Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: It would appear that Travelers Insurance is anti-gun

  1. #1
    Regular Member SAvage410's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Falls Church, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    176

    It would appear that Travelers Insurance is anti-gun

    See the link for the story:

    http://www.saysuncle.com/2011/02/11/...ce-anti-gun-2/

    And a link to a scanned copy of the termination letter:

    http://blog.ryjones.org/2008/07/26/travelers-insurance/

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    But...but...but...You had ASSAULT rifles!!!

    You should either try to make the antis happy and buy hug rifles, or go for the gusto and buy kill rifles. Assault rifles are just half-stepping.
    Last edited by eye95; 02-12-2011 at 10:53 PM.

  3. #3
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,622
    Kiss them goodbye - you can get better rates elsewhere anyway.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  4. #4
    Regular Member SAvage410's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Falls Church, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    176
    I did not mean to imply that I had Travelers Insurance. Fortunately this isn't a story about me.

  5. #5
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,622
    Quote Originally Posted by SAvage410 View Post
    I did not mean to imply that I had Travelers Insurance. Fortunately this isn't a story about me.
    Oh I knew that - was just sayin' it to whomever was a listenin'.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    It smells like a hoax, but as I've used another insurance company for the last 30+ years, it's not exactly a problem. As they're comprised primarily of active/reserve/retired/former military, they're not exactly anti-gun. In fact, they're fairly pro-gun.
    Last edited by since9; 02-20-2011 at 01:03 AM.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  7. #7
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    I would first cancel the policy immediately upon securing alternate coverage. Make them give you every penny back that you can get (before the policy actually expires.)

    Then I would lodge a VERY stern complaint to the insurance regulators for the state of residence. Every state has them.

    The letter claimed that having an "assault rifle" in the home was an increased risk of loss. This is not just a "we don't like guns" statement, that is an invalid reason to deny coverage. Make them PROVE that having a semi-automatic rifle in the home is a greater risk.

    TFred

  8. #8
    Regular Member VW_Factor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Leesburg, GA
    Posts
    1,098
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    In fact, they're fairly pro-bun.
    I am pro-buns myself.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Richmond, Tx
    Posts
    326
    I wonder if they insure any police stations?? LOTS of assault rifles there!
    Lower the crime rate by lowering the criminal survival rate!
    When people say 'God Bless America' I'm sure He says, "I gave you Texas!"

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by VW_Factor View Post
    I am pro-buns myself.
    Thanks, same here! Spelling fixed.

    TFred, any high-priced items increase the risk of loss, and warrent a rider. My insurance company requires a higher premium if I had jewelry.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    It does not sound like this is a rider for a high-value item. It sounds as if the insurance company thinks there is a greater risk of liability due to the presence of the firearm. If it is merely a rider because of the high value of the firearm, then that would be reasonable. If the insurance company is raising rates due to an increased probability of having to pay a liability claim, then they should produce the research that documents a link between the presence of a gun in the home and more or higher insurance payouts.

  12. #12
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,622
    Some items based on value require documentation (listing) as scheduled personal property vs unscheduled personal property (unlisted, not itemized).

    As to requiring the insurance company to produce justification for a denial or cancellation of coverage, I have not seen such a regulation - do you have a cite?

    In my experience, there are many different reasons that have been used to either increase premiums or to tell you to shop somewhere else.

    I have had a health care provider, when informed of a minor psoriasis problem, say that they would give me coverage excepting any disorder or injury to the skin. What said I - you won't insure the largest organ of the body!? Did get that one straightened out by direct conversation with a supervisor.

    Then I have had refusal to continue coverage on a vehicle that was rebuilt and inspected after an accident - the insurance company wanted only new parts used - it was a 1970 Dodge Charger, they don't still make new factory parts. A letter to the insurance commissioner solved that problem.

    Bottom line - it isn't always one answer fits all.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    ...As to requiring the insurance company to produce justification for a denial or cancellation of coverage, I have not seen such a regulation - do you have a cite?...
    If that is in response to my saying, "If the insurance company is raising rates due to an increased probability of having to pay a liability claim, then they should produce the research that documents a link between the presence of a gun in the home and more or higher insurance payouts," then it should be noted that I am not saying this based upon a regulation or law.

    It would just be the rational and moral thing to do. Insurance companies set rates based upon expected payouts. If they overestimate the payouts, they will charge too much for the policy and drive customers away. If they underestimate the payouts, then they will lose money on policies. It is in their enlightened self-interest to study any possible link between the presence of a gun in the home and more or higher payouts. They might actually find that gun ownership lowers payouts!

  14. #14
    Regular Member Chap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Greenville, MS
    Posts
    213

    Insure your house yourself

    I had my house broken into, $15000 stolen. Criminals found and arrested a week later. No belongings returned, USAA paid off my claim. Nothing was said about my having guns in the house.

    I bought a security system with 9 security cameras, 5 steel exterior doors and a Big gun safe. Gun safe is fire proof so I keep all my important belongings and paper work in it. I even received a discount on my insurance for installing a security system.

    http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z...1250546730.jpg

    http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z...1250546762.jpg

    I felt it was easier and cheaper in the long run to fortify my house than buy a rider to my home insurance policy.

    Chap
    Last edited by Chap; 02-20-2011 at 12:51 PM.
    Kimber Ultra Carry II .45 ACP, 3" barrel 1911 with a Mitch Rosen holster

    New additions to the family -
    XDm .45 ACP 02FEB11,
    Ruger LCP .380 05FEB11

  15. #15
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,622
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    If that is in response to my saying, "If the insurance company is raising rates due to an increased probability of having to pay a liability claim, then they should produce the research that documents a link between the presence of a gun in the home and more or higher insurance payouts," then it should be noted that I am not saying this based upon a regulation or law.

    It would just be the rational and moral thing to do. Insurance companies set rates based upon expected payouts. If they overestimate the payouts, they will charge too much for the policy and drive customers away. If they underestimate the payouts, then they will lose money on policies. It is in their enlightened self-interest to study any possible link between the presence of a gun in the home and more or higher payouts. They might actually find that gun ownership lowers payouts!
    Indeed the actuaries (bean counters) contribute greatly to rates, disclaimers, and special clauses. Then you add in the claims adjuster, who is NOT your friend - his job is to reduce or limit costs, and you have an "us vs them" situation. Do your homework well and follow through.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Indeed the actuaries (bean counters) contribute greatly to rates, disclaimers, and special clauses. Then you add in the claims adjuster, who is NOT your friend - his job is to reduce or limit costs, and you have an "us vs them" situation. Do your homework well and follow through.
    Technically I would not call the actuaries, bean counters. Rather than being an account they are probability mathmaticians that try to predict the different types of claims that will occur given the location and type of property. Once they do that they turn it over to the bean counters to figure out the rates. If the actuaries decde that having an AR-15 in a house increased the probability of one making a claim then the accounts will either raise the rates or cancel the policy. What the actuaries actually use for their predictions is anyone's guess and whether it is accurate or not is immaterial except to the bottom line of the company's profits.

    Unfortunately you are correct about "Us vs Them" and "Us" seems to come out on the short end too often with little recourse. "They" seem to have "Us" by the short ones.

  17. #17
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,622
    Quote Originally Posted by PT111 View Post
    Technically I would not call the actuaries, bean counters. Rather than being an account they are probability mathmaticians that try to predict the different types of claims that will occur given the location and type of property. Once they do that they turn it over to the bean counters to figure out the rates. If the actuaries decde that having an AR-15 in a house increased the probability of one making a claim then the accounts will either raise the rates or cancel the policy. What the actuaries actually use for their predictions is anyone's guess and whether it is accurate or not is immaterial except to the bottom line of the company's profits.

    Unfortunately you are correct about "Us vs Them" and "Us" seems to come out on the short end too often with little recourse. "They" seem to have "Us" by the short ones.
    Was just over simplifying - the actuaries count and tabulate the beans from all previous meals and make pretty charts, graphs and tables based on the information that they use - it can be a trash in vs trash out situation too as numbers can be used to support almost any contention if you start out with that goal in mind.

    Nevertheless, it is all about maintaining and maximizing company profits
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  18. #18
    McX
    Guest
    my insurance company for the shop got a little nosey when they heard we carried, but i declined to answer their questions, and they insured me anyway.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Was just over simplifying - the actuaries count and tabulate the beans from all previous meals and make pretty charts, graphs and tables based on the information that they use - it can be a trash in vs trash out situation too as numbers can be used to support almost any contention if you start out with that goal in mind.

    Nevertheless, it is all about maintaining and maximizing company profits
    I compare the acturaies to the oddsmakers in Las Vegas. How they come up with the odds on sports or anything else is unknown to anyone but them and they have a pretty good record. One has to remember that the oddsmakers don't care one bit about the final scores of games as long as the same amount is bet on both teams. As long as the profits keep rolling in their job is safe.

  20. #20
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    I would first cancel the policy immediately upon securing alternate coverage. Make them give you every penny back that you can get (before the policy actually expires.)

    Then I would lodge a VERY stern complaint to the insurance regulators for the state of residence. Every state has them.

    The letter claimed that having an "assault rifle" in the home was an increased risk of loss. This is not just a "we don't like guns" statement, that is an invalid reason to deny coverage. Make them PROVE that having a semi-automatic rifle in the home is a greater risk.

    TFred
    I hadn't checked back on this thread for a few days...

    The point I was trying to make is that providing insurance to the residents of a state is a privilege, not a right. Or at least, it's highly regulated.

    I don't know the rules, thank goodness, I wouldn't want to spend too much time reading all that stuff... but it sure seems to me that if Virginia allows a company to come in and insure their residents, they wouldn't want them denying coverage for arbitrary reasons, and I would most certainly consider "having 'assault rifles' on the premises" to be significantly arbitrary.

    If someone is really curious, it may well be worth an e-mail or a phone call to the insurance commission in Richmond to find out if they are aware of it and what they think about it.

    If the commission is not helpful, it might even be something worth taking up legislatively next year.

    TFred

  21. #21
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,201
    I had Travelers insurance when I lived in Arizona then they refused to renew my policy upon moving to Virginia. Upon moving to Virginia and receiving a policy quote I asked whether the policy as quoted would cover the theft of firearms and firearms related equipment. The Travelers Insurance representative then asked me if my firearms were kept locked in a safe at all times with the ammuniton stored locked in a separate location. At the time I had no safe so I answered as such and was informed that under no circumstance did Travelers Insurance provide homeowners or renters insurance to anyone that owned firearms that did not at all times keep the firearms in a locked safe with all ammunition locked in a separate container and that was the end of my dealings with Travelers Insurance after receiving a refund on the policy that I had paid for in Arizona, which had not yet expired. That same day I found renters insurance through the same company that handled my car insurance and have never had any such requirement made of my firearms. Even when asked specifically about exceptions for firearms kept out for self defense use, Travelers had no such exception, so if I dared to keep a handgun out of the safe by the bedside at night I could not be covered by Travelers Insurance. Every advertisement they've sent me since gets automatically loaded into the shredder as trash as they won't see another cent of mine.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Rich Keagy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Riverside, California, USA
    Posts
    126
    Bean counters are accountants.
    My wife is a Certified Public Accountant (CPA).
    She loves the label.

  23. #23
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by jmelvin View Post
    The Travelers Insurance representative then asked me if my firearms were kept locked in a safe at all times with the ammuniton stored locked in a separate location. At the time I had no safe so I answered as such and was informed that under no circumstance did Travelers Insurance provide homeowners or renters insurance to anyone that owned firearms that did not at all times keep the firearms in a locked safe with all ammunition locked in a separate container...


    You may have just discovered evidence of alien life, as whoever came up with that policy is obviously not from our planet.

    ...and that was the end of my dealings with Travelers Insurance after receiving a refund on the policy that I had paid for in Arizona, which had not yet expired. That same day I found renters insurance through the same company that handled my car insurance and have never had any such requirement made of my firearms. Even when asked specifically about exceptions for firearms kept out for self defense use, Travelers had no such exception, so if I dared to keep a handgun out of the safe by the bedside at night I could not be covered by Travelers Insurance. Every advertisement they've sent me since gets automatically loaded into the shredder as trash as they won't see another cent of mine.
    Yep. Definately alien life.

    Good for you for dropping them!
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •