Sb 424

http://www.northescambia.com/2013/12/bill-filed-to-bar-insurers-from-considering-gun-ownership

Bars insurers from discriminating against gunowners. It might come in handy if we ever get real OC. Time will tell.

I'd vote against the bill because it's anti-freedom. This is the same thing as the doctors and guns thing. Also, can anyone give examples of insurance companies cancelling policies because of gun ownership in Florida?

Hey Republicans and NRA....how about addressing the fact that we have NO right to bear arms in the state? You're always saying that OC is a "fringe issue"....well, I think the doctor bill and this insurance crap bill is way farther out than OC.

77zach said:

I'd vote against the bill because it's anti-freedom. This is the same thing as the doctors and guns thing. Also, can anyone give examples of insurance companies cancelling policies because of gun ownership in Florida?

Hey Republicans and NRA....how about addressing the fact that we have NO right to bear arms in the state? You're always saying that OC is a "fringe issue"....well, I think the doctor bill and this insurance crap bill is way farther out than OC.

Click to expand...

While I see where you are going with this, and I am a libertarian myself, I would have to support this bill seeing as gun ownership is a right. If I exercised my 1st amendment right and blatantly went around talking trash about Obamacare, would that be ok for the government to discriminate against me and make me pay a higher fine? Better example that's non-government related... would it be okay for my boss to pay me less because he doesn't like white people? Discrimination is discrimination... now in a perfect libertarian free market society that didn't have all of the current regulations and restrictions in place, I'd 100% agree with you. I'd say "Well this insurance company won't give me a policy at a reasonable price because of my firearms ownership, so I'll take my money to someone who will." However, we unfortunately don't live in a true free market society anymore because of the heavy regulation in this country. John Stossel did an amazing piece called "Illegal Everything". I'd suggest taking the time to watch it, he brings up a lot of great points. Just my 2 cents.

The right to private contract is a cornerstone of freedom. If this only pertained to Citizens, ( the state's insurance company, which shouldn't exist), I'd vote for it.

Also I'm interested to see how many peoples' policies gun ownership has affected. This is the first I'm hearing of it.

My State has a Similar Law already on The Books..., and it is a Good Thing.

Insurers should NOT be Allowed to Discriminate based on Lawful Gun Ownership.

..., although I have NEVER found an Insurer who did, it is Nice to Know that This Protection Legally is there in Case I need it.

I wonder if this law is just being proactive, maybe they know the anti gun crowd is trying something new. I have never heard of any instance of anyone paying higher rates or being dropped for being a gun owner..
My homeowners insurance asked what type of firearms I have in the house. I gave them a list of my most valuable ones so if anything happened they would be covered. They did ask for the serial numbers but I would not give that to them, other than that I have never had any problems.

From what I can tell online, standard house insurance policies are based on policy forms set forth by the Fl Dpt insurance. I could find no reference to guns and liability, which is the angle an anti-gun company would take. For example, a company could deny coverage or surcharge for trampolines, diving boards, vicious dogs, etc. The only guidelines are for limits on coverage for unscheduled guns that are stolen or destroyed.

Being as homeowners insurance companies do increase your rates for trampolines, pools, certain dog breeds. Would it be a stretch to think they could add firearms to that list.
Using there logic, firearms would be a high risk liability. If you have to shoot someone breaking in your house and they survive. They could sue you for damages and your homeowners coverage would likely have to pay it..
As crazy as that sounds there are countless cases where homeowners are sued by criminals breaking into there homes. And sue the homeowner for damages and win...

conandan said:

...If you have to shoot someone breaking in your house and they survive. They could sue you for damages and your homeowners coverage would likely have to pay it...

Click to expand...

(my bold)

Doubtful.

Ask if your insurance covers "intentional acts". If not, you're on your own.

conandan said:

Being as homeowners insurance companies do increase your rates for trampolines, pools, certain dog breeds. Would it be a stretch to think they could add firearms to that list.
Using there logic, firearms would be a high risk liability. If you have to shoot someone breaking in your house and they survive. They could sue you for damages and your homeowners coverage would likely have to pay it..
As crazy as that sounds there are countless cases where homeowners are sued by criminals breaking into there homes. And sue the homeowner for damages and win...

Click to expand...

Eliminate the criminal with extreme prejudice to prevent any rebuttal of the stated event......

How does it go.....Dead men don't speak.


Homeowners will have a risky option if insurance companies succeed at the legislative level.

BB62 said:

(my bold)

Doubtful.

Ask if your insurance covers "intentional acts". If not, you're on your own.

Click to expand...

Just speaking on my own knowledge. But my policy says it covers anyone injured on my property.

Now could shooting a person engaging in criminal activities on my property not be covered ? Possible...
I will certainly look into that. Now with that said if god forbid, If I have to take that action I won't need to worry about any law suits from that criminal.

conandan said:

Just speaking on my own knowledge. But my policy says it covers anyone injured on my property.

Now could shooting a person engaging in criminal activities on my property not be covered ? Possible...
I will certainly look into that. Now with that said if god forbid, If I have to take that action I won't need to worry about any law suits from that criminal.

Click to expand...

"Injured" is not injured by an intentional act. If your insurance agent or company says otherwise, get it in writing from the insurance company (and good luck with that).

Even umbrella policies are not necessarily protective.

conandan said:

...Now could shooting a person engaging in criminal activities on my property not be covered ? Possible...

I will certainly look into that. Now with that said if god forbid, If I have to take that action I won't need to worry about any law suits from that criminal.

Click to expand...

Please let us know what you find out.

Question - doesn't Florida have civil protection in the case of a unprosecuted or prosecuted but not guilty finding? Along the same lines, Florida may prohibited civil suits by a party engaged in criminal activity.

Here's a good resource: http://www.floridacarry.org/

BB62 said:

"Injured" is not injured by an intentional act. If your insurance agent or company says otherwise, get it in writing from the insurance company (and good luck with that).

Even umbrella policies are not necessarily protective.



Please let us know what you find out.

Question - doesn't Florida have civil protection in the case of a unprosecuted or prosecuted but not guilty finding? Along the same lines, Florida may prohibited civil suits by a party engaged in criminal activity.

Here's a good resource: http://www.floridacarry.org/

Click to expand...

I spoke with my insurance agent. And I was not surprised by there answer, but there reason did shock me.

No they will not cover any civil case where a homeowner causes injury to a criminal or trespassers.
And after a long explanation this was the reasoning..

I was told that if a burglar enters my home that I should leave the house or lock myself in a room. Don't confront the individual, as your home and contents are covered and will be replaced. You should not risk harm to yourself to protect your property. Once the individual has left your home call the police and get a report then call us and we will start the claim process.

Now I'm not sure that is actually the policy or just my agents personal opinion. I told her that I will not hide or leave my home for any reason. And I will defend my family and property with force. And that line of thinking does nothing but empower criminals to take what they want, without fear of any resistance from the homeowner.

And Florida does have civil protection if you are found not guilty for reasons of self defense. Florida has self defense, stand your ground, and castle doctrine.
I will do some more research into this and see what else I can find out.

conandan said:

I spoke with my insurance agent. And I was not surprised by there answer, but there reason did shock me...

Click to expand...

Excellent follow-up. Thank you.

I find it the pinnacle of stupidity that we're bickering bout something like this while the state hd building codes that force buildings to be built in the dumbest ways imaginable, yet they're forced to insure... This is peanuts compared to the freakishly evil building code/forced insurance situation of a state that sticks out in the middle of hurricane land... Why are we forbidden from building homes appropriate for the disasters that occur here? Why are insurance companies forced to insure deliberately planned cataclysm that will bankrupt them? It's dumb as hell and costs trillions with every family at risk for no good reason! When is the last time insurance money brought someone back to life?

But you're worried about discrimination based on gun ownership? How about discrimination tot he point of a total ban on math, science, and common sense?

Stepping over hundred dollar bills to pick up pennies...

PAY ATTENTION!

ixtow said:

I find it the pinnacle of stupidity that we're bickering bout something like this while the state hd building codes that force buildings to be built in the dumbest ways imaginable, yet they're forced to insure... This is peanuts compared to the freakishly evil building code/forced insurance situation of a state that sticks out in the middle of hurricane land... Why are we forbidden from building homes appropriate for the disasters that occur here? Why are insurance companies forced to insure deliberately planned cataclysm that will bankrupt them? It's dumb as hell and costs trillions with every family at risk for no good reason! When is the last time insurance money brought someone back to life?

But you're worried about discrimination based on gun ownership? How about discrimination tot he point of a total ban on math, science, and common sense?

Stepping over hundred dollar bills to pick up pennies...

PAY ATTENTION!

Click to expand...

That's weird, my stepdad is an insurance agent and he does insure some homes on the coast that the underwriters of the companies he writes for consider nearly indestructible. For example, two very similar homes next to eachother in Sarasota, one has a wind portion of the premium at about $2k/yr, the other one about $200/yr because of all the wind mitigation discounts. Says it comes down to the opening protections and the way the roof is constructed.

77zach said:

That's weird, my stepdad is an insurance agent and he does insure some homes on the coast that the underwriters of the companies he writes for consider nearly indestructible. For example, two very similar homes next to eachother in Sarasota, one has a wind portion of the premium at about $2k/yr, the other one about $200/yr because of all the wind mitigation discounts. Says it comes down to the opening protections and the way the roof is constructed.

Click to expand...

You're partially right. The main point is that the builder would have to grease a lot of palms to get those exceptions granted. Engineering stamps, etc., because the law, verbatime, forbids it. The only way arounbd it is to get an engineering stamp, which the State isn't allowed to argue with, and carries a civil penalty if they dare.

It basically tripples the cost of the house just for the sake of using a little common sense, which people who don't live right onthe beach, but are still exposed to the same winds, not to mention a lot more debris, have to eat...

Florida's Building Code is downright insidious. Forget trying to build something sane from the ground up, like a monolithic dome. You better be a millionaire just to build a 1200sq/ft house if you go that route. Which is why the structures are so rare, yet capable of withstanding 950mph winds, that can't even occure naturallyon this planet... Not to mentiuon the massive energy savings...

ixtow said:

You're partially right. The main point is that the builder would have to grease a lot of palms to get those exceptions granted. Engineering stamps, etc., because the law, verbatime, forbids it. The only way arounbd it is to get an engineering stamp, which the State isn't allowed to argue with, and carries a civil penalty if they dare.

It basically tripples the cost of the house just for the sake of using a little common sense, which people who don't live right onthe beach, but are still exposed to the same winds, not to mention a lot more debris, have to eat...

Florida's Building Code is downright insidious. Forget trying to build something sane from the ground up, like a monolithic dome. You better be a millionaire just to build a 1200sq/ft house if you go that route. Which is why the structures are so rare, yet capable of withstanding 950mph winds, that can't even occure naturallyon this planet... Not to mentiuon the massive energy savings...

Click to expand...

Ixtow, you just became my favorite poster. I have been intrigued and interested in monolithic domes since I was 14, now 29. I even did a research paper for an Argumentative English class last year on the subject. These things are darn near fire proof, earthquake proof, hurricane proof, and tornado proof. If you live near a fault, the coast, or tornado alley, this should be the structure you should construct. In my paper I even touched on the humanitarian aspect of it, highlighting the castrophy in Haiti. They designed an "Eco-Shell" that is the minimum square feet for a family of 7 (I think it is a around 137 sq ft, have to double check) that can be built in under a week and cost a couple thousand dollars.