General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSchools Seeking to Arm Employees Hit Hurdle on Insurance
As more schools consider arming their employees, some districts are encountering a daunting economic hurdle: insurance carriers threatening to raise their premiums or revoke coverage entirely.
During legislative sessions this year, seven states enacted laws permitting teachers or administrators to carry guns in schools. Three of the measures in Kansas, South Dakota and Tennessee took effect last week.
But already, EMC Insurance Companies, the liability insurance provider for about 90 percent of Kansas school districts, has sent a letter to its agents saying that schools permitting employees to carry concealed handguns would be declined coverage.
We are making this underwriting decision simply to protect the financial security of our company, the letter said....
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/08/us/schools-seeking-to-arm-employees-hit-hurdle-on-insurance.html?pagewanted=2&src=recg
femmocrat
(28,394 posts)sinkingfeeling
(51,444 posts)Fantasy and reality seldom mesh.
"But, a principle isn't a fantasy." More often than not they are.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)I refer to Libertarianism as his, 'imaginary utopia'. It pisses him off to no end.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)WHo'd have thought.
petronius
(26,602 posts)to an attack on a school? For example, with Sandy Hook, I've seen plenty of articles about charities and donations, but I don't recall any mention of what the school's insurance company was covering or paying out.
If the answer is "little to none", then there's no upside for the insurance company to encouraging armed teachers; arming teachers would be intended to forestall (with debatable effectiveness) attacks, but if the insurer had little exposure in the case of an attack but lots of exposure in the case of an armed-teacher error, then it makes sense to avoid the latter.
On the other hand, if companies are liable for both attacks and teacher screw-ups, then it still makes mathematical sense that the cumulative cost of teacher-errors might exceed the cost of outsider attacks...
mia
(8,360 posts)I don't feel that guns in the schools would keep students safer. Quite the contrary.
I'm glad the actuaries appear to agree.
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2013/07/08/have-gun-nuts-met-their-match-actuaries-at-insurance-companies
Well, wouldn't it be interesting if the unstoppable force of the Gun Nut Lobby ran into the immoveable object of insurance companies?
Kansas recently passed a law allowing teachers and school workers to carry concealed weapons, because everyone knows that only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun. But the insurance company that covers 85%+ of Kansas schools has a policy that only trained law enforcement can carry guns on campuses they insure.
The insurance company denies that this is political: Its not a political decision, but a financial one based on the riskier climate it estimates would be created, the insurer said.
But of course it is a political decision, since it's about the two things Americans are most crazy about: guns and money. Will the NRA and its members boycott insurance companies which refuse to insure potential K-12 free-fire zones? And I might point out that if this concealed carry bullshit creates a climate too risky for an insurance company to put its fucking money in, such an environment is too risky to send your goddamn children.
You are equating an outside attack with an inside booboo. Two different animals. The insurance company is right look at what could go wrong with an abundance of guns in staff hands.
petronius
(26,602 posts)I'm fairly certain that a school's insurance would be responsible for costs related to an error or accident involving an armed staff member. But I have no idea whether a school's insurer would be responsible for any/all costs related to an outside attack - do you know?
(I hadn't thought of it before this topic, but I can't recall seeing any mention of the school's insurance company in the coverage of Sandy Hook...)
KT2000
(20,576 posts)state legislators are not the all-powerful toads they thought they were. Sometimes they forget they really work for the corporations.
klook
(12,154 posts)I thought arming everybody to the teeth made us all safer!
Ilsa
(61,694 posts)be liability issues! How can that be?
Bake
(21,977 posts)Bake
B Stieg
(2,410 posts)Now that would be interesting!
mia
(8,360 posts)NRA Endorsed Insurance Program
http://www.locktonrisk.com/nrains/about.htm
Gun Collector Insurance
Excess Personal Liability Insurance
Firearms Instructor Liability Insurance
Self-defense Insurance
Talk about divide and conquer!
dougg
(48 posts)to make some good money selling insurance.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)from hoodie-wearing teenagers armed with Skittles.
mia
(8,360 posts)#2. Glock 10 mm handgun
#3. Sig-Sauer P226 9mm handgun
http://www.ijreview.com/2013/01/31221-update-state-police-confirm-weapons-used-in-newtown-shootings/
Lithos
(26,403 posts)Add a fourth R - 'reading, 'riting', rithmatic', rate-hike
rpannier
(24,329 posts)I'm sure the republicans will be okay with this
ConcernedCanuk
(13,509 posts)mia
(8,360 posts)Thanks for the photo.