John Eagle Honda Signage Report

[mojo84]

Doesn't the head Blooming idiot billionaire, own one or more insurance companies?

I think you are thinking of Warren Buffet. The rank and file within insurance carriers do not have as much leeway as you seem to think. At one time maybe, but no longer. Insurance carriers have published underwriting guidelines for their underwriters and agents to follow.

The insurance industry constantly changing. However, I have not seen them dip their toes in this issue with regard to handgun policies for their insureds.

One thing I left out earlier, insurance carriers do inquire about and address gun policies when it comes to gun dealers. This is in addition to businesses that provide security for their own or others benefit.

[Charles L. Cotton]

We had a topic going on back in February very similar to this one. About the reason for posting a 30.06/30.07 signs because of insurance company requirements. IMO that is a manufactured excuse to put the signs up. For clarification and reasons why that's just an excuse, see:

viewtopic.php?f=129&t=82800&hilit=insurance

To make a long story short......BULL!

It is not always a manufactured excuse. My mother is president of a credit union. Their insurance rates were going to go up if they didn't put up signs. She knew she had people carrying in the credit union all the time, and she didn't care. Neither did the board. She knows if she just wanted to stop open carry she only needed a 30.07 sign, so it isn't ignorance. It is purely a financial decision. I don't know about every place, but I do know about one. She was going to get her chl until she found out she could carry in her car without it, and that was all she wanted to do. My stepdad carried everywhere he went, and I carry everywhere I go. So she isn't opposed to carrying.

I need conclusive proof that this is happening. Please ask your mother if she will talk to me about this issue. Also, having the name of the insurance company and any correspondence, emails, etc. where she was told they credit union would be "rated" if no signs were posted will be quite valuable.

This is something we can address, but as yet we have not a shred of evidence it's happening. I'm not saying your Mom is not telling the truth; I'm saying we don't have any proof.

Chas.

[Jago668]

We had a topic going on back in February very similar to this one. About the reason for posting a 30.06/30.07 signs because of insurance company requirements. IMO that is a manufactured excuse to put the signs up. For clarification and reasons why that's just an excuse, see:

viewtopic.php?f=129&t=82800&hilit=insurance

To make a long story short......BULL!

It is not always a manufactured excuse. My mother is president of a credit union. Their insurance rates were going to go up if they didn't put up signs. She knew she had people carrying in the credit union all the time, and she didn't care. Neither did the board. She knows if she just wanted to stop open carry she only needed a 30.07 sign, so it isn't ignorance. It is purely a financial decision. I don't know about every place, but I do know about one. She was going to get her chl until she found out she could carry in her car without it, and that was all she wanted to do. My stepdad carried everywhere he went, and I carry everywhere I go. So she isn't opposed to carrying.

I need conclusive proof that this is happening. Please ask your mother if she will talk to me about this issue. Also, having the name of the insurance company and any correspondence, emails, etc. where she was told they credit union would be "rated" if no signs were posted will be quite valuable.

This is something we can address, but as yet we have not a shred of evidence it's happening. I'm not saying your Mom is not telling the truth; I'm saying we don't have any proof.

Chas.

Sure I will talk with her, I am supposed to see her in a week or two. If it was anything other than on the phone I'll see if I can get her to bring it then. If it was just on the phone all I would be able to get would be the name of the company.

[Caliber]

I own a small business that serves retail customers. I carry general liability insurance and the insurance company has never mentioned issues related to 30.06/30.07.

[TXBO]

I decided not to have service performed on my vehicle at John Eagle Honda after noticing a 30.06 & 30.07 sign at the service center. I sent a letter similar to the one authored by "miljet" in his post titled "One Sign at a Time" dated March 1, 2016. The following day I received a reply from the dealership (see below). Has anyone else heard a similar reasoning for posting both signs at a business?

"Thanks for your email and I totally agree with you as I too have my CHL.

Unfortunately, since the open carry law was passed, our insurance companies have forced us to put both signs up or pay a big premium on our already astronomical insurance bill. They don’t want the extra liability and have forced this upon us.

I continue to argue our point and hope to one day be removing the concealed handgun sign. Please consider this when you see both signs hanging in front of stores. It is not necessarily the opinion of the owner, but are being forced due to small businesses not being able to afford higher insurance rates.

Thanks for your time and stay tuned!"

If you will pm me the name of the person that sent you that response, I will tell you if you have the decision maker or not.

[mojo84]

Have there been any further developments with regard to this topic and insurance carrier requirements in general?

I am still interested if anyone can or has backed up these claims with documentation from an insurance carrier.

[LeakyWaders]

I have not heard anything. I'll post if and when I do.

[mojo84]

I have not heard anything. I'll post if and when I do.

Counting on it.

Others have reported people using the same excuse and I would like to hear from them as well if they can provide an update or documentation. So, it's not just you I'm asking.

[Jago668]

I have not heard anything. I'll post if and when I do.

Counting on it.

Others have reported people using the same excuse and I would like to hear from them as well if they can provide an update or documentation. So, it's not just you I'm asking.

Not a priority for my mother. When I was able to sit down and talk with her. She said that it wasn't a raise rates, they just "strongly pressured" her to put them up, along with some other credit union organization. It was via emails, and I'm trying to get her to go back and see if she can find them. So wasn't a put them up or raise rates as she told me at first, but they are putting pressure on people to do it. If I can get her to go back and find the emails I was going to give them to Mr Cotton.

[mojo84]

What I'm seeing is trade associations are pushing for their members to put up signage but not insurance companies. There is an inordinate number of medical offices and facilities that are putting up signage. The various medical associations are definitely pushing for signs.

[Mel]

I have not heard anything. I'll post if and when I do.

Counting on it.

Others have reported people using the same excuse and I would like to hear from them as well if they can provide an update or documentation. So, it's not just you I'm asking.

Not a priority for my mother. When I was able to sit down and talk with her. She said that it wasn't a raise rates, they just "strongly pressured" her to put them up, along with some other credit union organization. It was via emails, and I'm trying to get her to go back and see if she can find them. So wasn't a put them up or raise rates as she told me at first, but they are putting pressure on people to do it. If I can get her to go back and find the emails I was going to give them to Mr Cotton.

So if they aren't threatening to raise rates, how else are they "pressuring"? Threatening to cancel? Seems to me that one must produce some kind of threat to "pressure".

[Jago668]

I have not heard anything. I'll post if and when I do.

Counting on it.

Others have reported people using the same excuse and I would like to hear from them as well if they can provide an update or documentation. So, it's not just you I'm asking.

Not a priority for my mother. When I was able to sit down and talk with her. She said that it wasn't a raise rates, they just "strongly pressured" her to put them up, along with some other credit union organization. It was via emails, and I'm trying to get her to go back and see if she can find them. So wasn't a put them up or raise rates as she told me at first, but they are putting pressure on people to do it. If I can get her to go back and find the emails I was going to give them to Mr Cotton.

So if they aren't threatening to raise rates, how else are they "pressuring"? Threatening to cancel? Seems to me that one must produce some kind of threat to "pressure".

On that I don't know. If I could get her to go back and dig up the emails so i could see what they said I would know.

[allisji]

So if they aren't threatening to raise rates, how else are they "pressuring"? Threatening to cancel? Seems to me that one must produce some kind of threat to "pressure".

Pressure does not always require a threat. Some pressures are perceived, and sometimes it's because of power of position and who has the leverage. If an insurance company asks you to install signs, you may perceive that they are pressuring you because they have the authority to raise your rates or cancel your coverage. If it's not a priority for the business owner then it's much easier to comply rather than fight. We know that about 3% of the population is LTC, but of that 3% maybe half of them care about gun rights as much as most of the people on this board. Most business owners simply don't have enough passion behind gun rights to want to fight with the insurance company or even just go find a new insurance company.

It sure is great for us to have someone like Charles who is working and advocating on all of our behalf because it's the right thing to do and because there is a lot of misinformation out there. Most of it was likely started intentionally by people with a political agenda, and much has likely been spread by people who just simply don't know better.

[mojo84]

If an insurance company asks you to install signs, you may perceive that they are pressuring you because they have the authority to raise your rates or cancel your coverage. If it's not a priority for the business owner then it's much easier to comply rather than fight. We know that about 3% of the population is LTC, but of that 3% maybe half of them care about gun rights as much as most of the people on this board. Most business owners simply don't have enough passion behind gun rights to want to fight with the insurance company or even just go find a new insurance company.

Just pointing out this is based on "if" an insurance company asks insureds to install signs. So far, no one on here can validate or support the claim that is actually happening. I think there is a lot of blaming, scapegoating and passing the buck going on with this issue.

[C-dub]

I suppose it could also be that instead of raising the rates it could also have been that they hinted they would not renew their policy at all.