Insurers Refuse To Cover Kansas Schools Where Teachers Carry Guns: It’s Too Risky

[PratchettFan]

Once they establish that the numbers are in their favor they'll start writing policies otherwise other insurers will fill that void.

As someone who has spent the last 40 years working for or with insurance companies, it isn't going to happen. If the schools initiate a valid training and qualifying program, maybe. But what school district has a few extra million to spend on that?

Of course, definitely contingent on some type of training, otherwise insurance would never write a policy.

In this case, the only requirement is a CCW. I can tell you that it is perfectly possible to obtain a CCW without ever touching a firearm. You can purchase a weapon and wear it and never have fired one. There is nothing in the Kansas law which requires the teachers demonstrate any level of competence and it only takes one stupid accident to end a life. In the event of an accident, the school system would be entirely at fault.

 

[PratchettFan]

If thats training, they need to look at thier methods again.

Find me a CCW who injured all sorts of bystanders with some spray and pray, and you may have a point to stand on.

You think it would be an improvement if they just didn't train them at all? All of this is irrelevant. The added risk of allowing untrained school employees to go armed is going to make a school system uninsurable, which has already been demonstrated. The reasons are obvious.

Can you find an incident where an armed employee at a school caused an incident? The risk is unknown.

I honestly think this is a political move. A business move would have been to at least give them a premium cost, even if it was an order of magnitude higher.

No. You can't find a single example of a school blowing up because they stored dynamite in the cafeteria, but that does not mean we should give it a try and see what happens. The business move, in this case, is to cancel the policy because the risk is enormous. This isn't a question of not knowing how to rate, it is a question of looking at the issue from a purely business point of view rather than a political one. Arming untrained people and treating them as guards of children is idiotic and the only reason we have had no fatalities because of it so far is because so far no school or state has shown this level of stupidity.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Insurers Refuse To Cover Kansas Schools Where Teachers Carry Guns: It’s Too Risky


If a whacko enters a school and starts shooting the kids and the teachers, and kills 20 people before the cops show up and stop him, the school's insurance doesn't have to pay for it, because it wasn't the fault of any school personnel.

But if a whacko enters a school and starts shooting the kids and the teachers, and the teachers are armed and they fail to stop him until three or four kids are dead, then the school's insurance DOES have to pay for it.

The risk to the people in the school isn't greater. The risk to the **insurance carrier** is greater.

 

[PratchettFan]

Except they do know what to make of this: Too Risky

That idea shows a fundamental misunderstanding of business.

It might be 'too uncertain' or 'too cheap given the current premium' but 'too risky' CAN be priced.

Makes a good headline for those invested in more kiddie killings in gun free zones.

Sure it can be priced. I could write you $1 million in coverage for a premium of $1.2 million. Of course, if anything goes wrong with this situation your exposure is way over the million, but that won't be my problem.

 

[martybegan]

You think it would be an improvement if they just didn't train them at all? All of this is irrelevant. The added risk of allowing untrained school employees to go armed is going to make a school system uninsurable, which has already been demonstrated. The reasons are obvious.

Can you find an incident where an armed employee at a school caused an incident? The risk is unknown.

I honestly think this is a political move. A business move would have been to at least give them a premium cost, even if it was an order of magnitude higher.

No. You can't find a single example of a school blowing up because they stored dynamite in the cafeteria, but that does not mean we should give it a try and see what happens. The business move, in this case, is to cancel the policy because the risk is enormous. This isn't a question of not knowing how to rate, it is a question of looking at the issue from a purely business point of view rather than a political one. Arming untrained people and treating them as guards of children is idiotic and the only reason we have had no fatalities because of it so far is because so far no school or state has shown this level of stupidity.

The risk is not enormous, the risk is unknown. There is a huge difference between the two and you know it.

Sailing on an merchant ship that is not in a convoy back in 1942 across the atlantic is an enormous risk. See the difference?

 

[PratchettFan]

Insurers Refuse To Cover Kansas Schools Where Teachers Carry Guns: It’s Too Risky


If a whacko enters a school and starts shooting the kids and the teachers, and kills 20 people before the cops show up and stop him, the school's insurance doesn't have to pay for it, because it wasn't the fault of any school personnel.

But if a whacko enters a school and starts shooting the kids and the teachers, and the teachers are armed and they fail to stop him until three or four kids are dead, then the school's insurance DOES have to pay for it.

The risk to the people in the school isn't greater. The risk to the **insurance carrier** is greater.

Yes. That is the one in 50 million chance scenario. Here is the real scenario the underwriter is thinking about. If the wonderful teacher forgets to put the safety on or does something else and you have an accidental firing, the school is wide open on liability because the school did not insure the teacher knew how to handle a gun. The underwriter is probably not all that worried about the extremely unlikely possibility of the nutjob. He is worried about multiple weapons in the hands of unqualified people in close proximity to children on a daily basis. I really cannot fathom why anyone would read that sentence and think, "Wow! That sounds like a great idea!"

 

[Wry Catcher]

In the Insurance Business, there is no such thing as "Too Risky".
There is only an 'inadequate premium'.

They're trying to learn how to rate this new risk. There is no history, no claims history on which to base their premium charge. Whole new breed of cat

And if the Insurance Commissioner disagrees with what they want to charge, He/She can step in and slam-dunk the Ins Company.

Easier to just walk away. I don't blame them.

"We've been writing school business for almost 40 years, and one of the underwriting guidelines we follow for schools is that any on-site armed security should be provided by uniformed, qualified law enforcement officers," said Mick Lovell, EMC's vice president for business development. "Our guidelines have not recently changed."

Here, have fun arguing with the quotes and tell them they didn't really mean what they said

You don't get it because you don't WANT to get it.

This is a new kind of animal. How could a responsible Insurance Executive say something like that when there is no history -- None -- Of School District arming Teachers and Custodians.

An intelligent reporter, or even a half-intelligent reader, would arrive at that conclusion without someone having to shove it up your ass.

There is no track record of arming Teachers. None. How can an Insurance Company rate something they have no experience, no claims experience, with?

I try to help out, I try to explain the real world and you just shift into stupid and rev it up until you get to hyper-stupid.

What other kind of 'Armed Security' has there ever been in Schools?

Scary Witches at Halloween?

An armed and uniformed police officer or deputy has had a complete background check, usually (at least in California) taken written psychological tests (MMPI in my agency) have been interviewed by a Ph. D. Psychologist and by at least two panels of veteran LE Officers before even receiving a conditional offer of employment.

S/he then completes (again in CA) PC 832, Laws of Arrest and Firearms Training and spends the first year on the job as a probationary employee under supervision of a FTC (field training officer) before receiving a permanent employment offer.

Then s/he must qualify on the range several times each year and pass the training under the critical eye of the range master. Fuck up and they will find themselves filing paper until they can prove proficiency, not only in hitting the target but in all aspects of firearm safety.

Insurance companies know this, and they know teachers and custodians won't have been evaluated and trained to the level necessary to carry a gun on a campus.

 

[martybegan]

Insurers Refuse To Cover Kansas Schools Where Teachers Carry Guns: It’s Too Risky


If a whacko enters a school and starts shooting the kids and the teachers, and kills 20 people before the cops show up and stop him, the school's insurance doesn't have to pay for it, because it wasn't the fault of any school personnel.

But if a whacko enters a school and starts shooting the kids and the teachers, and the teachers are armed and they fail to stop him until three or four kids are dead, then the school's insurance DOES have to pay for it.

The risk to the people in the school isn't greater. The risk to the **insurance carrier** is greater.

Yes. That is the one in 50 million chance scenario. Here is the real scenario the underwriter is thinking about. If the wonderful teacher forgets to put the safety on or does something else and you have an accidental firing, the school is wide open on liability because the school did not insure the teacher knew how to handle a gun. The underwriter is probably not all that worried about the extremely unlikely possibility of the nutjob. He is worried about multiple weapons in the hands of unqualified people in close proximity to children on a daily basis. I really cannot fathom why anyone would read that sentence and think, "Wow! That sounds like a great idea!"

Then why are gun control people so steadfast on thier desire to ban private ownsership of "Scaryguns!"

 

[Wry Catcher]

Insurers Refuse To Cover Kansas Schools Where Teachers Carry Guns: It’s Too Risky


If a whacko enters a school and starts shooting the kids and the teachers, and kills 20 people before the cops show up and stop him, the school's insurance doesn't have to pay for it, because it wasn't the fault of any school personnel.

But if a whacko enters a school and starts shooting the kids and the teachers, and the teachers are armed and they fail to stop him until three or four kids are dead, then the school's insurance DOES have to pay for it.

The risk to the people in the school isn't greater. The risk to the **insurance carrier** is greater.

Yes. That is the one in 50 million chance scenario. Here is the real scenario the underwriter is thinking about. If the wonderful teacher forgets to put the safety on or does something else and you have an accidental firing, the school is wide open on liability because the school did not insure the teacher knew how to handle a gun. The underwriter is probably not all that worried about the extremely unlikely possibility of the nutjob. He is worried about multiple weapons in the hands of unqualified people in close proximity to children on a daily basis. I really cannot fathom why anyone would read that sentence and think, "Wow! That sounds like a great idea!"

Then why are gun control people so steadfast on thier desire to ban private ownsership of "Scaryguns!"

Guns aren't scary, gun lovers are.

 

[Spoonman]

Yes. That is the one in 50 million chance scenario. Here is the real scenario the underwriter is thinking about. If the wonderful teacher forgets to put the safety on or does something else and you have an accidental firing, the school is wide open on liability because the school did not insure the teacher knew how to handle a gun. The underwriter is probably not all that worried about the extremely unlikely possibility of the nutjob. He is worried about multiple weapons in the hands of unqualified people in close proximity to children on a daily basis. I really cannot fathom why anyone would read that sentence and think, "Wow! That sounds like a great idea!"

Then why are gun control people so steadfast on thier desire to ban private ownsership of "Scaryguns!"

Guns aren't scary, gun lovers are.

yes, people trying to keep their rights from being stripped are real scary.

 

[PratchettFan]

Can you find an incident where an armed employee at a school caused an incident? The risk is unknown.

I honestly think this is a political move. A business move would have been to at least give them a premium cost, even if it was an order of magnitude higher.

No. You can't find a single example of a school blowing up because they stored dynamite in the cafeteria, but that does not mean we should give it a try and see what happens. The business move, in this case, is to cancel the policy because the risk is enormous. This isn't a question of not knowing how to rate, it is a question of looking at the issue from a purely business point of view rather than a political one. Arming untrained people and treating them as guards of children is idiotic and the only reason we have had no fatalities because of it so far is because so far no school or state has shown this level of stupidity.

The risk is not enormous, the risk is unknown. There is a huge difference between the two and you know it.

Sailing on an merchant ship that is not in a convoy back in 1942 across the atlantic is an enormous risk. See the difference?

Of course the risk is enormous. A handgun which goes off in a classroom does not constitute a risk? We don't know what happens when a 9 mil hollow point enters the body of a 10 year old? Please. There is nothing unknown about this.

My organization has, on average, 3500 vehicles ranging from motorcycles to tractor-trailers. We train our drivers, run annual record checks, and I can tell you within a variance of 5% how many accidents we will have two years from now. I can tell you because I understand that statistically people are going to make mistakes. The more people, the longer they are in the environment, the more likely the mistakes. You arm untrained people and put them in with children on a large scale, it is only a question of how long before someone dies - not if. I would even be able to tell you have many deaths 10 years from now, except that this law is going away after the first funeral.

 

[Edgetho]

Here, have fun arguing with the quotes and tell them they didn't really mean what they said

You don't get it because you don't WANT to get it.

This is a new kind of animal. How could a responsible Insurance Executive say something like that when there is no history -- None -- Of School District arming Teachers and Custodians.

An intelligent reporter, or even a half-intelligent reader, would arrive at that conclusion without someone having to shove it up your ass.

There is no track record of arming Teachers. None. How can an Insurance Company rate something they have no experience, no claims experience, with?

I try to help out, I try to explain the real world and you just shift into stupid and rev it up until you get to hyper-stupid.

What other kind of 'Armed Security' has there ever been in Schools?

Scary Witches at Halloween?

An armed and uniformed police officer or deputy has had a complete background check, usually (at least in California) taken written psychological tests (MMPI in my agency) have been interviewed by a Ph. D. Psychologist and by at least two panels of veteran LE Officers before even receiving a conditional offer of employment.

S/he then completes (again in CA) PC 832, Laws of Arrest and Firearms Training and spends the first year on the job as a probationary employee under supervision of a FTC (field training officer) before receiving a permanent employment offer.

Then s/he must qualify on the range several times each year and pass the training under the critical eye of the range master. Fuck up and they will find themselves filing paper until they can prove proficiency, not only in hitting the target but in all aspects of firearm safety.

Insurance companies know this, and they know teachers and custodians won't have been evaluated and trained to the level necessary to carry a gun on a campus.

They might know it but they don't care.

What they care about is the additional huge liability they'd be taking on.

I don't understand why a Business Decision (IMHO an understandable one) should be interpreted as anything other than that.

You people need to slow down and think a little bit.

If you wanna say, "Hooray for our side!!! Because Schools can't get Insurance when they allow Teachers to carry guns!" and leave it there

That's fine. But you're not qualified or intelligent enough to try to interpret why the Insurance Company is refusing to Insure them.

Business Decision. Think about it.

Or not.

freaking peanut gallery

 

[PratchettFan]

Insurers Refuse To Cover Kansas Schools Where Teachers Carry Guns: It’s Too Risky


If a whacko enters a school and starts shooting the kids and the teachers, and kills 20 people before the cops show up and stop him, the school's insurance doesn't have to pay for it, because it wasn't the fault of any school personnel.

But if a whacko enters a school and starts shooting the kids and the teachers, and the teachers are armed and they fail to stop him until three or four kids are dead, then the school's insurance DOES have to pay for it.

The risk to the people in the school isn't greater. The risk to the **insurance carrier** is greater.

Yes. That is the one in 50 million chance scenario. Here is the real scenario the underwriter is thinking about. If the wonderful teacher forgets to put the safety on or does something else and you have an accidental firing, the school is wide open on liability because the school did not insure the teacher knew how to handle a gun. The underwriter is probably not all that worried about the extremely unlikely possibility of the nutjob. He is worried about multiple weapons in the hands of unqualified people in close proximity to children on a daily basis. I really cannot fathom why anyone would read that sentence and think, "Wow! That sounds like a great idea!"

Then why are gun control people so steadfast on thier desire to ban private ownsership of "Scaryguns!"

What the hell has that got to do with this issue?

 

[martybegan]

No. You can't find a single example of a school blowing up because they stored dynamite in the cafeteria, but that does not mean we should give it a try and see what happens. The business move, in this case, is to cancel the policy because the risk is enormous. This isn't a question of not knowing how to rate, it is a question of looking at the issue from a purely business point of view rather than a political one. Arming untrained people and treating them as guards of children is idiotic and the only reason we have had no fatalities because of it so far is because so far no school or state has shown this level of stupidity.

The risk is not enormous, the risk is unknown. There is a huge difference between the two and you know it.

Sailing on an merchant ship that is not in a convoy back in 1942 across the atlantic is an enormous risk. See the difference?

Of course the risk is enormous. A handgun which goes off in a classroom does not constitute a risk? We don't know what happens when a 9 mil hollow point enters the body of a 10 year old? Please. There is nothing unknown about this.

My organization has, on average, 3500 vehicles ranging from motorcycles to tractor-trailers. We train our drivers, run annual record checks, and I can tell you within a variance of 5% how many accidents we will have two years from now. I can tell you because I understand that statistically people are going to make mistakes. The more people, the longer they are in the environment, the more likely the mistakes. You arm untrained people and put them in with children on a large scale, it is only a question of how long before someone dies - not if. I would even be able to tell you have many deaths 10 years from now, except that this law is going away after the first funeral.

The possible RESULTS are known. What is unknown is the actual chance of it happening, which is then main component in a risk assesment. By your logic people should be getting shot randomly in the street by police officer's guns going off (because training only reduces the chance of an accident it does not eliminate it). I dont see that in the news that often.

By your logic also, children should sit in thier seats and not move during the school day due to risks of falling, slipping, meteor strikes in the hallway. Your reasoning only uses the worst case scenario without taking into account the freqency of occurance (or overestimating it to suit your agenda).

 

[RDD_1210]

Coming from a progress-0-bot that is fucking hilarious. If you ever had an original thought it would probably cause an anyurism.

Good one! Love the spelling of aneurism by the way. Really shows me how wrong I was!

I'm an engineer, not a professional douche such as yourself. we deal with numbers. Our secrataries deal with words, occasionally spell check.

And if my spelling is the only thing you got as a retort, well you basically have proven by libtard assesment of your intellectual skills.

Go play candyland, or some other activity more in line with your congative abilities.

LOL, Custodial engineer has a secratary . That's rich.

And you're allowed to be a bad speller, but the fact that you're too lazy to even use the spell checker is the part that proves my point.

 

[martybegan]

Good one! Love the spelling of aneurism by the way. Really shows me how wrong I was!

I'm an engineer, not a professional douche such as yourself. we deal with numbers. Our secrataries deal with words, occasionally spell check.

And if my spelling is the only thing you got as a retort, well you basically have proven by libtard assesment of your intellectual skills.

Go play candyland, or some other activity more in line with your congative abilities.

LOL, Custodial engineer has a secratary . That's rich.

And you're allowed to be a bad speller, but the fact that you're too lazy to even use the spell checker is the part that proves my point.

How about Chemical Engineer dickweed? And spell checks are not worth forum posts, unless this is an english professor's forum, which it is not.

My laziness is a long and trained virtue I have been working on for years.

 

[westwall]

Insurance Companies are notoriously risk averse.

They'll wait and see what happens then be in there competing for business again.

If I own a business, I might carry a gun on me at all times while I'm inside my business and I have no trouble getting Insurance for my Law Office, 7-Eleven, Pawn Shop, Delicatessen or Gas Station.

The Insurance Company just doesn't know what to think of this. It's all new. So they're going to sit back and look to see what happens.

Meanwhile, the School Districts should have no problem self-insuring

No. They know exactly what to think of this. Allowing untrained school employees to walk around with weapsons is a huge liability risk and no insurer is going to take it on. And untrained is exactly what they are. All they need is a concealed carry permit and that only requires an 8 hour class. I'm not even sure it involves any range time. I'll bet not. A police officer not only has to qualify on the weapon, he/she has to train regularly and requalify to keep the weapon.

I have a feeling a large percentage of CCW carriers fire thier weapon far more often then most police officers.

One has to look at the crime rate for CCW's vs the general population AND armed officers to get a better risk analysis.

Crime rates for those who pass CCW requirements are very very low.

You are correct. I had to qualify for my CCW renewal recently and it was run by one of our local sheriffs deputies and he made some smart ass remark about me being so old so I challenged him to a shooting match. He made the mistake of accepting. I have 5 more pizzas that he will be paying for!

 

[westwall]

Good one! Love the spelling of aneurism by the way. Really shows me how wrong I was!

I'm an engineer, not a professional douche such as yourself. we deal with numbers. Our secrataries deal with words, occasionally spell check.

And if my spelling is the only thing you got as a retort, well you basically have proven by libtard assesment of your intellectual skills.

Go play candyland, or some other activity more in line with your congative abilities.

LOL, Custodial engineer has a secratary . That's rich.

And you're allowed to be a bad speller, but the fact that you're too lazy to even use the spell checker is the part that proves my point.

Most professionals could care less about spelling. They are far too busy to worry about minutia like that. Hell, look at professors emails some time if you want a good laugh. Especially the global warming types, they couldn't spell to save their lives!

 

[westwall]

Yes. That is the one in 50 million chance scenario. Here is the real scenario the underwriter is thinking about. If the wonderful teacher forgets to put the safety on or does something else and you have an accidental firing, the school is wide open on liability because the school did not insure the teacher knew how to handle a gun. The underwriter is probably not all that worried about the extremely unlikely possibility of the nutjob. He is worried about multiple weapons in the hands of unqualified people in close proximity to children on a daily basis. I really cannot fathom why anyone would read that sentence and think, "Wow! That sounds like a great idea!"

Then why are gun control people so steadfast on thier desire to ban private ownsership of "Scaryguns!"

Guns aren't scary, gun lovers are.

Only to authoritarians like you. It scares the shit out of people like you that you can't just run roughshod over the citizenry. It just ain't fair that we can defend ourselves from people like you.

 

[Wry Catcher]

You don't get it because you don't WANT to get it.

This is a new kind of animal. How could a responsible Insurance Executive say something like that when there is no history -- None -- Of School District arming Teachers and Custodians.

An intelligent reporter, or even a half-intelligent reader, would arrive at that conclusion without someone having to shove it up your ass.

There is no track record of arming Teachers. None. How can an Insurance Company rate something they have no experience, no claims experience, with?

I try to help out, I try to explain the real world and you just shift into stupid and rev it up until you get to hyper-stupid.

What other kind of 'Armed Security' has there ever been in Schools?

Scary Witches at Halloween?

An armed and uniformed police officer or deputy has had a complete background check, usually (at least in California) taken written psychological tests (MMPI in my agency) have been interviewed by a Ph. D. Psychologist and by at least two panels of veteran LE Officers before even receiving a conditional offer of employment.

S/he then completes (again in CA) PC 832, Laws of Arrest and Firearms Training and spends the first year on the job as a probationary employee under supervision of a FTC (field training officer) before receiving a permanent employment offer.

Then s/he must qualify on the range several times each year and pass the training under the critical eye of the range master. Fuck up and they will find themselves filing paper until they can prove proficiency, not only in hitting the target but in all aspects of firearm safety.

Insurance companies know this, and they know teachers and custodians won't have been evaluated and trained to the level necessary to carry a gun on a campus.

They might know it but they don't care.

What they care about is the additional huge liability they'd be taking on.

I don't understand why a Business Decision (IMHO an understandable one) should be interpreted as anything other than that.

You people need to slow down and think a little bit.

If you wanna say, "Hooray for our side!!! Because Schools can't get Insurance when they allow Teachers to carry guns!" and leave it there

That's fine. But you're not qualified or intelligent enough to try to interpret why the Insurance Company is refusing to Insure them.

Business Decision. Think about it.

Or not.

freaking peanut gallery

Methinks you believe you're a know-it-all - ya don't. Before going off on the intelligence of others, or their motives I suggest you put your biases aside and consider my first point.