Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

mia

(8,360 posts)
Mon Jul 8, 2013, 12:50 PM Jul 2013

Schools 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

24 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Schools Seeking to Arm Employees Hit Hurdle on Insurance (Original Post) mia Jul 2013 OP
Good article! Recommended! nt femmocrat Jul 2013 #1
Aah, too bad! sinkingfeeling Jul 2013 #2
Ohwell WovenGems Jul 2013 #3
When talking to my Libertarian brother AgingAmerican Jul 2013 #5
You mean right wing talking points have consequences for Republicans in the real world? AgingAmerican Jul 2013 #4
How much liability or responsibility does a school's insurance company have with regard petronius Jul 2013 #6
Good question. "Armed-teacher error" would seem more likely than the risk of an "outside attack". mia Jul 2013 #10
No WovenGems Jul 2013 #11
Not equating them at all - I am saying they are two different things petronius Jul 2013 #14
Gee - I guess KT2000 Jul 2013 #7
OOPS MotherPetrie Jul 2013 #8
Why do these actuaries hate America? klook Jul 2013 #9
No one could have foreseen that there would Ilsa Jul 2013 #12
Wow. Whoda thunk THAT??? Bake Jul 2013 #13
The NRA vs. the Insurance Lobbies. B Stieg Jul 2013 #15
The NRA probably has an insurance policy for that. mia Jul 2013 #16
Wow. B Stieg Jul 2013 #19
The NRA should jump at this chance dougg Jul 2013 #22
I guess the side benefit is that teachers would be able to protect themselves Jackpine Radical Jul 2013 #17
More like protecting students from mentally disturbed teenagers like Adam Lanza armed with mia Jul 2013 #18
That will l'arn them... Lithos Jul 2013 #20
Free Market in Action rpannier Jul 2013 #21
Israel ConcernedCanuk Jul 2013 #23
Looks like an ordinary school day in Israel. mia Jul 2013 #24

WovenGems

(776 posts)
3. Ohwell
Mon Jul 8, 2013, 01:18 PM
Jul 2013

Fantasy and reality seldom mesh.
"But, a principle isn't a fantasy." More often than not they are.

 

AgingAmerican

(12,958 posts)
5. When talking to my Libertarian brother
Mon Jul 8, 2013, 01:29 PM
Jul 2013

I refer to Libertarianism as his, 'imaginary utopia'. It pisses him off to no end.

 

AgingAmerican

(12,958 posts)
4. You mean right wing talking points have consequences for Republicans in the real world?
Mon Jul 8, 2013, 01:27 PM
Jul 2013

WHo'd have thought.

petronius

(26,602 posts)
6. How much liability or responsibility does a school's insurance company have with regard
Mon Jul 8, 2013, 01:30 PM
Jul 2013

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)
10. Good question. "Armed-teacher error" would seem more likely than the risk of an "outside attack".
Mon Jul 8, 2013, 03:00 PM
Jul 2013

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: It’s 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.

WovenGems

(776 posts)
11. No
Mon Jul 8, 2013, 03:12 PM
Jul 2013

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)
14. Not equating them at all - I am saying they are two different things
Mon Jul 8, 2013, 04:51 PM
Jul 2013

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)
7. Gee - I guess
Mon Jul 8, 2013, 01:44 PM
Jul 2013

state legislators are not the all-powerful toads they thought they were. Sometimes they forget they really work for the corporations.

mia

(8,360 posts)
16. The NRA probably has an insurance policy for that.
Mon Jul 8, 2013, 11:38 PM
Jul 2013

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

Jackpine Radical

(45,274 posts)
17. I guess the side benefit is that teachers would be able to protect themselves
Tue Jul 9, 2013, 10:39 AM
Jul 2013

from hoodie-wearing teenagers armed with Skittles.

mia

(8,360 posts)
18. More like protecting students from mentally disturbed teenagers like Adam Lanza armed with
Tue Jul 9, 2013, 11:52 AM
Jul 2013
#1. Bushmaster .223 caliber– model XM15-E2S rifle with high capacity 30 round clips

#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/


Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Schools Seeking to Arm Em...