GEICO cancels car insurance over guns!!

[JohnBT]

"The apologists in this thread disgust me. The company has responsibility for the letter and it clearly states "in conjunction with a company in the weapons industry." That is very specific and it is in writing. They deserve all the negative repercussions this brings and the policy holder doesn't owe them anything."

Oh nonsense. It's an insurance company. They foul stuff up all of the time and you have to call them on it to get them to change it in your favor. I even provided a personal example. Get a letter that's wrong or just baffling? You have to call them on it, not just post a rant on the net.

I can't honestly say that any of the people in this thread who overreacted to a letter sent by a faceless clerk in a huge corporation disgust me, but they did provide some level of sad amusement.

John

 

[JohnBT]

I talked to a buddy in the insurance business. He wasn't surprised at all.

He says that none of the ususal, well known, major insurance companies will write auto insurance for gun companies, demolition companies, blasting, etc. He said they have to go to, iirc, companies that provide 'excess and surplus' lines of coverage.

One fear is that the company will let their high-dollar general liability policy coverage lapse and the company still holding the commercial auto policy will be royally sued and screwed in the event of a accident, etc. They don't want to be the only player left at the table with deep pockets.

John

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

i don't see the company evading its responsibility. now it all depends on whether the policy holder called or wrote to geico whether he skated on his responsibility. geico will only write limited commercial policies. i know the underwriter called me back with some specific questions about what types of work i do when i got my policy.

the rant(s) made thrilling soundbites but lacked in real substance

 

[blarby]

companies that provide 'excess and surplus' lines of coverage.

FWIW- surplus lines coverage is simply carriers who aren't admitted to write business in your state- but who may be contracted to through surplus lines brokers after a due diligence search has been performed....proving that the coverage cannot be obtained through reasonable means by a carrier admitted to write insurance in your state.

Essentially, he needs a BOP that covers his industry specifically- and that wil include scheduled vehicles during the course of business.

His situation isn't particularly hard to insure correctly.

Its very easy to insure incorrectly, especially when trying to save 15% in 15 minutes.

Surprise ! Someone who has their hands on the ( perhaps $1,000,000) pie noticed.

I've worked with a lot of new businesses who got referred to a quality agent by their lawyer. His usual first advice : Find a good insurance agent, you aren't one- and you will need one frequently in business.

Its often true even in the insurance agency that agents and agency owners frown on writing policies for themselves- theres an objectivity issue when it comes to placing and classifying the business.

This is a great example, albeit under different terms.

I've searched this one around a few gun and non gun forums.

Wow. All I can say is wow.

Its not really the metric tons of tinfoil that bother me, its just the general ignorance of a given business flavored with a few drops of conspiracy that lead to wild crazy accusations and premises-

Kinda like reporters trying to get guns right. And theres a really good message their about literally "jumping the gun".

 

[Zak Smith]

Its not really the metric tons of tinfoil that bother me, its just the general ignorance of a given business flavored with a few drops of conspiracy that lead to wild crazy accusations and premises

I am done giving the benefit of the doubt to companies in these situations. The letter didn't say that the application was misclassified or that it was for commercial when the person signed up for something else. It said it was because it was used in conjunction with the weapons industry

The exact same type of apologies or explanations were made in the threads about banks dropping gun companies or credit card merchant account providers dropping gun companies (like happened to me). There is always a no-accountability "explanation" for why something was done. Let's make them accountable.

 

[Teachu2]

Zack, why not call Geico and see if YOU can get a policy for YOUR gun business?

 

[Zak Smith]

And if they don't because I am a gun business then it proves they were in the wrong on this.

 

[silicosys4]

seems even the mods are taking handfulls of the tinfoil as its being passed around

Who could believe that Geico is holding to its CYA policy, and that nobody here is well enough versed to know what is really going on?

oh wait. we have an industry insider telling us the skinny....

Nah, just wrap that tinfoil tighter, we don't need no stinkin facts, that's what paranoia and accusations are for

 

[Sav .250]

Well... hold on now. I had my insurance cancled once because I had (Thankfully removable) signs on the side of my truck when I ran a landscaping business.

I suspect that if the policy holder had a "Business dealing with the sale of pharmacuticals" or something along those lines the result may be similar.

You are not supposed to conduct business with a vehicle holding a personal policy.

Food for thought. Some time posters don`t give the "whole" truth. Just the part that stirs the towns-people. Js/n.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I am done giving the benefit of the doubt to companies in these situations.

Yes, but do we know if the letter is even real and if real, do we really know the circumstances behind the letter? I fully understand not giving them the benefit of the doubt, but why should that mean drawing ignorant conclusions at the other end of the spectrum from the ignorance of "benefit of the doubt" logic? What is wrong with actually withholding judgment until knowing the facts?

There is always a no-accountability "explanation" for why something was done. Let's make them accountable.

Sure, let's make them accountable when we actually know what happened. So when we get that news, how do we make them accountable? What is the proper way to make the accountable for one client being dropped?

 

[JohnBT]

I don't see anyone making apologies for Geico in this thread. I see people who have taken the time and trouble to shed some light - facts - on the subject of the insurance business in the U.S and how they rate companies and commercial insurance for different parts of the market. Why would these facts disgust anyone?

Every company doesn't write every kind of policy. It's rather simple.

The letter said the policy is cancelled and if you have a problem with the decision contact us or the state commissioner (or something like that.) They send a letter, they don't call and leave a message or come by your house for a chat.

John

 

[Dnaltrop]

That is why my wife ran screaming from opportunities in Property and Casualty insurance and stuck with Workmen's Comp.

That thin letter would drive her insane, she's the sort of Type-A-personality-insurance-cyborg who actually details the laws/rules behind her decisions in her letters, (and includes the State Ombudsman's contact info if the claimant wants to try and have state law changed.)

Communication is key, Geico failed that one.

 

[Teachu2]

And if they don't because I am a gun business then it proves they were in the wrong on this.

Agreed!

 

[blarby]

And if they don't because I am a gun business then it proves they were in the wrong on this.

Disagreed.

It would prove that they choose to not be in the business of insuring against the hazards of your vocation- not that they approve or disapprove of your vocation- in this case, firearms.

If the previously insured in this case had misrepresented the fact that he worked in a class of business that is on the prohibited list, and it was discovered by underwriting- that stands on its own.

If the previously insured in this case misrepresented his use of a vehicle for business purposes limited in scope by the nature of the coverage, that too stands on its own.

If geico has decided that it does not want to insure a class of hazardous occupations, that too stands on its own- and differs significantly from them choosing not to insure anyone who owns or uses firearms.

There is well and truly a difference here- it would appear some folks get that, and some do not.

Insurance is one of those interesting niches where business and rights do meet, but I for one do not believe this is an " Anti gun business" as is freely labeled here. I believe this is "risk based underwriting" at its finest- with a small dose of misrepresentation thrown in for good measure.

Look, here's the point :

If geico insured this class of business, and all that it entailed- this letter would never have been sent.

If the previously insured had fully disclosed the nature of his business and scope of the vehicle use during the application process- this letter never would have been sent....as evidenced, the policy would never have been issued.

This isn't an ancient policy dug out of the dust by a vindictive agency looking for a particular class of business to demonize- its obviously a new piece of business that was still in the vetting stages.

The fact is that the coverage this individual is looking for and needs exists- it is however significantly more expensive than a standard geico business use auto policy.

I'd wager a significant sum that somewhere in there is the real reason this is occuring- without casting any stones........

Thats just the way it is, sorry if that offends ya- but its the truth.

Now, if Geico were to state that it was canceling all policies for anyone that owns, uses, or maintains a firearm for personal use- we'd have a completely different discussion.

That is not the case here.

 

[Zak Smith]

It would prove that they choose to not be in the business of insuring against the hazards of your vocation- not that they approve or disapprove of your vocation- in this case, firearms.

It's effectively the same.

There is no evidence for any of the "If...." statements. And the letter states outright it's because of association with a weapons related business. It doesn't say you got the wrong class, or the agent will contact you to reapply for the right one, or because you got a personal and it should have been commercial. It says specifically with weapons.

 

[Teachu2]

Actually, Blarby is entirely correct. Many insurance companies exclude certain breeds of dogs from liability coverage - based on the established risk involved. You can still get coverage, but at a greater cost, through a specialty insurer.

Sorry, Zak, I was premature to agree with you.

 

[Zak Smith]

You can still get coverage, but at a greater cost, through a specialty insurer.

I cannot believe the short-sightedness of you guys. What are you going to do when you can't buy homeowners or auto insurance or open a bank account because you're on the list of "registered gun owners" ?

This is exactly what I meant when I said, there is always a no-accountability "explanation" for why something was done.

I won't get into the dog issue, but we've already seen banks and related industries drop gun companies during the recent anti-gun political fervor because they were in the gun industry. That tells me it has nothing to do with actual risk of the gun companies themselves and everything to do with either political interests of the service providers or promulgation of schemes that do not take into account the actual risks or lack thereof of their existing clients.

 

[blarby]

That tells me it has nothing to do with actual risk of the gun companies themselves and everything to do with either political interests of the service providers or promulgation of schemes that do not take into account the actual risks or lack thereof of their existing clients.

Which tells me that you might be better served by brushing up on firearm torts that involve major insurance carriers.

I cannot believe the short-sightedness of you guys. What are you going to do when you can't buy homeowners or auto insurance or open a bank account because you're on the list of "registered gun owners" ?

Scrapes off the tinfoil Ahem :

Now, if Geico were to state that it was canceling all policies for anyone that owns, uses, or maintains a firearm for personal use- we'd have a completely different discussion.

Insurance companies have been classifying and insuring those classes of risk since before our union was founded.

Believe me- they want to insure you if you are willing to pay. They want you to pay. They want EVERYBODY to pay. But, they want you to pay the right amount for the coverage afforded. Thats how the law of large numbers and the principle of idemnity work hand in hand.

Geico has been doing insurance long before 2nd A was front page news- As the Government Employees Insurance Company until they were forced to drop that marketing tactic- seperate issue.

Fact is- you can't force insurance companies to take risks they haven't or won't actuarially account for- thats their freedom of choice in doing so.

Forcing them to take risks they have accounted for but you won't pay for borders right on the line of theft- and a few other rights, as it were.

Yes, auto insurance coverage is mandated in most states. Fact is you can post a bond in just about every one of those proving your ability to self insure.

Another fact is that no one is forcing you to choose Geico or any other insurer for that matter. You like the rate ? Follow the damn rules that gave you that rate- don't try and make it something its not.

 

[Zak Smith]

The idea that this is tinfoil is ridiculous. Banks and credit card merchant processors have already come out against gun companies, regardless of the risk of the actual ways they do business, simply because they are in a business related to firearms.

Read this and tell me there's nothing political going on and it's just good old American business:
http://news.investors.com/ibd-edito...uel-threatens-banks-on-gun-control.htm?p=full

I am a libertarian and I am not about forcing anyone to do business with anyone else. But if a company snubs any one of us not because of any specific business reason or risk they can articulate and that holds up to examination, but instead solely because we are in the firearms industry, we as the firearms community should mobilize to discourage others from doing business with them.

 

[Thermactor]

I will not renew my coverage with GEICO because of their anti-2A stance. Thanks for posting this - companies like this don't deserve our business.

 

[blarby]

I think the point that keeps getting missed here is that the actual way that business is done here is the issue, not the business itself.

For example :

I had a business use vehicle policy with AIG. I was prohibited from having a gas-welding equipped vehicle or tools on or in a vehicle I used during the course of business.

Why ? Well, of course- AIG abhors welders, and all of their welding ilk. Can't stand 'em. They are a threat to our Union !

No, actually not.

Its because gas welding involves enormous cylinders of pressurized volatile gases, which are extremely dangerous.

My fathers maritime navigance policy forbid him from towing fuel buoys, or taking additional fuel onboard in excess of 10% of the vessels rated capacity.

Why ? Because fuel is bad, mmmkay. Just bad. Everybody knows marine gas kills children. Maritime captains are the scourge of the earth ! Don't you remember the Exxon Valdez ?

Again, no- not exactly.

The risk of having substantial quantities of fuel outside of engineered parameters on a vessel of that size poses a significant risk- it has nothing to do with the fact that they think the pilot is a communist.


Insuring firearms business is risky.

I mean, REALLY REALLY risky. You are essentially insuring a manufacturer and his products and completed components that when used exactly in accordance with its design- kills things.

What could POSSIBLY go wrong with such an endeavor ? I dunno- ask Winchester. Ask Remington. Ask Hornady. Ask anyone who's been in a courtroom regarding a firearm- functioning correctly or not.

I'm not going to provide an exhaustive list of potential exposures of this business. THR alone should provide enough insight into what might go wrong. Google should provide cathartic levels of holy **** , how did that happen ? moments sufficient to prove this point to anyone who might be curious enough to go digging.

I'm sorry if thats breathtaking news to anyone- but yes, firearms are designed to kill things- as opposed to my briefcase, which is designed to hold documents.

Sometimes they perform exactly as intended. Many times they do not.

"Oh, but my rifle only shoots paper" is not a defense to something that, if pointed in another direction, and allowing for a few MM's of trigger travel, could end a life.

I'm sorry. Thats what the insurers look at. And thats about it.

"oh, but we're perfect- nothing could, or ever will, go wrong"

Then, why do you need insurance ?

 

[Jolly Rogers]

I worked at a body shop that had a Geico Express direct repair affiliation. After years of watching them ( Geico reps) deny obvious damage as unrelated to a loss , requiring another deductable to be applied, and squeezing the shop on every labor negotiation and insisting on substandard aftermarket parts to be installed, I dropped them from covering my cars. They are a for profit company and no longer have their customers best interests in their business plan.
No tin foil here, just facts.
The fact of them dropping a customer due to the weapons connection does not surprise me. It fits their policy of evading any and I mean ANY liability they can avoid.
Joe

 

[Teachu2]

Two black 2012 Suburbans with limo-tinted windows are parked side by side in a downtown lot. One has "Gina's Dog Grooming" on it, the other had "Freedom Firearms - for all your shooting needs" on it. Which one's windows get smashed most often?

 

[jdh]

"As an automobile desk and field U/W for more years than I have fingers, you could not convince me a flatbed truck wasn't used or intended to be used for commercial purposes- its just too great a risk. On top of that, its modified which most companies wont cover for liability OR physical damage.

There are no, and have been no, trucks manufactured with a flatbed for the consumer market. They are sold as a cab chassis configuration and built to suit, or stripped of their beds and modified with a flatbed. In most states you can't buy a c/c "truck" on a personal loan, or state on a sales contract that a c/c is for personal use. Look at your salescontract for a new vehicle sometime- notice how it has two boxes for commercial, and personal, use ? Thats more than a benign gesture."

The white CC with Royal Service bed on it the drive way that was bought from the local dealer and financed through Ally on a non-commercial loan would seem to indicate otherwise.

As for dual rear truck it started as life as a normal bed. However it was cheaper in the long run to put the flatbed on it than to keep replacing the "hips", if you could find an unbroken one to use as a replacement, every time some Goober backed into and broke one or a rock got picked up in the duals and launched.

Geico had no problem with either one.

 

[Teachu2]

"As an automobile desk and field U/W for more years than I have fingers, you could not convince me a flatbed truck wasn't used or intended to be used for commercial purposes- its just too great a risk. On top of that, its modified which most companies wont cover for liability OR physical damage.

There are no, and have been no, trucks manufactured with a flatbed for the consumer market. They are sold as a cab chassis configuration and built to suit, or stripped of their beds and modified with a flatbed. In most states you can't buy a c/c "truck" on a personal loan, or state on a sales contract that a c/c is for personal use. Look at your salescontract for a new vehicle sometime- notice how it has two boxes for commercial, and personal, use ? Thats more than a benign gesture."

The white CC with Royal Service bed on it the drive way that was bought from the local dealer and financed through Ally on a non-commercial loan would seem to indicate otherwise.

As for dual rear truck it started as life as a normal bed. However it was cheaper in the long run to put the flatbed on it than to keep replacing the "hips", if you could find an unbroken one to use as a replacement, every time some Goober backed into and broke one or a rock got picked up in the duals and launched.

Geico had no problem with either one.

That may vary by state. CA used to license pickups as personal if you had a bed topper or commercial if the bed was open. Now they are all licensed commercial.