JenniferG
US Veteran
I've got to stop either writing my thoughts five minutes before I go to bed or use the darn spell checker
Mass files legislation to require gun liability insurance
- Thread starter jimgansett
- Start date
OP
jimgansett
Member
As I said, I emailed my MA reps, senator, and Gov. Patrick concerning not only liability insurance by also new gun control laws he is proposing for MA: banning "assault" weapons, limiting gun purchases to 1 a month, etc. and as expected from the Gov I received back a stock form answer no doubt from an aide:
"On behalf of Governor Deval L. Patrick, thank you for your recent correspondence regarding firearm safety and legislation.
Governor Patrick believes that successfully deterring gun violence requires a multi-faceted approach and should include policies focused on guns and at-risk individuals. That is why the Governor has and will continue to push for legislation that includes a formal collaboration between Massachusetts and the National Mental Health Registry, a ban on assault weapons and a limit on the amount of guns one person can buy in a given month.
Once again, thank you for your input on this important issue. Please feel free to contact our office again in the future with any additional questions or concerns. Your comments are always welcome in this administration."
Sincerely,
Governor Patrick's Constituent Services Office
Big whoppie and no surprises here, right people?
In my emails I did make it clear that in the last election gun control was a non-issue. I reminded them current gun control push is awaking a sleeping giant of a voter block comprised of responsible gun owners and the next election will probably see a much better showing by conservative candidates.
An irony: MA is considered a "liberal" state yet all it does is seek to restrict everyone's rights (except for the pols rights, of course)!
"On behalf of Governor Deval L. Patrick, thank you for your recent correspondence regarding firearm safety and legislation.
Governor Patrick believes that successfully deterring gun violence requires a multi-faceted approach and should include policies focused on guns and at-risk individuals. That is why the Governor has and will continue to push for legislation that includes a formal collaboration between Massachusetts and the National Mental Health Registry, a ban on assault weapons and a limit on the amount of guns one person can buy in a given month.
Once again, thank you for your input on this important issue. Please feel free to contact our office again in the future with any additional questions or concerns. Your comments are always welcome in this administration."
Sincerely,
Governor Patrick's Constituent Services Office
Big whoppie and no surprises here, right people?
In my emails I did make it clear that in the last election gun control was a non-issue. I reminded them current gun control push is awaking a sleeping giant of a voter block comprised of responsible gun owners and the next election will probably see a much better showing by conservative candidates.
An irony: MA is considered a "liberal" state yet all it does is seek to restrict everyone's rights (except for the pols rights, of course)!
OP
jimgansett
Member
Oh, in my original post to start this thread, I forget to say the comment Rep. Linsky made in the article, so ridiculous. He said, "Nobody has to own a gun, nobody has to own a car", likening the mandate to own car insurance to the mandate to own gun liability insurance. Can you believe it? Supporters of the legislation were even worse, stating basically, that we need to pass it now and let the market work out the details. INCREDIBLE. Sounds a lot like Polosi and the health care bill when she said we need to pass it and then see what's in it. It just keeps getting better and better!
KLYDE
Member
POWNAL, This has nothing to do with safety. It is greed mongers taking advantage of an opportunity to make $$$$.
Criminals, Liars and thieves. This Country is in such a pathetic state it is sickening.
COL Jagdog
Member
I have not had a chance to read the proposed bill so I don't know how it is worded. My thoughts are as follows:
Homeowner's insurance includes both coverage to insure your home for an insured loss (fire, windstorm, hail, tornado, etc) as well as indemnity coverage to protect you if someone is injured on your property due to your negligence or you damage their property thru your negligence (examples: you are cutting a tree limb from one of your trees and it falls and strikes and damages your neighbor's car, someone visits your home and falls thru a rotten board on your porch,
your son accidentally throws a baseball thru teh neighbor's window.)
I have read most of the standard issue homeowners policies issued by major homeowners insurers (most of these are forms, for example the HO-2 form, with many different riders that may be attached either adding or excluding certain coverage -- for example riders specifically insuring your jewelry or artwork) -- the indemnity portions of these policies do not generally exclude negligent acts involving firearms --
so if I accidentally pepper a fellow hunter with birdshot while dove hunting, my homeowners would cover it as a negligent act. The majority of homeowners policies also have a medical payments provision providing for medical treatment of an injured person harmed by the HO's negligence (may be in amounts of $10,,000 to $100,000 on average). All liability policies (including indemnity provisions of HO policies) exclude coverage for intentional acts because it is against public policy (the Latin term is "contra bonos mores") to insure for wilful/intentional acts or torts. I believe the proposed bill is probably designed to make it mandatory that gunowners have indemnity coverage to provide coverage to a person injured by a negligent gun-related act -- and the truth is that most, if not all gunowners, are already provided that coverage by their existing homeowners coverage. So, as a practical matter, even if passed, it would probably not effect
homeowners as they most likely already have insurance that provides coverage (if they have a mortgage, their lender will require them to have homeowners coverage anyway, to protect the lender from loss of the home from an insured event or lawsuit). Renters often do not have renters insurance or any type of liability/indemnity coverage, so they are most likely to be impacted if they own a gun and the bill passes.
The incidence of negligent gun-related injury lawsuits is very low -- a homeowner is most likely to be sued because someone slipped and fell on their driveway or steps to their home, for example. I doubt the trial lawyers pushed for this because there are actually statistically few lawsuits filed for gun-related negligence vs slip and fall cases, etc -- it would seem to be part of the "feel-good" nonsense wrapped into these stupid "let's pass a new gun law" packages -- I think it is more based on "stupid" because the proponents of the bill probably do not realize that most gunowners are already protected by their homowners policies indemnity coverages than it is based on "sinister" -- some moronic legislative assistant to one of the bill's proponents probably came up with "let's make them spend money and buy insurance" without realizing that gunowners who own homes are most likely covered by their existing homeowners.
Personally, I carry a multi-million dollar umbrella (excess policy) on top of my $500,000 of indemnity coverage under my homeowners policy just to give me extra insulation from any negligent act based lawsuit --
my regular homeowners coverage covers me under the indemnity coverage for any negligent act (no exclusion for guns) and the umbrella extends that coverage to the excess policy limit -- and excess policies are relatively inexpensive in many jurisdictions.
Homeowner's insurance includes both coverage to insure your home for an insured loss (fire, windstorm, hail, tornado, etc) as well as indemnity coverage to protect you if someone is injured on your property due to your negligence or you damage their property thru your negligence (examples: you are cutting a tree limb from one of your trees and it falls and strikes and damages your neighbor's car, someone visits your home and falls thru a rotten board on your porch,
your son accidentally throws a baseball thru teh neighbor's window.)
I have read most of the standard issue homeowners policies issued by major homeowners insurers (most of these are forms, for example the HO-2 form, with many different riders that may be attached either adding or excluding certain coverage -- for example riders specifically insuring your jewelry or artwork) -- the indemnity portions of these policies do not generally exclude negligent acts involving firearms --
so if I accidentally pepper a fellow hunter with birdshot while dove hunting, my homeowners would cover it as a negligent act. The majority of homeowners policies also have a medical payments provision providing for medical treatment of an injured person harmed by the HO's negligence (may be in amounts of $10,,000 to $100,000 on average). All liability policies (including indemnity provisions of HO policies) exclude coverage for intentional acts because it is against public policy (the Latin term is "contra bonos mores") to insure for wilful/intentional acts or torts. I believe the proposed bill is probably designed to make it mandatory that gunowners have indemnity coverage to provide coverage to a person injured by a negligent gun-related act -- and the truth is that most, if not all gunowners, are already provided that coverage by their existing homeowners coverage. So, as a practical matter, even if passed, it would probably not effect
homeowners as they most likely already have insurance that provides coverage (if they have a mortgage, their lender will require them to have homeowners coverage anyway, to protect the lender from loss of the home from an insured event or lawsuit). Renters often do not have renters insurance or any type of liability/indemnity coverage, so they are most likely to be impacted if they own a gun and the bill passes.
The incidence of negligent gun-related injury lawsuits is very low -- a homeowner is most likely to be sued because someone slipped and fell on their driveway or steps to their home, for example. I doubt the trial lawyers pushed for this because there are actually statistically few lawsuits filed for gun-related negligence vs slip and fall cases, etc -- it would seem to be part of the "feel-good" nonsense wrapped into these stupid "let's pass a new gun law" packages -- I think it is more based on "stupid" because the proponents of the bill probably do not realize that most gunowners are already protected by their homowners policies indemnity coverages than it is based on "sinister" -- some moronic legislative assistant to one of the bill's proponents probably came up with "let's make them spend money and buy insurance" without realizing that gunowners who own homes are most likely covered by their existing homeowners.
Personally, I carry a multi-million dollar umbrella (excess policy) on top of my $500,000 of indemnity coverage under my homeowners policy just to give me extra insulation from any negligent act based lawsuit --
my regular homeowners coverage covers me under the indemnity coverage for any negligent act (no exclusion for guns) and the umbrella extends that coverage to the excess policy limit -- and excess policies are relatively inexpensive in many jurisdictions.
I know right!
