imported post
In regard to insurance company pricing practices, I have given some thought to the matter. The only thing they really respond to is money, something that applies to insurance companies as well as all of the businesses they insure. Follow the money, as they say.
Currently there is a substantial monetary penalty for a business to be sued, and their insurance company to defend, any lawsuit that involves firearms possession while on company property. Reaction: Ban firearms on company property, and if you are an insurance company, price your liability coverage based upon the percieved risk! Such pricing results in lower lower premiums for policy holders who ban firearms on company property and parking lots and such.
At the very least, it would be necessary to remove the monetary incentive to ban firearms and preferably to provide a monetary incentive to allowing legally possessed firearms on company property.
How do you do that? One way I can think of is to provide limited legal liability immunity to the insured and insurer who ALLOW firearms on company property and NO immunity to those who prohibit firearms on company property.
Is this practical? I don't know. Would invite comment and "brainstorming".
One thing I feel certain of: If the financial issue is not addressed in some meaningful manner, this will continue to be a growing issue. These insurance companies are too big to be affected by anything other than large sums of money or laws restricting their behavior.