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