Posted on 06/22/2013 6:20:55 AM PDT by EXCH54FE
EMC Insurance Companies, the largest insurer of schools in the state of Kansas, recently announced that it would not be willing to provide policies to schools which allow their teachers or other staff, to carry concealed firearms on school property. The only exception would be for police officers.
The Topeka Capital-Journal broke the story after the company sent out a letter last month to school districts in the state declaring that their decision is “simply to protect the financial security of our company.”
EMC’s resident vice president, Bernie Zalaznik said, “We understand that school districts have every right to decide which way they want to go, but we have to make the decision based on what we perceive to be our best financial interest.”
Apparently the company perceives those who complete the process of obtaining a concealed carry permit, which includes a firearms safety class and complete background check, not qualified and too much of a financial risk.
The company’s announcement comes just weeks before a new state law is set to go into effect, which will allow teachers and other faculty to possess firearms on school property.
(Excerpt) Read more at guns.com ...
Why and how did this brew up into an issue; surely this did not spring up fully formed overnight.
It is not the actual risk that counts. It is what argument will be used by some scumbag lawyer for whomever gets shot while trying to commit a crime on school property.
With a “law enforcement officer” the shooter, a lawyer would have a harder time convincing a jury that his client was shot by a “crazed racist Tea Party survivalist right wing whacko”, and thus deserving of a multimillion dollar settlement. Of which said lawyer gets his 25-35%.
If EMC Insurance Companies get away with such a restriction, which gives aid and comfort to the enemy, then the next step for hate-America insurance companies, like EMC, is to refuse to insure homes in which the homeowners exercise their second amendment rights.
One wonders if there is leftist political pressure being applied to insurance companies in Kansas or elsewhere.
I know this is a different state but,in Ohio at least, you have to have security at any event that serves liquor, usually an off duty cop, however lefties balk at armed security for a school? Typical liberal thinking!
Actually, it can and does. What it means is that the gun-grabbers have identified a new means to attack gun ownership. After all, they can't think up ALL the possible attack mechanisms "in one go".
Some sort of ceiling on coverage for hypothetical shooting-by-teacher incidents would sound more sensible if the actuaries really are nibbling their fingernails off.
hey I hate insurance law and don’t do those case.
I am probably the least flush lawyer I know. Never did figure out how to “get on the gravy train” spend most of my time trying to help people
so
whatever bud
It actually shows that insurance underwriters are by their nature a conservative bunch and don't like to assume risks. It also shows why it pays to shop around for insurance -- car insurance, life insurance, health insurance -- and school liability insurance. I'm unaware of any insurance company that found itself in trouble because of liberal underwriting policies. It's usually investing assets in areas where they are clueless that is the financial risk and gets insurance companies into trouble.
bingo! we have a winner!
“If this is the non-issue that it should be, then somewhere there has got to be a firm that not only would do this but would offer a discount for it.”
And if they come in from out of state, wouldn’t that be a supreme court issue on the 10th?
It’s about risk mitigation. Will adding guns to a school mitigate risk? Now take the people who decide this risk, and see who they donated money to the last election.
You will have your answer.
risk is higher when the teachers don’t have guns
The one common denominator in almost all mass shootings is that they happen in “gun free zones”. Oddly, these signs never stop crazy or evil people. Go figure.
“Currently, if a school massacre occurs and there was no armed school staff to stop it, the insurance company is not liable.”
Wanna bet? When a massacre happens, and the lawsuits hit, the insurance company is writing some very big checks. This is not even a question currently.
Nearby, Washington, Illinois has done just that, getting around Illinois' lack of concealed carry at the same time. The school board asked for teacher and administrator volunteers to go through police training and with the cooperation of the local police force, they have had no lack of volunteers.
When they are finished with the training they become police officers/teachers. All of Illinois is not dumb ass liberal Chicago.
The names, pictures and political affiliations of the majority stockholders, directors, officers and managers of the companies in question should be immediately published. Interesting patterns will develop if this policy is implemented.
Wouldn't it be easiest of all to simply remain silent on the issue of gun possession by school employees and just cite the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution if anyone asks why there is no policy against it?
That made clear sense to me, Alberta's Child, for about ten seconds, which is to say: the absence of policy is anathema to government. The very idea of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" horrifies government individuals.
My hunch is the insurance company or companies are engaging in round-about anti-Second Amendment bigotry, and ought to be rewarded for their attitude with lost contracts. Leftist extremists rarely understand American principles; they do, however, understand dollars.
There’s already too much gov’t in our ‘Free Market’ to be compounding the problem with vendettas like this.
Get gov’t out of insurance
Get gov’t out of education
Get gov’t out of 2nd Amendment
Get gov’t OUT OUT OUT...
People with kids, whom should be the ones paying (or teaching) for their education, can self-carry, hire or enroll in places that will ‘do it all’.
Turn on loser pays and tort reform and you’d see this to be a non-issue. I can at least understand why the insurance company would be balking.
You need to think that through a little deeper. It’s a terrible idea.
Too much of American(and internationl life) is effectively controlled by the policies of insurance companies.This was caused by greedy lawyers and greedy clients.
One of the factors is what I call specialty insurance coverages. It’s difficult to find companies to write certain coverages. For example there are exactly two insurers that will underwrite for fire departments in West Virginia. If there are only three companies that will insure schools in Kansas, that makes it difficult to apply armstrong tactics like taking your business elsewhere.
Insurance companies are notoriously risk adverse. If the risk can’t be quanitified at an acceptible level by their actuaries, they won’t include the risk under the coverages.
I’m not excusing them. It’s just that there aren’t many options other than deputizing the teachers. That raises the bar significantly for defending a school.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.