civil liability?

[Charles L. Cotton]

Thank you Chas.

That is what i was thinking myself. Why is it then that most Ins Co have a no gun clause? Whould it be that it may still cost them in court cost if someone was to try and sue? Can someone even try to sue even though the law states you have civil immunity? I know many try for no other reason than to settle out of court.

I don't know of any insurance company that refuses to issue Commercial General Liability (CGL) policies, Worker's Comp policies, fleet policies, or professional liability policies to companies that do not have "no gun" policies. I'm not saying they don't exist, but I've never actually seen such a requirement in writing or in the actual insurance policy. The only exception I am aware of is event insurance written to cover gun shows.

Chas.

[RPB]

If a person or entity is not liable in damages to the plaintiff/claimant, then the insurance company does not have to pay. Insurance is nothing but a contract by which the insurance company agrees to pay any amount (within policy limits) that the insured person is legally obligated to pay. If the insured doesn't have to pay, neither does the insurance company.

Chas.

civil liability and insurance ...
Brings back a flashback memory (nightmare) of an incident I worked on for a Plaintiff's firm years ago of a pretty well "judgment proofed" Defendant (among other things, [See Tex. Const. Art. XVI, Sec. 50] and Section 41.002 of the Texas Property Code and See Tex. Prop. Code, Sec. 52.0012 and see 42 USC 407(a))
who then filed bankruptcy too, listing a Plaintiff as a creditor, so the insurer and Defendant neither had to pay damages to the Plaintiff on an injury case. The defendant was no longer "legally obligated to pay" after discharge in bankruptcy, so the insurer was not obligated under the insurance contract to pay either.

For years after that, the former Plaintiff would call the office stating "but they just bought a new truck and they own this and that and they have all these assets" (which of course didn't matter because those particular assets were exempt anyway AND the debt was already discharged in bankruptcy)

In my layman's opinion ... It's probably easier to collect money from a "deadbeat dad" who works "under the table for his brother for 15 years" than to collect from someone who doesn't really want to pay for civil liability.

[C-dub]

I have always wondered about the truth of someone that claims they have to ban guns because of the insurance company. I have always thought it was an excuse by a liberal minded business owner to place the blame on someone else for banning the employees from having guns on the premises or in some cases even the parking lot.

[b322da]

I have always wondered about the truth of someone that claims they have to ban guns because of the insurance company. I have always thought it was an excuse by a liberal minded business owner to place the blame on someone else for banning the employees from having guns on the premises or in some cases even the parking lot.

For what it might be worth, I agree entirely, C-dub, except for two of your words: "liberal minded." An employer need not necessarily be "liberal minded" in order to wrongly and dishonestly pass the buck, rather than have the courage to honestly justify his own possibly mistaken policy to his employees. I am not accusing any particular employer or person of this, but it would not surprise me if we were to see this happen.

Elmo

[RPB]

Years ago, my ex-girlfriend wasn't allowed to use the "employee only" bathroom at Wieners store in Pasadena for "insurance purposes"
I'd ask to read the policy.
Being a family oriented forum, I won't say what she did, nor cite the Penal Code for what she'd have been charged with if caught. I'm sure the sidewalk has been washed by now though.

[C-dub]

I have always wondered about the truth of someone that claims they have to ban guns because of the insurance company. I have always thought it was an excuse by a liberal minded business owner to place the blame on someone else for banning the employees from having guns on the premises or in some cases even the parking lot.

For what it might be worth, I agree entirely, C-dub, except for two of your words: "liberal minded." An employer need not necessarily be "liberal minded" in order to wrongly and dishonestly pass the buck, rather than have the courage to honestly justify his own possibly mistaken policy to his employees. I am not accusing any particular employer or person of this, but it would not surprise me if we were to see this happen.

Elmo

I was thinking that the likelihood of a conservative minded individual would be less inclined to put such a ban in place because I think they are more likely to understand that a sign or policy will not stop someone from bringing a gun inside to kill someone. I would also not even begin to presume that only a liberal minded person would pass the buck rightly or wrongly.

[chartreuse]

I have always wondered about the truth of someone that claims they have to ban guns because of the insurance company. I have always thought it was an excuse by a liberal minded business owner to place the blame on someone else for banning the employees from having guns on the premises or in some cases even the parking lot.

For what it might be worth, I agree entirely, C-dub, except for two of your words: "liberal minded." An employer need not necessarily be "liberal minded" in order to wrongly and dishonestly pass the buck, rather than have the courage to honestly justify his own possibly mistaken policy to his employees. I am not accusing any particular employer or person of this, but it would not surprise me if we were to see this happen.

Elmo

I was thinking that the likelihood of a conservative minded individual would be less inclined to put such a ban in place because I think they are more likely to understand that a sign or policy will not stop someone from bringing a gun inside to kill someone. I would also not even begin to presume that only a liberal minded person would pass the buck rightly or wrongly.

I think that you've just opened up what might be a fascinating topic of conversation. Personally, I've always bought the "insurance excuse", on the grounds that actuaries are risk averse and, while I'm good at all kinds of mechanical and ballistic math, I've never learned more than the basics about statistics, so should defer to the experts.

But what if you're correct? I recently read a couple of papers demonstrating that actuaries do not increase health insurance premiums for exposure to second hand smoke. What if, the "risk averse" actuaries are actually better at their job than I've ever given them credit for?

Can you imagine a TV commercial, where a man in a suit says "I'm the guy who puts a price on every risk you take. And I say buy a gun."?