3 ms·

I can put myself in a gun-owning-and-agreeing-with-the-insurance-idea frame of mind. Given the risk pool and payouts, setting the premium to be for insurance ne

I can put myself in a gun-owning-and-agreeing-with-the-insurance-idea frame of mind. Given the risk pool and payouts, setting the premium to be for insurance needs and not as a punitive lever seems to be important. The person who uses a stolen gun needs to be primarily liable, this fund should really be a reinsurance fund. If I own a gun, pay premiums, and my child kills themself with it, do I collect the payout? (Sorry if the article covers that point, adblocker preventing from reading it now, I’ll scan the dead tree version tomorrow.)

dragonwriter 5y ago
> If I own a gun, pay premiums, and my child kills themself with it, do I collect the payout? If its a liability policy (whuch seems to be what the suggested mandatory insurance would be, as are most insurance mandatss), no, because you can't have liability to yourself, and liability insurance pays out if you incur a liability. Conceivably, gun insurance could be offered with additional non-liability coverage and liability coverage beyond the mandate, same as car insurance today is, but that’s outside of the requirement. The existence of the requirement would make it more likely that carriers would develop policies with add-on coverage and use mandatory insurance inquiries as upsell/differentiation opportunities.
pyuser583 5y ago
The article is unclear, but it seems there is only once insurance policy: the one taken out by the city. Gun owners are just paying a fee to support the premiums. That means there is no risk pool (unless lots of other cities have this policy). If there’s no risk pool, the insurance company is simply taking the probability of a mass shooting and multiplying it by the cost. That doesn’t make too much sense from the cities perspective. It would be cheaper to self-insure, or simply rely on taxes to generate the needed revenue. Unless the city is requiring all gun owners to contact their insurer and get a policy (which the article seems to contradict), this move doesn’t make much sense. It seems like a pretext to discourage gun ownership.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> If I own a gun, pay premiums, and my child kills themself with it, do I collect the payout? If its a liability policy (whuch seems to be what the suggested mandatory insurance would be, as are most insurance mandatss), no, because you can't have liability to yourself, and liability insurance pays out if you incur a liability. Conceivably, gun insurance could be offered with additional non-liability coverage and liability coverage beyond the mandate, same as car insurance today is, but that’s outside of the requirement. The existence of the requirement would make it more likely that carriers would develop policies with add-on coverage and use mandatory insurance inquiries as upsell/differentiation opportunities.

pyuser583 5y ago

The article is unclear, but it seems there is only once insurance policy: the one taken out by the city. Gun owners are just paying a fee to support the premiums. That means there is no risk pool (unless lots of other cities have this policy). If there’s no risk pool, the insurance company is simply taking the probability of a mass shooting and multiplying it by the cost. That doesn’t make too much sense from the cities perspective. It would be cheaper to self-insure, or simply rely on taxes to generate the needed revenue. Unless the city is requiring all gun owners to contact their insurer and get a policy (which the article seems to contradict), this move doesn’t make much sense. It seems like a pretext to discourage gun ownership.