SECOND AMENDMENT SISTER GETS RAW DEAL FROM INSURANCE COMPANY

emails and letters ^ | 2-02-04 | letters

[basil]

Nancy Errera, who has helped run her family's gun shop for many years, and has been insured by Safeco Insurance for several years, received this notice recently with a Non-renewal form letter.

The non-renewal was on a form letter with no names, phone numbers, etc. and the reasons were inserted.

Reasons:

"Your ownership of a gunshop, lobbying activities regarding gun control, and involvement in organizing "shoots" represent an increased liability exposure."

Nancy has this to say: Safeco is passing judgement on a subject about which they obviously know nothing. My ladies' shoots are for the purpose of teaching handgun safety - Safeco should be thanking me, not cancelling me. 500-600 women have participated at no charge to them in the last 5 years, and I've handed out three bandaids, all for non-shooting-related maladies. I'm in the process of cancelling the rest of my Safeco insurance, and writing a scathing letter about their anti-self-defense, anti-civil rights, anti-Constitution policy.

I appreciate any effort to spread the word.

Thanks!

Nancy Errea South Dakota Coordinator Second Amendment Sisters Rapid City, SD

Here is Nancy's letter to the SD Insurance Board:SD Division of Insurance

To whom it may concern:

I wish to file a complaint about the cancellation of an umbrella policy I had with Safeco Insurance. Rather than go into a detailed explanation, I ask you to please read the attached letter that I sent to the board members of Safeco; it thoroughly explains my objection to their decision. Also attached is the copy of the notice of cancellation, including the policy number.

Having been insured by Safeco for the past few years, to find that all of a sudden I?m being rejected for exercising my constitutional rights, specifically my Second Amendment rights, is a blatant rejection of the law of the land. As South Dakota must protect the rights of its citizens, I respectfully request the Division of Insurance to investigate this situation. None of the Safeco literature that was given to me to induce me to insure with Safeco, nor any of the provisions printed on the policy which I have tried to renew make any reference to firearms education and training.

In addition, there has never been a claim against me regarding my involvement with firearms training. Surely Safeco has access to statistics regarding shooting sports injuries and accidents, and knows that those accidents are practically non-existent.

Thank you for your kind attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Nancy Errea

[basil]

Ping

[ClintonBeGone]

What did the insurance policy say when you purchased it?

[basil]

Ping!

[NautiNurse]

Remember when Citibank and Bank of America pulled similar stunts? Fortunately, they saw the light, and reversed their policies.

Please keep me posted of this situation. Was great to see you at CPAC!

[basil]

None of the Safeco literature that was given to me to induce me to insure with Safeco, nor any of the provisions printed on the policy which I have tried to renew make any reference to firearms education and training.

Apparently nothing about any of this--she had this policy for years--and was shocked to all of a sudden have it not renewed with no warning--do discussion--nothing!

[Joe Brower]

[basil]

Here's Nancy's letter to the Insurance co--Note it contains an address in case anyone cares to write to them:


Here's the letter that I sent to 12 Safeco board
members, as well as on to the SD Division of
Insurance:

Safeco Insurance Company of America
PO Box 34920
Seattle, WA 98124

Dear Board Member,

I cannot tell you how disappointing it is to learn
of
the decision to cancel my umbrella policy, per the
attached letter. As a result of this biased
decision,
please be aware that I have canceled all my Safeco
policies, as I have no desire to do business with
a
company that blatantly exhibits bias toward their
policy holders. Your decision to non-renew
appears to
have been made by someone who couldn?t be bothered
to
investigate my activities.

Had they bothered, they would have learned that
what I
do is teach handgun safety to women, something for
which, instead of canceling my policy, you should
be
thanking me. In the last five years nearly 600
women
have participated in my ladies? handgun shoots,
where
they learn to handle a firearm safely and
responsibly,
free of charge.

Since most gun advocates are men, many of whom
also
carry umbrella policies, I believe Safeco has
singled
me out as a female in a traditional male
environment.
I receive considerably more attention than a man
would
in my position, precisely because I am female.
Perhaps Safeco suffers from the misconception that
women are less skilled or less competent in the
firearms arena. This is unconstitutional,
illegal,
immoral, and unethical. By canceling my policy
Safeco
is, in effect, denying hundreds of women the
empowerment of self-defense that I impart at the
ladies? shoots.

If I correctly understand your decision to cancel
my
policy, Safeco is in violation of the U.S.
Constitution and appears to be anti-freedom and
anti-self-defense. Please know that I am sharing
your
decision with a huge national network of
law-abiding
American gun owners who choose to exercise the
basic
civil right of self-defense guaranteed by the
Second
Amendment of our Constitution, as well as the
South
Dakota Division of Insurance, with whom I have
filed a
complaint.

Your decision to cancel appears to be a blatant
act of
discrimination against law-abiding gun owners and
women. Shame on you!

Sincerely,

Nancy Errea

CC: South Dakota Division of Insurance

[ClintonBeGone]

She should contact the NRA and see if they offer any specific coverages for her activities. That personal umbrella policy would only cover her in cases of accidents. More than likely any use of a firearm in self defense would not be an accident. She might get her husband to purchase the policy if she wants to still have her family covered for non firearm related things.

[freekitty]

I believe she can sue on this. It's not just Safeco; it's the people behind getting the second amendment people.

[ClintonBeGone]

Keep in mind, the more publicity you/she attracts, the less likely she is to get insurance from another insurer.

[ClintonBeGone]

I believe she can sue on this.

How can she sue? What can she sue for? What are her damages?

[farmfriend]

Sister ping.

[longtermmemmory]

so the an insurance company can refuse to cover people for being too republican, too democrat? How about refusing to cover people who speak out against insurance agencies?

[Henrietta]

"Keep in mind, the more publicity you/she attracts, the less likely she is to get insurance from another insurer."

Yes, let's just cower in the corner and hope no one notices us. THEN they'll leave us alone! /sarcasm

[ClintonBeGone]

Yes, let's just cower in the corner and hope no one notices us. THEN they'll leave us alone! /sarcasm

Nice attitude. Unless you own an insurance company or have a rich uncle, you/she better do just that if you ever want insurance again.

[MissAmericanPie]

That is outrageous, and begs for a discrimination law suit. These attacks on conservatives must be slapped down every time they happen.

She needs to take a bite out of them.

[Grut]

I wish her luck, but all too often when there's a state regulatory agency, it turns out to be the 'regulated' industry's vehicle for controlling the state.

[Hodar]

Although I do understand your point, I think you are missing the insurance company's point. I sincerely doubt the insurance company cares about anything other than maximizing profits and minimizing risks.

If someone gets shot at one of these 'Free' shooting classes, who is liable? Unless this course is specifically spelled out in the insurance policy, the insurance company will be held liable for an activity outside of the covered practices. Unless I am mistaken, the insurance policy would only cover gun retail and normal associated practices of a gun store. I may be wrong, but I would expect that shooting lessons would be an entirely different coverage plan.

For example, if I sell cars and have insurance for my car company; that is one thing. If I now offer free driving lessons, I am assuming liability for an activity not directly related to my car sales coverage.

[Mamzelle]

The insurance declined to cover her; this is going to happen to us all eventually. At least the company didn't sell her insurance under false pretenses (that is, sell her coverage and then try to avoid paying a claim)--