GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-26-2013, 18:22   #1
HerrGlock
CLM Number 2
Scouts Out
 
HerrGlock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 64,420


Next big thing in gun control? 7 questions about mandatory gun insurance.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politic...-would-it-work
__________________
Sent from my rotary phone
"The way I see it as soon as a baby is born, he should be issued a banjo!"- Linus Van Pelt
UNIX - Not just for Vestal Virgins any more
HerrGlock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 19:17   #2
Johnspark
Grumpy Fish
 
Johnspark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Southeastern U.S.
Posts: 3,233
Quote:
Originally Posted by HerrGlock View Post
Yep, it's a brave new legislative world. Infringing were no one has infringed before.
__________________
101st Airborne
Johnspark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 03:10   #3
Glockworks
Ready/Aim/Fire
 
Glockworks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 627
Blog Entries: 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by HerrGlock View Post
Just another way to "register" our firearms in a round about way, and oppress us who choose to believe in our freedom.

How about mandatory insurance to protect yourself from possible "hate" speech utterance? Especially mandatory if you fit into a category that this Prez and his minions do not like. Where does this stop?
__________________
If you disagree with my view(s) and are trying to paint me into a corner, note that I step on paint often.
Glockworks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 03:35   #4
G-Lock808
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Mid Pac.
Posts: 704
Had to stop reading after the nonsense second paragraph...
G-Lock808 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 09:22   #5
Haldor
Retired EE
 
Haldor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Central Arizona
Posts: 5,545
To be honest I have a $1M liability policy just in case I ever need to shoot someone. My thinking is that if the insurance company is on the hook for $1M and I am not protected by the castle law, then they are going to make sure I have excellent legal representation.

Only costs me a couple of hundred a year. I have a nice house, 401K, pension. I would hate to end up giving everything I have worked for to some dirtbag or his heirs.
__________________
Quote:
Guys! Guys! He's down! Stop kicking him! If he shows up on another thread, Tasers are indicated, but for now, let him slink off into the shadows to lick his wounds and ponder how deeply cool and misunderstood he is!
Hoot nred Mrs. Vr.
Haldor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 10:06   #6
Cubdriver
Senior Member
 
Cubdriver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Southeastern Litchfield County, CT
Posts: 1,695
I'm forced to carry uninsured/underinsured motorist insurance on my car in the event that I get in an accident with one of the many drivers who fail to carry the *required* insurance on their vehicle. Would EVERYONE (even non firearm owners) be forced to buy 'uninsured gun insurance' to cover injuries caused by the uninsured firearms carried by thugs and criminals? Or do they figure that the thugs would purchase coverage for their otherwise illegal guns? Is a lobotomy a requirement to be a politician?

-Pat
__________________
Speed has never killed anyone. Suddenly becoming stationary… that's what gets you.. (J. Clarkson)
Cubdriver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 12:03   #7
Mushinto
Master Member
 
Mushinto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Melbourne, Florida, USA
Posts: 12,050
There is no way it's constitutional for the government to force you to have insurance .... no, wait, never mind.
__________________
ML

Everyone you meet is fighting a battle you know nothing about. Be kind, always.

Last edited by Mushinto; 03-28-2013 at 22:59..
Mushinto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 12:20   #8
eagle359
Senior Member
 
eagle359's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Gretna,LA,USA
Posts: 1,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mushinto View Post
There is not way it's constitutional for the government to force you to have insurance .... no, wait, never mind.
It is not INSURANCE. Justice Roberts said that it was a TAX. But when they were trying to get it passed it was INSURANCE and not a TAX. Tax-Insurance What day is it?
__________________
"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace." Thomas Paine
eagle359 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2013, 08:02   #9
Shark1007
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: orlando
Posts: 392
Lawyer's perspective:

Every insurance policy I've ever read, in the insuring agreement, it generally states " we will pay, up to our policy limits, for damages resulting from negligence for which you are determined legally liable"

Negligence, in my jurisdiction and most, is defined as doing something a reasonably prudent would not do under similar circumstances or failing to do something a reasonable person would do under similar circumstances"

There are cases discussing the distinction between "intentional "and "negligence". For instance, you intentionally threw a beer to your wife at a ball game, you overthrew and hit the octogenarian in the next seat, killing him. You intended to throw, but didn't intend the consequences.

That's step one in claims handling, DENY,DENY,DENY.
The insurance carrier often denies claims (actually very often) and issues you a "reservation of rights" that says we will complete our contractual duty to defend you in a claim, but we don't believe the loss is covered. They may even file a thing called a declaratory action to ask a court to determine the claim is not covered.

Example: A case where my client was killed by a steroid head high school football player. Mom and dad were separated, my redneck met the wife, put the moves on her and came back to her house. Her 12 year old lied and called daddy across town "mommy has some man over and he said he'd whip my ass" Daddy brought the son that he had been buying roids for, had a bad history of aggression. Daddy wheeled in the driveway, yelled "get that guy and hold his ass" to the roid head and daddy ran in the house. The roid head picked my guy up and dropped him on his head in the driveway, game over.

Insurance denied, "it was intentional", 2 years later at trial, the judge determined it was covered just like having a bad dog and bringing it to a party, the father was negligent for bringing and not supervising the 17 year old.

Firearm negligence is generally covered under homeowners, but you need to read the specific policy.(some thigs are excluded, like jet skis and other stuff) Example, fellow in Jacksonville hotel cleared his Glock 23, ND, sailed thru 5 sheets of drywall, thru my sleeping client's left arm and fell on the bed 2 inches from his heart. Negligence case, carrier paid and my guy's a little more likely to drive home all night these days rather than get a hotel. The thing that amazed me was it was a Corbon 135 grain that never expanded and looked like it could have been reloaded.

These types coverage laws have failed many times and probably will fail again, there just isn't a product out there that offers complete firearms coverage they are espousing.

Scenario: You try to shoot a 7-11 robber, miss and hit the clerk. It would likely be a giant debate, reservation of rights and your insurance carrier would fight. They deny you alleging it was "intentional" You simply were a bad shot and intended no harm to the clerk. You were trying to shoot the guy in the hoodie. Your position was that you just screwed up. (training, training, training) You'd hear that at trial, "he took a one day concealed carry course, fired one round and never took any profession training on the evil gun he carried everywhere!!"

Buy as much coverage as you need to protect what you have and then a little more. If your estate is a million bucks, you need high limits. This is where you need to get a lawyer shooting buddy and discuss umbrella coverage and such. I get people all the time and am glad to help, even at the range. 50% want to see the Colt New Agent with the trench sight/laser or the Glock 27 with the sig lone wolf ported .357 barrel and laser, the other 50% want to ask legal stuff.

What makes people suing you drool? Big assets and big coverage. What makes insurance companies sweat? Their "exposure", a guy with a million policy presents a bigger financial risk to the money changers at the insurance carrier that the one with 50K. Those claims are handled differently.

Lawyers, ethical ones, have a duty to paint the whole picture for their client, get an asset investigation done and fully apprise the client of the reasonable options. " The guy that shot your wife accidently and paralyzed her has 100K insurance, owns a condo free and clear at the coast, a 52 Hatteras free and clear and several high end cars. The wife's medical bills exceed 400K and the friendly local hospital already filed a lien on your house when the insurance ran out, guess what happens next?

Sometimes cases have to get filed because of uncontrollable circumstances like bankruptcy for medical bills versus suing your friend, tough world out there.

I don't like the constitutional implications here either, but another time.

Last edited by Shark1007; 03-28-2013 at 08:10..
Shark1007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2013, 08:21   #10
DanaT
Pharaoh
 
DanaT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: CO & Baden –Württemberg
Posts: 15,829
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shark1007 View Post
What makes people suing you drool? Big assets and big coverage. What makes insurance companies sweat? Their "exposure", a guy with a million policy presents a bigger financial risk to the money changers at the insurance carrier that the one with 50K. Those claims are handled differently.
First, I enjoyed your post. It was written both with some education and humor. Good post.

Now, to the paragraph I quoted.

I have assets that I want to keep. So lets say that I didnt have an umbrella policy. I think anyone suing would see $$ in their eyes if they figured out assets. Therefore I bought a very big umbrella policy (much more then the $1M you are talking about). My general idea was that I needed about 3X the coverage as assets. I dont know if this is "reasonable"

Am I more likely to be sued because of a large policy or would having significant assets alone and no policy be even more dangerous.

How do you suggest balancing wanting to protect assets with insurance while minimizing the possibility of being seen a cash cow by someone suing?
__________________
Quote:
Twice a week? 14 times a month?
Quote:
2x4=8, not 14.
Many of the truths that we cling to depend on our point of view.
DanaT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2013, 20:26   #11
Shark1007
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: orlando
Posts: 392
Recent examples, horrible injury. First step, obtain coverage quote from carrier. Is the injury worse that the coverage pays? Then you owe client an asset investigation. That's where I would suck personally, lots of big boats, many cars, three houses, more that one gun(nyuk nyuk)

You owe a report to the client of the status, I would usually bring them in, give them a copy of an asset report, the coverage information and explain options. Many are unsophisticated and need spoon feeding. I have to tell them that there are assets that may be unprotected (hint, see asset protection lawyer) and obtainable in a suit. At the same time, I tell them about bankruptcy and how things could be discharged. Then we give them a few days to conjure and we re meet and discuss and I would make recommendations as to how to proceed.

Ethical lawyers have and recognize a duty to explain every angle and obtain all compensation for medicals, earnings and things related to the injury. It's almost a military like duty to me, or has been. I'm medically retiring, kidney cancer surgery. low back fusion, cervical fusion with bolts, plates, x rays look like the valve train of a small block chevy.

The law is a business and pinhead new guys might take spurious cases, hoping for quick money, but it doesn't happen often. If the court rules it's a frivolous suit in Fla, the lawyer AND the client have to pay the other side's fees. Competent lawyers shy away, that's why you want a board certified experienced person, not a catchy tv advertiser.

In your case, a multiple of asset value is a good start on coverage. Umbrella coverage is cheap.(and smart)

I'd see an asset protection lawyer, there's some strange banking deal in Delaware that protects assets and makes them unreachable, I've heard. I think the best bet is adequate coverage, otherwise, if you catastrophically injure someone, it's not hard to be a million dollar case. I'm not talking the bs stories of the guy trimming hedges with a mower (fabrication) or others promulgated and spread by folks responsible for paying, I'm talking real life. Like my dear friend for decades, a quadriplegic from a rollover who had only tricep movement and rocked his arms up and down till his hands hit and he could hold them together backwards and prayed to God to help him make the right decision to settle or go to trial with the risks I explained. Saddest thing I've ever seen. He took the money and runs one of the biggest home health care agencies around and he's the spokesman, "If I don't understand care needs, no one does!"

In short, maybe you understand the lawyer analysis pre claim a little better. High coverage will get you a strong aggressive defense who probably doesn't give a hoot about you but doesn't want the carrier pissed that they lost big money. Bigger cases, smaller policies, I usually tell them they don't need a lawyer taking a third and help them write a demand letter themselves and keep all the money. There are things more important than money, Glock 21's with the Guncrafter 50 cal slide for instance.

In a big case, personal counsel for yourself is worthwhile to run whip on the insurance to do the right thing for you, not them, that's their duty.

Feel free to pm if I can help or call. Free to gun guys!
Shark1007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 15:53.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,204
371 Members
833 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42