Firearms/ gun owner's insurance [View all]

[sarisataka]

It is often brought up that it should be mandatory gun owners have insurance. Usually from the perspective that this would be a backdoor ban or at least only limit ownership to those of means. Although such a mandate probably would not survive a challenge in courts, there are certain cases where it could be upheld, such as having a carry permit- using a gun beyond simple ownership.

I decided to look into how it is handled now based on my own actual insurance policies.Since insurance laws do vary from state to state my experience may not be applicable to someone in another state or with a different company.

Under my homeowner's policy guns are considered a high value item and so have a upper limit the same as jewellery, furs or silverware. In my case it is $2500Against loss by theft or fire. I can purchase either a higher limit and/or broader coverage for a very reasonable amount.

What most people are interested in is liability insurance, that which would pay someone harmed by my actions.The policy comes with a $100,000 coverage standard and I have increased that to $500,000 at the great cost of $4 per year. In addition I have a one million dollar umbrella policy which covers myself, all members of my household for any liability resulting from action including auto accidents. So altogether I have one and a 1/2 million dollars coverage for the cost of about $10.50 a month.

So now the question is would it cover me if I shot someone on purpose or by accident? Reading the policy, and I recommend everyone read their insurance policies it's not that difficult, under exclusions it says intentional acts are excluded. Therefore if I intentionally try to harm someone these policies provide no coverage. However it does go on to say this exclusion does not apply in the case of REASONABLE USE OF FORCE IN SELF-DEFENSE, it is capitalised in the policy. So to sum up if I were to commit a crime, an intentional act, I would not be covered. If I shot at someone in self defence I would be, even if I hit a different person because that would be considered accidental. I did not hit the person I was aiming at.

The insurance company also does not care what kind of gun or how many i may have. Unless I have a collection worth over $2500, then they are happy to sell me extra coverage.

All this is to show an insurance mandate would only affect the poorest, those unable to spend an extra $10 per month. It also would not help anyone who is a victim of an intentional crime as a claim would be denied.