Insurance Company Refuses to Insure Schools with Gun-Toting Teachers

Guns.Com ^ | June 21, 2013 | Jennifer Cruz

[longtermmemmory]

easy,

then they can not do business in the state FOR ANY INSURANCE.

This is odd given that armed teachers would LOWER liability.

[Raycpa]

Pass law allowing school to waive coverage for armed teachers using weapons.

[ez]

The first lawsuit that blames the school for disarming otherwise armed citizens would change the dynamic here. CT was the wrong state for such a suit, however.

[centurion316]

A point worth looking into is the fact that Kathleen Sebelius was once the Insurance Commissioner for the State of Kansas. Given her role in the abortion industy whilst Governor, I would not be suprised to learn that she picked insurors of a similar leftist ilk.

[zeugma]

Currently, if a school massacre occurs and there was no armed school staff to stop it, the insurance company is not liable.

But if a school employee, permitted to be armed on school property, shoots somebody (or while trying to nail an attacker shoots a bystander), then that IS something the school can be sued for.

This is fairly easily dealt with. Modify the law so that any business that refuses to allow people to protect themselves would fall under a very strict liability, whereas anyone protecting himself or others would be covered under 'Good Samaritan' acts. Problem solved! The insurance companies would be falling all over each other to insure.

[i_robot73]

I beg to differ. Monopolies exist ONLY because of gov’t. Allow the Free Market, and reigning in tort law, and those ‘controls’ disappear.

It’s a shame that States have gotten in to the act as well (see healthcare ‘minimums’...birth control, addiction, etc. when 1/2 don’t need the former and 90% don’t need the later.

[supercat]

This is fairly easily dealt with. Modify the law so that any business that refuses to allow people to protect themselves would fall under a very strict liability, whereas anyone protecting himself or others would be covered under 'Good Samaritan' acts. Problem solved! The insurance companies would be falling all over each other to insure.

That IMHO should be the proper way to handle the question of whether businesses allow employees to carry weapons onto company property. If companies have a really good reason not to allow employees to carry firearms to protect themselves (e.g. because metallic objects could be hazardous near large magnets) then they need to be responsible for protecting their employees, from the time they leave the last place they can store their weapons to the time they return there.