Are insurance companies the "root cause" of why most employees can't carry? If so...

[Green Lantern]

...what can we DO about it???

I've noticed one business owner member here posting lately about the impossibility of finding an insurance carrier that did NOT stipulate employees could not carry weapons. I've never had the need to look into such a thing myself of course, but it sure makes sense...

Could also be ONE of the root causes of places "posting" to customers as well...

I wonder what the experiences of other THR-ers has been that have been there and done that...?

And like I say - if that is the case, to where it's next to impossible to find one that allows for employees to carry...think there's anything we can do to make 'em reconsider?

I imagine it would be kind of hard to "boycott" an insurance company (that specializes in businesses)...maybe a concentrated call/letter/email campaign???

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

Interesting question. Perhaps someone in the insurance industry could answer. I've always wondered if this is really true, or being used as an excuse or smokescreen.

 

[eflatminor]

I was in insurance for 17 years

But I was in Personal Insurance where no such anti-gun wording is to be found. In commercial insurance, there may very well be wording in the contracts requiring business owners to maintain a gun free zone...I'm not sure. But if there is, it's because the insurance company sees more/bigger lawsuits (which THEY must pay for) arising out of an employee misusing a gun then they do from a bad guy hurting unarmed people at the business. Insurance companies make financial decisions only, they do not take a stance on any political issues in their contracts. So, if gun free zones are indeed required in a commercial insurance contract, it's the juries that decide the vertics and award huge payouts that we should blame. The insurance companies are only trying to minimize their potential for liability related claims.

 

[TAB]

Its normally the comp policy that has that in it. Thats not to say that other types of insurance do not have it in them. If you think about it from the insurance point of view it makes perfect sense. Even something as simple as a fall on to a gun can cost 10s of thousands in medical bills. Lets not forget the 10s of millions that might be paid out if some one starts shooting. I'm not just talking about some one going nuts, even using a weapon is selfdefense could cost untold millions.

Its by no means the main reason, while it does play a roll, its a very small one.

 

[Standing Wolf]

This discussion is a complete waste of time without names of insurance companies whose policies prohibit firearms on business premises.

Here's your hint: I've been asking for precisely that for several years now. To date, I've seen not one name.

 

[OAKVILLE SHOOTER]

You have raised a good question for sure. I don't have any idea what the answer is, but will add another question. If insurance companies are the "root cause," wouldn't the same companies roll that policy over to home owners coverage? Higher rates or no coverage if guns are kept in the house. Or higher auto insurance if you have a CCW?

Oakville Shooter

 

[Flame Red]

So now the question becomes, when do these clauses come to a auto, home, umbrella, or life insurance policy near you?

 

[USMC_2674]

My company has Auto Owners Insurance Group as its primary insurance carrier (liability, comp, umbrella, etc).

No such wording exists. I have yet to find one and I am the CFO for a major manufacturing company. I carry, as do any employees who want. I have no clue how many due, as I don't ask, but I know many of them have CFP's.

Semper Fidelis,

Kent

 

[Henry Bowman]

Here's your hint: I've been asking for precisely that for several years now. To date, I've seen not one name.

Same here. "Our insurance policy requires it" has not been shown to be more than an urban myth.

 

[HeavyDuty]

Professionally, I am a Commercial Property and Casualty Insurance Underwriter with 2+ years experience. An underwriter is the designee of an insurance company (usually an employee) that selects and prices risks (customers) and can place requirements on those risks. For the last five years I have been working as an analyst in the insurance software development field, but I still need to keep up to date on industry trends as part of my job.

I am aware of no insurer that has an exclusion or requirement regarding CCW. Further, ISO (the Insurance Services Office) which develops coverage forms and endorsements that are used by the majority of the industry does not have a firearm exclusion form. (I just double-checked that in case something new came in recently - searching all General Liability forms for the term "firearm" resulted in zero on-point hits.)

This whole "our insurance forbids it" is BS, IMO. Some small specific insurers may have a custom form filed, but I doubt it - forms generally must be approved by the various state insurance departments, and in my professional opinion that would be a non-starter. States would laugh them out of the room.

* * *

Addendum:

Workers Comp is my weakest line, there may be an exclusion available - but I *highly* doubt it.

I also didn't consider the function of Loss Control. Companies may be watching for gun issues when they inspect risks and rating, canceling or non-renewing for what they perceive as increased hazards, but I haven't heard of this happening.

Another variable I didn't consider is the "ick" factor. Underwriters are individuals, and their personal biases bubble to the surface when they consider whether a risk is acceptable for coverage or not. If a specific underwriter doesn't like guns, that may affect the requirements being placed on a business applying for coverage. (Personally, I hate commercial roofers - I've taken it in the shorts a few times by exceptionally stupid acts by them.)

Some good bedtime reading on the guns and insurance topic from the anti perspective: http://www.press.umich.edu/pdf/0472115103-ch12.pdf (This should tee some people off!)

 

[Flame Red]

So all these responses just add fuel to the fire to my conspiracy theory that FFL are not our friends. In particular I detest the gun shops that do not permit CCW. The consensus was that this was because of insurance.

 

[lazyeye]

Even though the insurance may not say anything about it, the business owners are trying to avoid lawsuits by it.

Lets say I'm in Burger King having a burger (its almost lunch and I'm hungry) when Joe Jerkface decides to stick a pocket deuce-deuce in the cashiers face.
Being a trigger happy militant crazy about to explode CC-er I draw my gun and scatter Joe's brains all over the walls.

The next month Joe's estranged wife decides to sue BK for allowing guns in their joint, and decides to sue me for blowing his head off.

Now, BK could have avoided getting sued if they had that "no guns" sign. It may not be an insurance policy, but that little sign will help them avoid having to pay out of their lawsuit insurance.

This is exactly the reason my dad rejoiced after getting me off his insurance, because I'm a liability due to the sue-happy nature of people.

 

[qdemn7]

No...

I've often thought it's because businesses don't want to get sued by some perpetrator, or their survivors, when they get shot. But then I'm just a cynical type of guy.

 

[bogie]

So all these responses just add fuel to the fire to my conspiracy theory that FFL are not our friends. In particular I detest the gun shops that do not permit CCW. The consensus was that this was because of insurance.

Nope. It's generally because Joe Counterjockey gets REAL nervous when Joe Commando, who thinks he's the only person in the room competent enough to carry a Glock .40, proceedes to yank it out to do whatever...

Decency only demands that one keep it in one's pants.

 

[Yellowfin]

With any insurance you can have a rider to the policy that covers the extra stuff that nobody else would cover. The idea that policies demanded disarmament was/is simple ignorance. Legal carry has had so few problems that it's statistically insignificant and thus not worth having the insurance company screw everyone. If anything they should be sued for wrongful death if someone gets hurt or killed by crime on the job while not armed to defend themselves--it should be (i.e. we need to make it so) a lot more financially painful to prohibit firearms than allow them.

 

[TAB]

My insurance policy covers me for just about everything, and I mean every thing... recently I got letter from them expanding my coverage to a bio terror attack and nuke attack. (I'm pretty sure I'm skrewed if those happen)

I would be willing to bet that the chances of me having an armed confrontation with an ex employee is alot greater then either of those two.

Like it or not bean counters will always be a part of corpate world, the more we try to legislate them out of it, the more ways they will dig in deeper.

 

[Flame Red]

expanding my coverage to a bio terror attack and nuke attack

Gosh, I thought most insurance specifically excluded all acts of war. Maybe they figure they won't be around to pay?

And we can't get hurricane coverage in Florida!

 

[Henry Bowman]

I realize that the whole country is not covered by Ohio (or even Texas) law, but the buckeye state has already addressed the scenario lazyeye describes. An employer is expressly shielded from any liability from CHLs' intentional or accidental use of their carried handguns (whether the employer has prohibited CCW or not). Note that they are not protected from liability from the actions of nonlicensees (like criminals).

 

[HeavyDuty]

My insurance policy covers me for just about everything, and I mean every thing... recently I got letter from them expanding my coverage to a bio terror attack and nuke attack. (I'm pretty sure I'm skrewed if those happen)

I would be willing to bet that the chances of me having an armed confrontation with an ex employee is alot greater then either of those two.

Like it or not bean counters will always be a part of corpate world, the more we try to legislate them out of it, the more ways they will dig in deeper.

Most personal liability policies will exclude certain intentional acts... like shooting someone for any reason (other than accidental shooting, of course).

 

[Cosmoline]

I suspect it's an urban myth. I've never seen such wording in CGL policies and never heard of them in comp. As a general matter, insurance policies do not and cannot instruct a company on corporate policy. An insurance policy may include or exclude risks, or increase or decrease rates depending on how the insured behaves and its track record. But the insurer does not get to write corporate bylaws or act as an equity owner or partner.

From my interaction with corporations, I strongly suspect they have these policies because way back someone decided it was a good way to reduce liability exposure and nobody has been brave enough to do anything different. There is surprisingly little rational thought at large corporations. I've seen them stubbornly run into brick walls because they simply cannot imagine turning. There is also extreme internal resistance to change. Often bordering on a form of group madness.

There is also a strong elitist sentiment among the corporate ranks. You should never underestimate it.

Now, BK could have avoided getting sued if they had that "no guns" sign.

I'm not sure how that would make any difference one way or the other in protecting the company from suit by a victim. Though if they ban firearms and the victim left his in the car I can certainly see liability for disarming him.

 

[RPCVYemen]

Are the insurance companies excluding coverage based on an "intentional harm"?

http://www.press.umich.edu/pdf/0472115103-ch12.pdf (page 23)

In other word, if an employee shoots anyone (fellow employee, bad guy), is the employer's insurance company going to claim "intentional harm" exclusion, and leave the employer liable for all damages?

I could see that making an employer gun-shy.

Mike

 

[MAKster]

Most businesses don't let employees carry on the job because the business doesn't want to be liable if something goes wrong. Employers are legally liable for the actions of their employees. For example if you owned a business and one of your employees has an AD and injured someone, you would be sued big time. What if one of your employees was doing a job at a customers house and the homeowner saw your employees gun and felt threatened to pay what the homeowner thought was an excessive charge. Add this on top of worrying about bad driving by employees and it is too much for most employers. I think the insurance company is used as an easy excuse so the employer can say don't blame me.

 

[neededausername]

I'm a manager in food service, and I work for a fairly large sized company. We have no policy at all about handguns. I'm the one in charge of insurance compliance issues at our location, and when I've met with the insurance rep he never mentioned anything about guns, I'm sure if it was in the policy he would have. He got into some very, very nitpicky things with me.

 

[HeavyDuty]

Are the insurance companies excluding coverage based on an "intentional harm"?

That would be one basis for them to try and deny a claim, depending on the specific language in the coverage form.

 

[JesseL]

Whether there's any factual basis for the "insurance requires it" claim, the obvious answer is to make companies (or their insurance providers) liable for damages that arise from people being disarmed on their property.

If someone is unarmed and gets assaulted on company property (or on their way to or from company property), they need to sue the company for damages resulting from their policy.

They're up against a hard place with liability for employee misuse of guns, we need to squeeze a nice big rock up against them to offset things.