Posted on 09/19/2002 11:02:56 PM PDT by ATOMIC_PUNK
Eighty million Americans own an estimated total of 200 million firearms, which is heartening news to gun owners and Second Amendment enthusiasts such as South Carolinian Gary Atkinson. So it was a surprise when State Farm Insurance, Atkinson's insurer for 34 years, canceled his homeowners policy because of a private shooting range on the sportsman's 14-plus acreage.
Two years ago, Atkinson and a few neighbors began the process of setting up a Neighborhood Watch program in their rural town of Chapin, S.C. Atkinson contacted his State Farm agent, inquiring whether there were discounts available because of the program. During the conversation, the homeowner inquired about the level of liability coverage on his swimming pool and further mentioned that he had a private shooting range on an adjoining six acres to his home — a shooting range Atkinson had used safely for years. According to Atkinson, "the office assistant gave a sort of startled reaction that I would actually shoot guns on my property."
Within 24 hours, this rural homeowner received a follow-up call from his agent, who announced that he would have seven days to find another insurance provider before his State Farm policy would be canceled. Atkinson recalls: "I was told that there was no specific exclusion in the homeowners policy to shooting on my property, but that State Farm headquarters in Bloomington, Ill., had confirmed that shooting activities are a 'factor of increased risk' and constitute cause for terminating my coverage."
Dan Hattaway, a spokesman for State Farm, says he is unable to discuss Atkinson's case but tells Insight: "The policy of State Farm is if you are shooting on your property and it isn't a business, doesn't present an increased hazard of bodily injury to your neighbors or the general public, then it's not a concern to us."
He continues, "Generally the coverage is not an issue because we don't ask. We don't ask on the application if there are guns in the home or shooting ranges. We have no underwriting guidelines on gun ownership or gun ranges. So asking the question would be useless. The thing to remember is that State Farm has no policy regarding the ownership of firearms. We insure millions of people who own firearms. … In fact, I had a policyholder call me from Texas and he was upset about an Internet article [on Atkinson's case] and he asked me point-blank, 'I have a shooting range on my property; are you going to cancel my policy?' I asked him if he was endangering the general public or if it is a business. He said no to both and I said we have no concerns; we're glad to have you as a customer." And, Hattaway insists, "State Farm is willing to work with people to make sure the shooting range is safe. It's not a blanket situation, it's a decision that is made individually."
Atkinson is outraged, takes exception to Hattaway's remarks and tells Insight "there was no effort on their part to work with me. I had secured a million dollars in liability coverage for shooting activities on my property through another company and it was faxed to my agent. I further agreed to allow State Farm a full exclusion for liability due to shooting activities on my property and, to make it simpler, I confirmed to State Farm that my shooting activities were confined to a piece of property that adjoins my home but has a separate deed and county-tax-map designation. I suggested that the piece of adjoining property be totally excluded from my homeowners policy."
Nonetheless, Atkinson's policy was canceled and, much to his surprise, he received a "refund check from State Farm the following day." He questions how "State Farm could say they were working with me when I believed we were still in talks when the check arrived."
Has State Farm simply been caught trying to introduce a new antigun program or is there a real distinction here? Given the scenario presented by Hattaway to approve the shooting-range policy in Texas, why was that shooting range approved and Atkinson's not? Hattaway did not go to Texas to see the shooting range, but merely asked two questions and approved it out of hand. If safety is in fact the determining factor, how could Hattaway know the safety of one range from that of another without seeing both? It seems clear that, before the issue created a firestorm on the Internet, Atkinson for some reason was held to another standard and not given the same two-question test.
Hattaway tells Insight that had Atkinson not mentioned the shooting range, something he says the Texas inquirer was quite open about, "we would have covered it under the basic homeowners policy." And Insight has learned that several other major insurance companies have introduced a bifurcated don't-ask, don't-tell policy such as the one claimed by Hattaway for State Farm. But all now are taking pains to craft their responses to gun inquiries carefully.
Bill Mellander, a spokesman for Allstate Insurance, tells Insight, "We don't ask if there are guns in the home. It doesn't increase the liability and I'm not aware of anyone ever being canceled."
Michael Arcaro, a spokesman for Prudential Insurance, says, "It is our policy to insure the vast majority of guns, including sporting, hunting and historical guns. We prefer not to insure assault weapons, guns that are not used for target shooting or any weapons that are restricted by state law. We chose not to insure a person who has a shooting range because of the increased liability."
Nationwide Insurance's policy is a carbon copy of Prudential's. According to Bob Sohovich, a spokesman for Nationwide, "We insure guns and collections of guns, but we would not insure shooting ranges. The liability would be too high."
P.J. Cowley, a spokesman for the Insurance Information Institute based in New York City, tells Insight that there are no industrywide insurance rules when it comes to guns. "Normally, if there is something in the house that poses unusual risk, it is something that insurers would want to know about so the policyholder has enough coverage. There is nothing that makes a home less insurable just because there is a gun in the house, but insurers have to assess risk and make a decision. Insurance is a product, not a right."
That seems fair enough, if everyone understands what is in their insurance policy about gun ownership and private shooting. The National Association of Insurance Commissioners tells Insight that there are no data on the number of complaints made by policyholders to state commissioners about cancellations due to ownership of firearms or shooting ranges. And the National Rifle Association (NRA), when asked whether it had received complaints from its members about insurance cancellation due to firearms in the home or private shooting ranges, actually responded: "We'll have to check with our attorneys." At press time the NRA still had not responded.
Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, a Springfield, Va., nonprofit organization that defends the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, tells Insight that "in Gary Atkinson's case, State Farm ended up kicking over a scorpion nest. There are a lot of members who said thanks for our report about Gary's case and said they weren't going to do business with these people. Gun owners are sensitive about things like this and they're tired of being told by the politically correct that they're not wanted. When they see something like Gary's case they sometimes take advantage of the opportunity to look to alternatives. Apparently State Farm has a don't-ask, don't-tell policy. It's not something that State Farm has taken a position on — that they can't insure for guns — but they let their agents cancel coverage. So the answer for Gary was to go out and find another insurer at a lower rate."
Indeed. Atkinson explains that "the discharge of a firearm at my range is totally legal in the state of South Carolina, Richland County, and complies with all ordinances and guidelines. I'm a certified NRA firearms instructor, a South Carolina law-enforcement, division-certified, concealed-weapons-permit instructor, a vice president of a major corporation and 51 years old. I'm not a wacko. I don't have anything to hide from them, nor have I ever tried to pull the wool over their eyes. When I signed up with State Farm 34 years ago I thought of them as life partners. Now I'm covered by another insurance company at much lower rates. Twenty years ago I don't think they would have done this."
Atkinson concludes, "The easiest thing would have been to go on down the road and forget it, but that's not me when it comes to the Second Amendment. If they cancel me now because of a shooting range, what's to say down the road it won't be because I have a gun in the house — that my right to have a gun in the house is just too risky?"
Kelly Patricia O'Meara is an investigative reporter for Insight magazine.
email the author
Guns and Gun Ownership by the Numbers
Number of physicians in the United States: 700,000
Number of accidental deaths caused by physicians per year: 120,000
Number of accidental deaths per physician 0.171
--U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Number of gun owners in the United States: 80 million
Number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups): 1,500
Number of accidental deaths per gun owner: 0.0000188
--Benton County News Tribune, Nov. 17, 1999
Statistically, doctors are 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.
Thanks for the heads-up!
It is unwise to piss-off someone who owns a gun, much less piss-off tens of millions of people who own guns.
I was insured by the "Good Neighbor" for twenty years. Then one of their insureds knocked me off my bicycle with his pickup truck. When I got out of the hospital I went to collect thinking this would be easy because I had been a State Farm customer all these years. Surprise! I was beaten up worse by the S.F. claims adjuster than I had been by the pickup truck.
At the time I had two homeowner policies, two car policies, two life policies and a boat policy -- all with State Farm.
Disgusted, I switched companies. And, to my surprise, I got the exact same -- or better -- coverage for less money; in every case!
After two years of haggling I finally got a settlement check on my accident.
America's Fifth Column ... watch PBS documentary JIHAD! In America
New Link: Download 8 Mb zip file here (60 minute video)
I think the home owner was stupid for ever bringing it to the attention of the insurer, Why not just say you have dogs that are trained to kill, too?
A private outdoor shooting range on your property will also greatly diminish the value of that property. The lead contamination of the land will force you to clean up the contamination before you can sell. No one will knowingly buy contaminated land. Be very, very careful about using your property for a shooting range. Take it from someone who knows.
I'm not talking about small scale use, but a "public" range that involves thousands of rounds per year. The amount of lead on your land will be astounding after several years, and will have to be cleaned up.
I seriously think that this was a flake agent. If any insurer just didn't insure "ranges," it would lose the entire homeowner's insurance market in every semirural and rural area in this state where everyone shoots in his backyard!
GUN REVIEWS free from ad-money bias - emphasizing woman-friendliness of tested guns!
Then I came to one question that stated "is there a firearm in the house?"
I didn't check the box, I wrote in my answer. My verbatim response was "None of you f***ing business, if that's a problem I'll find another company to insure my home".
I haven't heard a peep from them on the issue and my policy is still in place.
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.