"Targeting" Insurance Companies

[Colt]

A feature common to many "Employer Forbids Weapons" threads is that many employers cite "Insurance Reasons" as the underlying justification for a zero weapons policy. Employers claim that their insurance underwriters require a zero weapons corporate policy in order for the company to qualify for certain premiums. Thus, common sense arguments for allowing guns in the workplace are moot, because it all comes down to dollars and cents. Employers are typically not willing to give up $ to allow their employers to carry weapons at work.

Has anyone considered targeting activism/lobbying actions directly at the insurance carriers? Could there even be financial incentives for insurance copmanies to offer premium discounts to customers who do not prohibit firearms?

The shooting at the NASA corporate building jumps to mind. Is NASA, or their insurance carrier (if any), liable to civil suits brought by employees against the company? Could the carrier limit its liability by not offering incentives to companies who strip their employees of the ability to effectively defend themselves?

Just curious whether or not other members feel that targeting the insurance companies might be a worthy cause.

 

[brickeyee]

"Is NASA, or their insurance carrier (if any)..."

Probably the latter. The government does not normally have insurance.
They have the ultimate deep pockets...

 

[Justin]

I'd be curious to see how the insurance industry comes to the conclusion that concealed weapons holders pose a risk at a place of employment.

Perceived vs. Actual Risk.

 

[ZeSpectre]

Sometimes somebody here says something that makes me slap my forehead and say "why didn't I think of that?"

 

[tulsamal]

The Oklahoma law specifically took away this argument. It said that a company would be "blameless" if somebody used a gun which had been stored in a locked car on company property. They would be able to go into court and point out that they were against this new law and that it was something the State of Oklahoma did.

Didn't stop the big companies from taking it to Federal court and stopping the law from taking effect. Now the years roll by and it is somehow still in the courts. I just love the way something can "go to the courts" and then just never come back out!!! Make a decision! Then we can either celebrate or appeal. The current situation passed "ridiculous" quite some while ago!

Gregg

 

[glockman19]

I'd be curious to see how the insurance industry comes to the conclusion that concealed weapons holders pose a risk at a place of employment.

Perceived vs. Actual Risk.

It's all percieved. They quantify all dangers Separately then just throw them all intogether for a rate. they either add the multiple into the premium or subtract it. There are certain Threshold issues as well that will disqualify a prespective insured from underwriting.

 

[Pat McCoy]

For the most part the "insurance company" excuse is a canard.

It is only the past few years that our applications have even asked a question about firearms, and if we show a reason for them to be there and that the person with the firearm has a CCW I have never had any problem with placing coverage.

 

[Smurfslayer]

our true villain...

has not yet revealed himself...

One of the major factors in employer no gun policies is the Alexandria, VA based society for human resources management. Their proclamantion is almost verbatim what you will see in some HR handbooks. They are but one player in this sick game however. Most of us have been raised in the "dependence society" in which we rely on gov. for our very existence. Government has a say in most of the activities we undertake every single day. We're taught from early on to get the government involved - call the police when someone hits you, don't fight back!

 

[ZeSpectre]

Learned Helplessness <sigh>.

Reminds me of a friend a little while ago, we're out and he had a flat tire in an area with no cell phone service.
Him - "Damn, I can't call triple-a, what the hell are we going to do now?"
Me - "It's just a flat, change the tire"
Him - "I don't know how to change a tire"
Me - "Well you're gonna learn tonight".

When we finally finished...

Him - "you mean that's it?"
Me - "Yup"
Him - "Damn, the garage would have charged me $60 and THAT'S IT!"
Me - "yup"

We gotta get 'em educated!

 

[Smurfslayer]

him?

dude ... if you can't change a tire, you must surrender all man points.
(not you Ze)

 

[ZeSpectre]

Smurfslayer... I still give him grief about that. "Dude, I'm driving, we might have a flat and -I- know how to change a tire".

 

[tulsamal]

dude ... if you can't change a tire, you must surrender all man points.

Amen!

We learned how to change a tire in Driver's Ed at my High School in Ohio. Of course that was 1977 so maybe somebody decided that was unnecessary info now!

My wife was driving to work once years ago. A good 20 miles or so from here she had a blowout. She pulled over the side of the turnpike and called me. I had to drive all the way out there and change the tire. She wasn't willing to even think about it. And I didn't really want to talk her through it on the phone while people raced by at 85 mph. But we had a class about it later on.

Not that I think it really worked. I would bet long odds she still wouldn't change her own tire if the situation came about again.

Gregg

 

[Henry Bowman]

All of this discussion (except the tire changing part) assumes that insurance companies actually have such a requirement. Many challenges have been made to produce an actual policy that includes such a requirement. I've not seen them all, but haven't seen (or heard) of an actual one yet.

Pat McCoy, what do you know?

 

[Zundfolge]

I wish one person could give me a real life example of an insurance company forcing a business to go "no gun zone".

On another forum I had one guy come close ... but he worked for a security company and they had different liability insurance rates based on whether or not they had armed staff.

 

[gc70]

The "no guns" rules are aimed at keeping workers from getting out of hand and disrupting work, or more importantly, from not having the means to threaten management.

A huge multi-national company headquartered across the street from where I work has a "no guns" policy, but it conveniently does not apply to the armed guards who provide security for the executive floors of the building, or for the bodyguards of the top executives.