General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Bill Would Force Calif. Gun Owners To Buy Insurance [View all]BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)If the laws for guns are written differently, then intentional acts and crimes could be included under mandatory coverage. If is ts not in the Constitution, then lawmakers can pass a law to that effect.
Check out the great vicarious liability wars affecting car rental companies, for example. I have been involved in that for years. States and courts have gone back and forth on that. But ultimately none of that is enshrined in the Constitution. It all comes down to what lawmakers are willing to do.
I am not predicting that lawmakers will mandate coverage of first-party intentional acts, because that does go against some of the insurance tradition and would be fought vigorously by insurance companies so as not to establish a precedent. And it really isn't necessary to take such a big first step as mandating criminal acts by the insured. But it is certainly reasonable -- with lots of precedent -- to mandate coverage for damages that result from negligent gun ownership, even when the actual damage was done by third parties as part of intentional and/or criminal acts. There is absolutely nothing that would prevent that from being legislated, other than politics, of course.