|
|
It is currently Thu May 09, 2024 5:56 pm
|
View unanswered posts | View active topics
This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.
All times are UTC - 6 hours
|
Page 1 of 1
|
[ 5 posts ] |
|
Insurance companies DO NOT require gun bans.
Author |
Message |
kimberman
|
Post subject: Insurance companies DO NOT require gun bans. Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 10:03 am |
|
Wise Elder |
|
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:48 pm Posts: 2782 Location: St. Paul
|
From THR
Quote: Professionally, I am a Commercial Property and Casualty Insurance Underwriter with 2+ years experience. An underwriter is the designee of an insurance company (usually an employee) that selects and prices risks (customers) and can place requirements on those risks. For the last five years I have been working as an analyst in the insurance software development field, but I still need to keep up to date on industry trends as part of my job.
I am aware of no insurer that has an exclusion or requirement regarding CCW. Further, ISO (the Insurance Services Office) which develops coverage forms and endorsements that are used by the majority of the industry does not have a firearm exclusion form. (I just double-checked that in case something new came in recently - searching all General Liability forms for the term "firearm" resulted in zero on-point hits.)
This whole "our insurance forbids it" is BS, IMO. Some small specific insurers may have a custom form filed, but I doubt it - forms generally must be approved by the various state insurance departments, and in my professional opinion that would be a non-starter. States would laugh them out of the room.
* * *
Addendum:
Workers Comp is my weakest line, there may be an exclusion available - but I *highly* doubt it.
I also didn't consider the function of Loss Control. Companies may be watching for gun issues when they inspect risks and rating, canceling or non-renewing for what they perceive as increased hazards, but I haven't heard of this happening.
Another variable I didn't consider is the "ick" factor. Underwriters are individuals, and their personal biases bubble to the surface when they consider whether a risk is acceptable for coverage or not. If a specific underwriter doesn't like guns, that may affect the requirements being placed on a business applying for coverage. (Personally, I hate commercial roofers - I've taken it in the shorts a few times by exceptionally stupid acts by them.)
Post #10 at http://www.thehighroad.us/showthread.php?t=374599
|
|
|
|
|
westhope
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 10:22 am |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2005 10:11 am Posts: 572 Location: West of Hope, MN (S. Central MN)
|
This is specifically what I was told by the Owatonna Federal Credit Union when they put up a "bans" sign in 2003. The manager stated the sign was required by their insurance company. (And also they did not want any Jesse James, Northfield Bank, shootouts. I did remind them that a teller was shot after doing exactly what the robbers demanded at the infamous Northfield Bank robbery. Also there was no "shoot out" until the robbers left the banks. They were not interested.)
I moved my 20+ year account with them (over $350k) to Well's Fargo.
The sign is still up today.
I asked about Well's Fargo's policy before moving the account. They do not ban guns.
|
|
|
|
|
DeanC
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 10:52 am |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 9:54 am Posts: 5270 Location: Minneapolis
|
Well, you don't have to be an actuary to figure out the permit holders are not criminals.
_________________ I am defending myself... in favor of that!
|
|
|
|
|
EJSG19
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 12:23 pm |
|
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 12:44 pm Posts: 599
|
westhope wrote: This is specifically what I was told by the Owatonna Federal Credit Union when they put up a "bans" sign in 2003. The manager stated the sign was required by their insurance company. (And also they did not want any Jesse James, Northfield Bank, shootouts. I did remind them that a teller was shot after doing exactly what the robbers demanded at the infamous Northfield Bank robbery. Also there was no "shoot out" until the robbers left the banks. They were not interested.)
I moved my 20+ year account with them (over $350k) to Well's Fargo.
The sign is still up today.
I asked about Well's Fargo's policy before moving the account. They do not ban guns.
Maybe not for customers, but they do for their employees.
_________________ EJSG19
|
|
|
|
|
MostlyHarmless
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Nov 29, 2008 12:58 pm |
|
Senior Member |
|
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 3:24 pm Posts: 471 Location: 12 miles east of Lake Wobegon
|
westhope wrote: This is specifically what I was told by the Owatonna Federal Credit Union when they put up a "bans" sign in 2003. The manager stated the sign was required by their insurance company. (And also they did not want any Jesse James, Northfield Bank, shootouts. I did remind them that a teller was shot after doing exactly what the robbers demanded at the infamous Northfield Bank robbery. Also there was no "shoot out" until the robbers left the banks. They were not interested.)
Minor point of fact...
Joesph Lee Heywood, the head teller at the 1st National Bank of Northfield, was on duty on September 7, 1876. He did not comply with the robbers' demands to open the safe, falsely claiming that the time lock on the safe had been set and that the safe therefore could not be opened.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 1
|
[ 5 posts ] |
|
This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.
All times are UTC - 6 hours
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum
|
|
|