It would appear that Travelers Insurance is anti-gun

SAvage410 · Feb 12, 2011

See the link for the story:

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

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

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

eye95 · Feb 12, 2011

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.

Grapeshot · Feb 12, 2011

Kiss them goodbye - you can get better rates elsewhere anyway.

SAvage410 · Feb 12, 2011

I did not mean to imply that I had Travelers Insurance. Fortunately this isn't a story about me.

Grapeshot · Feb 12, 2011

SAvage410 said:
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'.

since9 · Feb 15, 2011

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.

TFred · Feb 19, 2011

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

VW_Factor · Feb 19, 2011

since9 said:
In fact, they're fairly pro-bun.

I am pro-buns myself. :lol:

mark-in-texas · Feb 19, 2011

I wonder if they insure any police stations?? LOTS of assault rifles there!

since9 · Feb 20, 2011

VW_Factor said:
I am pro-buns myself. :lol:

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.

eye95 · Feb 20, 2011

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.

Grapeshot · Feb 20, 2011

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.

eye95 · Feb 20, 2011

Grapeshot said:
...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!

Chap · Feb 20, 2011

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/z197/chapp1/Various_Pics/1250546730.jpg

http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z197/chapp1/Various_Pics/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

Grapeshot · Feb 20, 2011

eye95 said:
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.

PT111 · Feb 20, 2011

Grapeshot said:
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.

Grapeshot · Feb 20, 2011

PT111 said:
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

McX · Feb 21, 2011

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.

PT111 · Feb 21, 2011

Grapeshot said:
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.

TFred · Feb 22, 2011

TFred said:
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

It would appear that Travelers Insurance is anti-gun

Regular Member

Well-known member

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Well-known member

Legendary Warrior

Well-known member

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

McX

Guest

Regular Member

Regular Member