The way I understand this, the insurers do a cold, hard calculation. Besically, in many states, if you have a sign that “weapons are not permitted”, you are implicitly promising protection to unarmed people inside. If you are unarmed, and get shot in the building, you can sue the lessor/owner of the building for “wrongful death” or injury and win. Insurance companies know what states this works in, how much a life or injury is worth there, and adjust their rates accordingly. Mass shootings are expensive in these cases, but that is what reinsurance is for.
“The way I understand this, the insurers do a cold, hard calculation. “
That would be nice if true, but I doubt that it is the case. In Kansas, EMC had pretty much a lock on the business.
Three community colleges have already found a new insurer. The report I read said that they will be saving $200,000 dollars a year in rate *decreases*. That means that EMC had a gravy market without much competition, and they are throwing it away.
Because of a competitive bid, EMC made a counteroffer, which included a reduced rate and a one-year exemption from their “no guns” policy, said David Wallis, an incoming ICC trustee.”