An Armed School May Be An Uninsured School
Steven Yaccino writes in The New York Times that schools seeking to arm employees are hitting a hurdle on insurance:
As more schools consider arming their employees, some districts are encountering a daunting economic hurdle: insurance carriers threatening to raise their premiums or revoke coverage entirely.During legislative sessions this year, seven states enacted laws permitting teachers or administrators to carry guns in schools. Three of the measures -- in Kansas, South Dakota and Tennessee -- took effect last week.
But already, EMC Insurance Companies, the liability insurance provider for about 90 percent of Kansas school districts, has sent a letter to its agents saying that schools permitting employees to carry concealed handguns would be declined coverage.
"We are making this underwriting decision simply to protect the financial security of our company," the letter said.
In northeast Indiana, Douglas A. Harp, the sheriff of Noble County, offered to deputize teachers to carry handguns in their classrooms less than a week after 26 children and educators were killed in a school shooting in Newtown, Conn. A community member donated $27,000 in firearms to the effort. School officials from three districts seemed ready to sign off. But the plan fell apart after an insurer refused to provide workers' compensation to schools with gun-carrying staff members.
The Oregon School Boards Association, which manages liability coverage for all but a handful of the state's school districts, recently announced a new pricing structure that would make districts pay an extra $2,500 annual premium for every staff member carrying a weapon on the job.
One Oregon school admin said every bit of their money is already budgeted, and that could be a big impediment to putting this forward.
via @margrev
Given multiple police agencies have argue in court they have no duty to stop crimes in progress, wouldnt such an under writing decision leave the insurance company open to litigation in wrongful death suits?
lujlp at July 7, 2013 11:40 PM
Actually, insurance company actuarial tables will confirm what many know already: despite the designation of schools as "free killing zones" by policies ludicrously advertised across the country, the risk of having little Johnny and Susie killed by some nut is low. However, the risk of having some idiot's teen snatch a gun from Teacher and play with it is real, because society has decided it is EVIL to teach kids about guns at all.
Meanwhile, consider a different chilling fact: you have, and many people want, police officers in your child's school, this is to protect your child from predators allowed to attend by school policies you collectively approve.
You have not produced a viable society. FORCE is required to keep order in school.
Radwaste at July 8, 2013 2:49 AM
How conveeeeeenient. I can see this becoming a precedent in all kinds of situations: "You need to carry a gun for your own protection? Sorry, no insurance for you."
Cousin Dave at July 8, 2013 6:56 AM
FORCE is required to keep order in school.
And that's they way it has been since the first school was opened way back when. It's just the nature of the force that has changed.
Used to be that shaming or expulsion was enough, 'cause when you got home, your mam and pap would give you the business. Now they're more likely to file suit against the school district because their little hellion is actually an angel. In their eyes. Assuming the kid even knows who their father is.
I R A Darth Aggie at July 8, 2013 7:18 AM
Sounds like insurance companies have a more rational understanding of risk than a lot of school districts.
If teachers are armed, there's a chance a nutter could shoot up the school, and a well-trained teacher could save the day. But that chance is ridiculously small.
It's far more likely that:
A) A student will snatch the gun and use it to harm an employee or student.
B) The teacher will overreact and shoot a kid who could have been dealt with in some other way, or shoot another employee.
C) The gun will accidentally go off and injure someone.
D) A nutter will shoot up the school and the gun won't help at all, for a variety of reasons (the teacher wasn't near it, the teacher fired and missed, etc.).
It has nothing to do with teaching kids about guns (although that sounds like a fine idea). Kids, even well-educated kids, frequently do dumb things. And for every "regular Joe saves the day" story, I can find 10 "regular Joe accidentally shoots his kid in the face loading his weapon" stories.
Guns have their place. Schools aren't one of those places. Insurance companies understand the risk.
MonicaP at July 8, 2013 7:42 AM
This should be a non issue. Any insurance company can write an exclusion into a policy to cover misuse of firearms just like they can refuse to cover other deliberate torts committed by employees or students.
Isab at July 8, 2013 7:45 AM
"Insurance companies understand the risk." MonicaP
actually that has NOTHING to do with it. The numbers give the lie to your assertions, because very few children have ever been hurt in criminal situations where guns are present, but we have hard figures on how many have been hurt when guns are not.
This is certainly a theoretical. What the insurance companies know is that schools are far and away prevailing "gun free" zones, and so sentiment and inertia are on their side...
even though the criminal could care less about the whole 'gun free' designation.
Every single one of these things is a "Low Risk" happening, because it it exceedingly unusual... meanwhile 50million kids going to school every day are likely to break an arm, be in a car accident, or something like that. Those risks are far more understood, and priced in.
The bottom line is that if you already CCW, then it should be no different in school. Who is going to know? How does the student snatch a gun without getting into a physical altercation with you, enough that they know you have one.
Isab is right, insurance co's could write a rider...
What I'm hoping in all this is that some enterprising person will start an insurance company specifically to cater to this.
People might beat a path to their door.
SwissArmyD at July 8, 2013 12:19 PM
"The gun will accidentally go off and injure someone."
No. Guns do NOT "accidentally go off". This meme is a product of a nation without the moral courage to admit their faults.
When a gun fires, someone pulled the trigger. This does not change because someone did not mean to.
The number of defective guns is vanishingly small next to the hundreds of millions actually in American private hands.
Radwaste at July 8, 2013 5:11 PM
Monica,
I'm going to try and break out some of your arguments:
A) A student will snatch the gun and use it to harm an employee or student.
Until 1990 the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act_of_1990) teachers and adults could carry as they wanted onto primary school campuses. Nothing happened to cause the placement of the law. No shooting or anything similar. Why did nothing happen before?
B) The teacher will overreact and shoot a kid who could have been dealt with in some other way, or shoot another employee.
If a teacher would overreact and even pull a firearm -- I want that teacher fired immediately. This is the same argument against CCW/CHL. There will always be misinterpretations. Most CCW/CHL holders do their best never to get a hand near the firearm.
C) The gun will accidentally go off and injure someone.
It was pointed out earlier, but firearms don't go off by accident. There is negligent discharges but 99.99% are due to mishandling of the firearm. That picture of the gun going off in True Lies after she dropped it is fantasy.
D) A nutter will shoot up the school and the gun won't help at all, for a variety of reasons (the teacher wasn't near it, the teacher fired and missed, etc.).
Granted that Teacher Doe on floor 1 may not be able to help in a shooter situation on floor 5. But taking away the Gun Free Zone changes the dynamic, especially if the shooter doesn't know who is armed. And if you thing a Gun Free Zone sign stops anyone you aren't thinking right. The thing with a civilian firing his weapon in a shooting and a cop is that the civilian knows he won't get a carte blanche on shooting innocents. There were nine bystanders shot in the NYC Empire State building shooting. (www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/22/empire-state-building-shooting-chenin-duclos-sues-nypd_n_2526361.html) I would like you to find similar numbers from a civilian CCW/CHL shooting.
It has nothing to do with teaching kids about guns (although that sounds like a fine idea).
You should look up the NRA Eddie Eagle program.
I'd like you to be an educated non-gun owner if that is how you feel. But I want you to be real about your fears, the same as being a non-driver. You can decide not to have a driver's license, but would you deny the right of anyone else to have a DL and drive a car?
Jim P. at July 8, 2013 7:59 PM
Jim P:
Insurance companies are good at math. The chance of a teacher using a gun to prevent a tragedy are fantastically small. The odds are far higher that the gun will be used to injure innocents. The insurers understand this.
Liability goes even further, though. When you arm teachers, you explicitly say that they are responsible for the students' safety. If they fail, the teachers and school are responsible.
MonicaP at July 9, 2013 11:28 AM
When a gun fires, someone pulled the trigger. This does not change because someone did not mean to.
The point of accidental shooting remains. Someone pulls a trigger and accidentally shoot someone else. This is a risk insurance companies have to consider.
MonicaP at July 9, 2013 11:30 AM
Ok, so now the school is more liable for their safety.
They aren't liable for the students' safety though if a tornado strikes, a fire starts, an earthquake strikes, a bus driver is drunk, a rope detaches in the gymnasium, the cheerleader gets hit by a football, or any of the other myriad activities that happen now?
Then why are insurers willing to fund/insure the USCCA and Second Call Defense let alone the NRA's new self-defense liability insurance?
BTW, I'd like to see where you got your "odds" (read that as show me your stats) that say a concealed weapon will more likely be used to injure innocents? Are you using the VPC stats (www.vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm). That is 512 by "unjustified" murders by CCW holders since 2007. That is out of approximately 1M CCW licensees (legallyarmed.com/ccw_statistics.htm). I'll let you run the percentages.
Jim P. at July 9, 2013 9:15 PM
I'm going to address this in case Rad doesn't respond.
Gun deaths to exceed car accident fatalities in 2015
Comparing car accidents to firearm fatalities is comparing apples to pineapples. A negligent discharge, suicide, or even a deliberate shooting by LEO or CCW holder come up to about maybe 1500 per year. The firing of a weapon that is used in a criminal situation may overcome the 32,367 dead in car accidents.
But comparing accidents to deliberate shootings is not valid. Ask any of the 32,367 if they planned to kill someone, or themselves, with their vehicles?
Jim P. at July 9, 2013 9:38 PM
"Liability goes even further, though. When you arm teachers, you explicitly say that they are responsible for the students' safety. If they fail, the teachers and school are responsible."
No, you don't, anymore than requiring first aid kits in classrooms, makes the teacher responsible, or legally liable, in the event of medical emergency.
Isab at July 10, 2013 3:47 AM
Leave a comment