 03:53 PM
No problem, and thanks for the information.

It's always good to know the options and alternatives.

I take it the rate table you presented is the annual premium?

HeavenlySword
September 22, 2009, 04:07 PM
So then I assume you won't be buying any Ruger firearms?
Or gas for your car?
Or any food for your family?
Not to mention EVERY OTHER insurance company out there.

etc etc

I could go on forever, my point is, any company or place you do business with has had it's hands in screwing over someone at some point. If you're spiting State Farm on principal, then you'd better be up to spiting the rest of the Country and world.

some companies haven't been screwing people over.

I am tempted to say no to ruger, however.

ChuckH
September 22, 2009, 06:40 PM
I spotted thier site and inquired as to thier coverage of "shooters" not just safe queens.

They responded - "we allow coverage for 'shooters' as well as collectible/rare guns. We simply endorse the policy to exclude damage caused by firing."


Thier rates seem to be the best out there and checking them out on the gun blogs, they seem to be reliable. Anyone here use them and have had to deal with them real time with a claim?

22-rimfire
September 22, 2009, 11:25 PM
I called the NRA affiliated insurance company today to shop price and they stated their rates are $6.70/$1000 for collector guns and $17.40/$1000 for shooters.

GunFun
September 22, 2009, 11:45 PM
In these liberal's opinions (like Traveler's apparently) of "Assault Weapons" (what a joke that is) my .22 LR Marlin 795 would be included, and I use that for target practice for fun. :(

Guys, we really need to step up and introduce new legislation (especially after the recent outcome of the Heller case by the Supreme Court) and try to get all of the unconstitutional laws passed by states and cities stricken completely from the books.

In that case it was made very clear that 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' was our individual right, and a separate clause from the "Militia" clause.

However I think that part is also important to our country's ability to defend itself from invasion, subversion from within by an outside group, or a tyrannical government.

In WWII, Admiral Yamamoto said it best:

"You cannot invade the mainland United States.
There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

- Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto
(Japanese Navy)

Check your local and state laws - many of them are now (as they have been since inception) unconstitutional.

I don't know about you guys, but I feel a lot safer knowing that more law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry guns ANYWHERE I might happen to be. I'm applying for CCW myself soon.

Criminals will carry a gun anywhere they want, and don't care about laws. I know you guys know all of this already, but with this supreme court decision it's time to strike some of these unconstitutional laws from the books. Let's get to it.

22-rimfire
September 23, 2009, 12:02 AM
Right, until you need it.

Your advice is to spend money on a safe. What about a fire? I've seen pictures of guns that were in a fire rated safe. At least pictures of what was left of them. They were a total loss.

So the guy who had $100,000 in real value that didn't have insurance now has $0 value.


I am prepared for that loss if it ever happened. I'm just not a big insurance person. I prefer to take my chances on collectables when it comes to insurance. Value is a funny thing... I don't really think about the value of collectables often. They're paid for. If they were lost due to a fire, theft, or whatever reason, I probably wouldn't loose any sleep over it.

I am very aware of fire damage to firearms. I have a little experience in that area. Folks talk about their fire rated safes and so forth. In the event of a substantial fire, it is likely to be a total loss regardless of having a fire rated safe. The only real precaution is insurance if that is important to you.

GunFun
September 23, 2009, 12:12 AM
I recently (a year ago) had a fire in a room in my house where every guitar in a NYLON case survived, and is still used playing gigs.

I also had a laptop computer get completely fried (but it was old anyway), but my 64-track recorder survived just fine and still works, and it only had a regular bath towel covering it from dust.

I guess my point is, put the stuff you value in a place where even if a fire happens, it won't get damaged.

GunFun
September 23, 2009, 12:13 AM
... and cover it up!

cchris
September 23, 2009, 01:43 AM
So basically, they'll insure a box magazine-fed semi-automatic shotgun (Saiga, basically) since it is a "shotgun" but they won't insure the same gun, more or less, if it is a rifle?

Hell, a bolt-action rifle that you attack someone with is an "assault rifle". But I think we all know, they mean Evil Black Rifles.

feltonfitz
September 23, 2009, 08:28 AM
No problem, and thanks for the information.

It's always good to know the options and alternatives.

I take it the rate table you presented is the annual premium?


Yes the rates are annual. We do cover shooters and only exclude damage caused when firing. We also exclude weapons used as part of profession such as service revolver for a police office or security guard.

You can get a quote online @ www.collectinsure.com or call 888-837-9537. Unless she is at lunch a real person our receptionist Fran answers the phone! If you like you can ask for me - Annemarie, I help the salesperson with new customers.

paul
September 23, 2009, 09:19 AM
Annemarie,
Thanks for your input.
We, as a group, are awfully quick to leap at the throat of any entity that
we perceive to be against us.
Not saying that is bad, good, or indifferent...
It just is.
Sometimes we benefit from a little research and information.
p

Line Rider
September 23, 2009, 10:07 AM
I've had to use my NRA insurance once in 17 years. The first time I used it was in the early 90's. My home was burglarize. The thefts kicked the front door open. They stole a Springfield 1911A1 that had been rework by Wilson Combat and Winchester 1200 defendershotgun. The insurance company paid off very quickly and without a problem.

About six years later the police recoved the Win 1200. I called the insurance company report it recoved. With in an hour an agent called me back. He had valved the gun at $150 or less since it had been missing for 6 years. He told me to keep it, because it was worth the paper work and shipping to return the gun to them. I received a release to sign just to close the case on the shotgun. I was happy the gun was still in pretty good shape.

I had buy a safe shortly after the break in.

Mt Shooter
September 23, 2009, 11:10 AM
see my quote

D94R
September 23, 2009, 12:58 PM
Gunfun, there is an edit button for you to add more to your first post. This is the 3rd or 4th thread now where you've had successive posts within minutes of each other. Quit post whoring to up your count.


22-rimfire. I get the "it's already payed for" stance. But, usually, someone having a collection means they enjoy it. Either by shooting them, or maybe just staring at them for hours on end. If you were to lose $100K in arms because you have no insurance on them you not only lost a long term investment, you also lost your hobby and collection. Then, on top of that, to continue the hobby you'd have to rebuy those arms, at your expense. Doesn't sound like much fun. A little bit now could save a lot later.

HK G3
September 23, 2009, 01:45 PM
Hopefully this isn't a huge threadjack, but what do you guys do to document your guns for insurance purposes?

Take pictures of them alone? With yourself in the shot? With a form of identification in the shot?

Just curious, because I've decided I should probably document the things of value I own for insurance after recently switching.

Blackbeard
September 23, 2009, 01:51 PM
Hopefully this isn't a huge threadjack, but what do you guys do to document your guns for insurance purposes?

Take pictures of them alone? With yourself in the shot? With a form of identification in the shot?

I have pictures of each firearm showing the serial number, and pics of the receipts for them also showing the serial number.

2nd 41
September 23, 2009, 01:58 PM
I have State Farm for all my insurances, great people to deal with (never had a problem with claims), and they have no silly discrimination's.


Same here, SF covers up to X amount on Jewelry, FireArms, Silverware, Tools, etc.
If a policy holder needs more than the policy covers a Rider can be obtained.

Vern Humphrey
September 23, 2009, 06:29 PM
I had buy a safe shortly after the break in.

Always remember the two basic rules in gunsafes:

1. Get the biggest safe you can afford -- one too big for them to carry off. If bulding a house, concrete it in and build the house around it.

2. Use the flippin' safe!

Joe Link
October 2, 2009, 09:11 PM
Take a look at what I received in the mail today. I'd call this hard proof that Travelers is decidedly anti-gun and no friend of ours. Please join me in spreading this info far and wide.

http://www.northwestfirearms.com/images/Travelers%20Letter2.jpg

General Geoff
October 2, 2009, 09:27 PM
...Exposure to what?

22-rimfire
October 2, 2009, 09:34 PM
Exposure is a risk based term in the insurance industry.

inSight-NEO
October 2, 2009, 09:51 PM
Upon reading this thread, I found myself shaking my head and somewhat angry. I mean..."assault" rifle? Ridiculous. There is no such thing in reality. The term "assault" is media/politically born; its media hype. Stupid, preposterous and sad.

Too bad even the insurance companies (well, Travelers at least) insist on buying into this crap. Its a shame companies (and individuals for that matter) like this would rather follow ridiculous stereotypes, thus keeping their heads in that proverbial sand, vs. actually educating themselves on weaponcraft.

Personally, Id either try finding another company to work with or in the very least, insure what you can and then make certain that any uninsured weapons are kept within a heavy, solid, bolted-down and "fireproof" safe. Beyond that, what can one do given todays ridiculous mindset regarding certain weapons?

Dannix
October 2, 2009, 10:33 PM
I am often disappointed when I read threads like this because guys on the "right" side of the issue often don't seem to mind FA intolerance as long as SA is deemed OK.

Like the Montana bill (http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/billhtml/HB0246.htm) that starts out referring to the Constitution -- and then includes an exceptions clause. I didn't see an exceptions clause in the Constitution. :(

If you enjoyed reading about "Travelers insurance won't cover 'Assault Rifles'" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!