Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Insurance Company Refuses to Insure Schools with Gun-Toting Teachers
Guns.Com ^ | June 21, 2013 | Jennifer Cruz

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 ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 2ndamendment; banglist; guncontrol; gunlaws; politics; secondamendment
While there are two other carriers in the state, Wright Specialty Insurance and Continental Western Group, provide insurance to school districts, both of these companies have also expressed that they are not interested in covering such liabilities either.
1 posted on 06/22/2013 6:20:55 AM PDT by EXCH54FE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: EXCH54FE

Two can play this game: Maybe their license to do business in Kansas needs a review.


2 posted on 06/22/2013 6:24:04 AM PDT by Truth29
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EXCH54FE
OK...so the state's Insurance Commissioner de-certifies the company rendering it incapable of writing any policies in the state.Two can play at *that* game.
3 posted on 06/22/2013 6:24:45 AM PDT by Gay State Conservative (The Civil Servants Are No Longer Servants...Or Civil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EXCH54FE

well, they got it bass ackwards, the risk is higher when the teachers don’t have guns


4 posted on 06/22/2013 6:25:32 AM PDT by yldstrk (My heroes have always been cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EXCH54FE

I wonder how these insurers are going to handle the liability claims for schools who refuse to protect their students - I would think that the potential for fiduciary loss would be much greater.


5 posted on 06/22/2013 6:25:45 AM PDT by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Truth29
Two can play this game: Maybe their license to do business in Kansas needs a review.

Beat me by 40 seconds! Great minds think alike. ;-)

6 posted on 06/22/2013 6:25:59 AM PDT by Gay State Conservative (The Civil Servants Are No Longer Servants...Or Civil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: EXCH54FE

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.


7 posted on 06/22/2013 6:26:49 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Whatever promise that God has made, in Jesus it is yes. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EXCH54FE
The only exception would be for police officers.

This is the loophole. Very easy to drive a semi through it: just deputize any teacher authorized to carry on school premises.
8 posted on 06/22/2013 6:27:57 AM PDT by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: centurion316

Well, Roman soldier buddy, it would be. A nut bent on shooting up a whole classroom is not the only risk the school might face which could be mitigated by properly equipped teachers. The problem in America is not guns. It is people with evil hearts, which ultimately is a Satan problem.


9 posted on 06/22/2013 6:29:32 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Whatever promise that God has made, in Jesus it is yes. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: tanknetter

If sheriffs are not so snobbish and departments are not so unionized as to prevent this.


10 posted on 06/22/2013 6:30:28 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Whatever promise that God has made, in Jesus it is yes. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: EXCH54FE

What part of “concealed” is so hard to understand?


11 posted on 06/22/2013 6:31:00 AM PDT by G Larry (Let his days be few; and let another take his office. Psalms 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk
well, they got it bass ackwards, the risk is higher when the teachers don’t have guns

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.

If the state rules that the insurance company MUST cover such risks, then rates will either go up by a huge amount, or the insurance companies will exit the business of insuring schools.

12 posted on 06/22/2013 6:31:05 AM PDT by PapaBear3625 (You don't notice it's a police state until the police come for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

Would be easier just to make the teachers an auxilary to the local police department.


13 posted on 06/22/2013 6:31:07 AM PDT by eastforker (Cruz for steam in 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative
Amen, thats the way the lefties play the game, and how we better start playing it too!

I wonder how much pressure the left put on these schmucks to do that? Well, de-certify them and let them pound sand.

14 posted on 06/22/2013 6:32:25 AM PDT by nomad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: eastforker
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?
15 posted on 06/22/2013 6:34:01 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("I am the master of my fate ... I am the captain of my soul.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: EXCH54FE
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.”

OK, let's take them at their word for a minute. If a situation arises where it can later be shown that their no-guns-for-teachers policy CONTRIBUTED to the carnage, are they willing to pay out more and also to get sued for wrongful death over the policy?

16 posted on 06/22/2013 6:35:24 AM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625
Currently, if a school massacre occurs and there was no armed school staff to stop it, the insurance company is not liable.

I understand your rationale here, but for insurance companies the term "not liable" is a very gray area. An insurance company would be obligated to pay for the legal defense of a municipality, a school board, or a school employee in such a case, so there would be enormous costs -- and maybe even a large out-of-court settlement -- even if the insurance company's client is technically "not liable."

17 posted on 06/22/2013 6:37:12 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("I am the master of my fate ... I am the captain of my soul.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: eastforker

Whatever would be a blessing, would be great. A permanently ready posse would be more in the spirit, I’d think. I think the bigger problem is that the actuaries are worry warts.


18 posted on 06/22/2013 6:38:09 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Whatever promise that God has made, in Jesus it is yes. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: EXCH54FE

Fine. Schools should self-insure. When someone has a legitimate claim, the school should pay it without going to court. When someone has a frivolous claim, the school should fight it for decades, until the parasite is dead of old age, while pointing out to potential jurors that rewarding the greedy claimant will merely raise taxes on their neighbors and reduce funding for the school’s real work.


19 posted on 06/22/2013 6:38:12 AM PDT by Pollster1 ("Shall not be infringed" is unambiguous.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625
"Currently, if a school massacre occurs and there was no armed school staff to stop it, the insurance company is not liable."

Then make them liable for the deaths in massacres where a "gun free zone" is involved, anyone who doesn`t have some kind of armed security needs to held liable for such an egregious oversight.

20 posted on 06/22/2013 6:38:18 AM PDT by nomad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625

Why and how did this brew up into an issue; surely this did not spring up fully formed overnight.


21 posted on 06/22/2013 6:39:22 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Whatever promise that God has made, in Jesus it is yes. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk

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%.


22 posted on 06/22/2013 6:45:40 AM PDT by BwanaNdege ("To learn who rules over you simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize"- Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: EXCH54FE

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.


23 posted on 06/22/2013 6:45:40 AM PDT by Carl Vehse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

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!


24 posted on 06/22/2013 6:46:36 AM PDT by nomad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
"Why and how did this brew up into an issue; surely this did not spring up fully formed overnight."

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".

25 posted on 06/22/2013 6:47:34 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog

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.


26 posted on 06/22/2013 6:48:55 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Whatever promise that God has made, in Jesus it is yes. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: BwanaNdege

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


27 posted on 06/22/2013 6:52:59 AM PDT by yldstrk (My heroes have always been cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: EXCH54FE
"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. "

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.

28 posted on 06/22/2013 6:53:16 AM PDT by Sooth2222 ("Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But I repeat myself." M.Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog

bingo! we have a winner!


29 posted on 06/22/2013 6:53:59 AM PDT by yldstrk (My heroes have always been cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

“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?


30 posted on 06/22/2013 6:54:59 AM PDT by EQAndyBuzz (The reason we own guns is to protect ourselves from those wanting to take our guns from us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog

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.


31 posted on 06/22/2013 6:59:21 AM PDT by EQAndyBuzz (The reason we own guns is to protect ourselves from those wanting to take our guns from us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk

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.


32 posted on 06/22/2013 6:59:21 AM PDT by logic101.net (How many more children must die on the alter of "gun free zones"?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625

“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.


33 posted on 06/22/2013 7:02:23 AM PDT by DesertRhino (I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: tanknetter
This is the loophole. Very easy to drive a semi through it: just deputize any teacher authorized to carry on school premises.

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.

34 posted on 06/22/2013 7:07:45 AM PDT by Graybeard58 (_.. ._. .. _. _._ __ ___ ._. . ___ ..._ ._ ._.. _ .. _. .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: EXCH54FE

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.


35 posted on 06/22/2013 7:12:40 AM PDT by AEMILIUS PAULUS (It is a shame that when these people give a riot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
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.

36 posted on 06/22/2013 7:19:35 AM PDT by Standing Wolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative; Truth29

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.


37 posted on 06/22/2013 7:27:00 AM PDT by i_robot73 (We hold that all individuals have the Right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives - LP.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: eastforker

You need to think that through a little deeper. It’s a terrible idea.


38 posted on 06/22/2013 7:37:46 AM PDT by savedbygrace (But God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: i_robot73

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.


39 posted on 06/22/2013 7:48:48 AM PDT by hoosierham (Freedom isn't free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: EXCH54FE

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.


40 posted on 06/22/2013 7:55:47 AM PDT by meatloaf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EXCH54FE

easy,

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

This is odd given that armed teachers would LOWER liability.


41 posted on 06/22/2013 8:33:54 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EXCH54FE

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


42 posted on 06/22/2013 9:26:30 AM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625

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.


43 posted on 06/22/2013 10:11:27 AM PDT by ez (Muslims do not play well with others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: meatloaf

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.


44 posted on 06/22/2013 11:35:04 AM PDT by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625
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.

45 posted on 06/22/2013 1:32:05 PM PDT by zeugma (Those of us who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: hoosierham

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.


46 posted on 06/22/2013 4:35:13 PM PDT by i_robot73 (We hold that all individuals have the Right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives - LP.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: zeugma
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.

47 posted on 06/22/2013 7:39:26 PM PDT by supercat (Renounce Covetousness.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson