2a4all
Regular Member
If an insurance company insists that a one of its insureds implement a "no gun" policy as a condition of coverage, and a patron is injured as a result of another individual violating said policy (e.g. an armed robber), then the injured person would have a claim against the establishment, which the insurance carrier would likely cover (and require the appropriate police reports etc. were filed). The "posting" would have little bearing on the claim. And yes, the shooter would also be liable, etc.The insurance thing is what bothering me. It almost seems like they are taking liability for safety since they want guns banned. Hey are so worried they will be sued if someone carries in there why shouldn't they be sued if something happens because it is posted now.
OTH, if an insurance carrier didn't require such a policy, and the same thing happened, they might be successful in refuting a claim, foisting the liability off on the owner as "not maintaining a safe environment". All of those policies require the insured to "...take reasonable precautions...", and the insured doesn't get to define that term. He only gets to argue it in court.
As to the injured patron claiming the "posting" contributed to the crime and getting compensation, good luck with that.
Bottom line, if you think a place is unsafe, don't go there.