John Eagle Honda Signage Report

[KLB]

In 2014, there were 15,648,733 licensed drivers in Texas. There were 3,534 highway fatalities from the death dealing instruments of terror John Eagle sells without FBI background checks.

That same year, there were 825,957 CHL licenses. Tragically, inexcusably, there were 6 cases of murder and three of manslaughter among that group.

I would never trivialize loss of life by any mechanism, and we must work to promote a calm, peace-loving society.

But my calculator tells me a driver's license in the wallet is about 21 times more likely to kill than a handgun license.

Actually, about 30 times as likely.

3,534/15,848,733 = .000223

6/825,957 = .00000726

.00000726 X 30 = .000218

[AJSully421]

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.

Either way, one sentence in the Texas Insurance Code would solve this: "Other than firing ranges and gun stores, it shall be unlawful for an insurance company to use the lawful carry of firearms under section 411, or the presence or absence of 30.06/07 signs to determine rates or renewal status of any policy in this state. Violation of this section will perminately disqualify a company from offering coverage in Texas."

[dru]

3,534/15,848,733 = .000223

I'm going to reflect on the irony of that ratio being 223

Assault cars confirmed!

[ScottDLS]

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.

Either way, one sentence in the Texas Insurance Code would solve this: "Other than firing ranges and gun stores, it shall be unlawful for an insurance company to use the lawful carry of firearms under section 411, or the presence or absence of 30.06/07 signs to determine rates or renewal status of any policy in this state. Violation of this section will perminately disqualify a company from offering coverage in Texas."

Still seems like a solution in search of a problem, since no one has verified yet that it's actually in the terms of any insurance contract. There might by company representatives out there pushing signs, but we have yet to see anyone specifying the actual signs in the contract language.

[mojo84]

If we make this a big issue, the insurance companies may decide they need to take a harder look at this and start requiring signage and no gun policies. Once a couple of the majors start requiring it, the others will start to follow suit.

Sometimes it's better to let sleeping dogs lie. This is probably one of those times.

[Soccerdad1995]

To me, the underlying problem is that there is less liability risk for businesses that prohibit firearms. This leads to insurance companies concluding that they need to have higher rates for businesses that allow firearms, if they insure them at all. If we can address the liability issue then market forces should change insurance companies pricing behavior.

Hold business owners (or their insurance companies) liable for shooting injuries or deaths if the business legally prohibited customers from having the ability to defend themselves. A store that has cash or valuables has an inherent risk of robbery. Patrons of that store are placed at risk by being present in the store. If the store owner prohibits those patrons from being able to protect themselves from this forseeable danger, then the store owner should be liable for the resulting damages.

An analogy would be a store owner that has a wet tile walkway on their property (inherent danger) and then requires all patrons to tie their hands behind their backs with rope (takes away their ability to defend against that danger) as a condition of shopping there. When the patron slips and smacks their face on the tile, the store owner should be held liable for the resultant damages from their restriction.

If insurance companies start paying out multi-million dollar judgments for stores where 30.06 was posted and someone was shot, but do not have to make these payments for unposted stores (or pay a much lower amount), then the whole insurance company pressure thing goes away. The insurance company execs may be living in Kalifornia or some such country and may personally be as anti-bill of rights as they come, but they are still business people and money speaks much louder than principles for them.

[mojo84]

To me, the underlying problem is that there is less liability risk for businesses that prohibit firearms. This leads to insurance companies concluding that they need to have higher rates for businesses that allow firearms, if they insure them at all. If we can address the liability issue then market forces should change insurance companies pricing behavior.

Hold business owners (or their insurance companies) liable for shooting injuries or deaths if the business legally prohibited customers from having the ability to defend themselves. A store that has cash or valuables has an inherent risk of robbery. Patrons of that store are placed at risk by being present in the store. If the store owner prohibits those patrons from being able to protect themselves from this forseeable danger, then the store owner should be liable for the resulting damages.

An analogy would be a store owner that has a wet tile walkway on their property (inherent danger) and then requires all patrons to tie their hands behind their backs with rope (takes away their ability to defend against that danger) as a condition of shopping there. When the patron slips and smacks their face on the tile, the store owner should be held liable for the resultant damages from their restriction.

If insurance companies start paying out multi-million dollar judgments for stores where 30.06 was posted and someone was shot, but do not have to make these payments for unposted stores (or pay a much lower amount), then the whole insurance company pressure thing goes away. The insurance company execs may be living in Kalifornia or some such country and may personally be as anti-bill of rights as they come, but they are still business people and money speaks much louder than principles for them.

All this and there has been no problem documented to this point. Why all the mental excercises when there hasn't been any issue substantiated?

Do you guys want the insurance companies to make an issue of this? If so, I can assure you they will not decide in our favor.

[TXBO]

There was an article in this week's Automotive News discussing reasons for posting or not posting 30.07 and 30.06 signs. Not one dealer mentioned insurance as a reason.

[JALLEN]

This illustrates how we got into this mess.

Every time somebody sees something they don't like, they demand a law be passed. Often, one is.

Donald Trump said something at his press conference today that caught my attention, talking about selling oil, exporting it. He said he would open it up, but the producers would have to sell it. What about pricing? He said he believes in and accepts market forces. If rhe price is too high, not much will sell and vice versa.

Let Mr. Market handle it. Insurance guys see they aren't writing much insurance they do something about it. Car dealers see traffic decline on their lot, they do something.

Calvin Coolidge said it is more important to refuse to pass bad laws than to pass good ones.

[sailor2000]

I call foul... I own a business and have heard NOTHING from my several insurance companies on this.

[Adt123]

I have 24 years experience in property and casualty insurance and am still an active agent. No one within our agency has heard of any insurance company declining to accept a casualty risk simply because they don't post 30.06 or 30.07 signs. We don't write any credit unions, but write three large banks. The largest bank has no signage and the others have both signs. We have not heard of any pressure from insurance companies for signage in any manner including an increase in rates or reduction of coverage.

The link below is a fairly recent post from a credit union association that exists to advance the success of credit unions. The website states total membership is 550. The article's first sentence of the next to last paragraph is its summary "What this means for credit unions is that you can decide whether to permit or ban the possession of firearms, whether concealed or openly carried, on your property." No mention is made about pressure from insurance companies to post signage. If a CU official wanted to push their signage decision off on an insurance company, this would be good place to do it.

https://www.cornerstoneleague.coop/wher ... union.html

Don't mean to beat a dead horse as sometimes insurance companies "encourage" certain policies and procedures to lessen risks. I don't see any evidence of it from my side of the desk.