1. (New section) a. No person shall possess a firearm unless the person has first obtained a policy of firearm liability insurance in an amount of not less than $50,000, specifically covering any damages resulting from any negligent or willful acts involving the use of that firearm while it is owned by that person.
Willful? Presumably including murder or robbery? Are there any insurers that will write that coverage? It turns out that insurance companies exclude damages that are the result of criminal acts. Even something as trivial as this crime enabled Progressive to get off the hook for liability:
When Luallen saw the van coming up beside Tillett's truck, he noticed a couple of girls. (Luallen Dep. at 18). Tillett's truck was in motion and traveling in the left-hand lane, and the van was in the right-hand lane. (Id. at 17). Luallen then decided to stand up in the backseat of the truck and "moon" the girls. (Id.)
When the cars reached the Third Street exit, and while both were moving, the girls saw Luallen "mooning" them through the back window of Tillett's truck. (K.S. Dep. at 17-21). The van then immediately veered off the exit ramp and flipped. (Id. 832*832 at 20-22). K.S. was thrown out an open window and was pinned underneath the vehicle. (Id. at 23-24).Pretty clearly, gangbangers aren't going to be buying coverage, and even if they do, their insurer will not cover costs except for perhaps an accidental injury. Insurers do cover losses caused as a result of theft of a gun from the owner, but again, it is hard to see why the insurer of a victim of a theft should be liable.
Insurance that directly paid victims would be better than liability insurance. And keeping insurers on the hook if a gangbanger got the gun with out getting new insurance would take care of that problem.
ReplyDeleteHow? Why should the insurer of a victim of a gun theft be held responsible?
ReplyDelete