Tuesday, July 09, 2013

Insurance Timidity Is Not A Reason For Anti-Gun Smugness

The Freep and its columnists are still up to their smug anti-gun ways: Nancy Kaffer: The unintended consequence of arming teachers

So get this: Remember how a bunch of state legislatures passed laws allowing teachers to carry guns? Well, in many of those states, schools are now having trouble getting insurance.


The Michigan Legislature passed a bill last December that would have allowed people with concealed carry permits into schools; Gov. Rick Snyder vetoed it in the wake of the school shooting in Newtown, Conn. It seemed like a good move at the time, but in retrospect, it seems even smarter.

Oh, so according to Ms. Kaffer, a lack of insurance coverage for such events is now a smart reason against allowing armed teachers or other armed responsible adults to be present in schools now is it?

This insurance issue could be fixed via legislation or by allowing the insurance company to require an additional rider for coverage for incidents involving firearms at the school. Insurance companies are notoriously shy about risk, and anything outside of their traditional policies takes them some time to become comfortable with the new reality - namely that licensed carries of firearms are a very low-risk population indeed.

Note that the current liability of a school's insurance company, including one that refuses to write policies allowing licensed firearms to be present and as a result creates a nice gun-free victim-rich zone, thus enabling a madman to enter a school and kill a ton of kids is zero.

Now let's see if Nancy can smugly think about what smart results that incentive creates.


Scott said...

Seems to me that insurance companies are going to pay out anyway, whether they cover CPL-related incidents or not.

How many people are getting wrongful death insurance settlements from, say, Sandy Hook? For reasons like not taking enough precautions to keep the madman out.

Aaron said...


There's generally no legal duty to protect from the criminal acts of third parties. As such, the school is highly unlikely to face any wrongful death suits arising from the shootings at all.

Windy Wilson said...

It will all turn on foreseeability, anyway, all they have to do is trot out the media wailing about how common school shootings are, therefore easily foreseeable, and every school has a security guard, why not Sandy Hook? Ergo, knew or should have known, ergo, pay.

Unknown said...

Kahr40 found a similar situation in Kansas. They didn't sit still for it. http://fromthebarrelofagun.blogspot.com/2013/07/i-guess-wed-call-this-oops-moment.html

Six said...

The stupid is strong with Mz. Kaffer not to mention the moral cowardice. I'd love for her to explain to grieving parents how much money the school saved on insurance by refusing to allow armed teachers. And the left calls us greedy and uncaring.

Aaron said...

Six: Not to worry, she'll just blame the existence of guns for the problem and then claim that there's no evidence (due of course to the lack of insurance coverage preventing it) that a good guy with a gun couldn't have done anything.

Unknown: Nice job by those schools, would that other school administrators had similar backbone.

Windy: It generally takes much more than that to get over the lack of liability for the criminal acts of third parties hurdle. Short of a known and specific threat that is blatantly ignored, schools aren't going to be liable on the statistically insignificant chance of a deranged scumbag coming in to shoot up a school.