Insurers take a dim view of arming school employees (1 Viewer)

[Dittohead not!]

[h=1]Schools Seeking to Arm Employees Hit Hurdle on Insurance[/h]

As more schools consider arming their employees, some districts are encountering a daunting economic hurdle: insurance carriers threatening to raise their premiums or revoke coverage entirely.

If school employees are armed, the argument goes, then potential shooters will think twice about targeting schools, and therefore the children will be safer.

However, the insurance people, you know, the guys who make a living on risk assessment, don't seem to be behind the idea.

 

[ttwtt78640]

[h=1]Schools Seeking to Arm Employees Hit Hurdle on Insurance[/h]


If school employees are armed, the argument goes, then potential shooters will think twice about targeting schools, and therefore the children will be safer.

However, the insurance people, you know, the guys who make a living on risk assessment, don't seem to be behind the idea.

Logic dictates that the odds of a crazy student getting hold of a less than diligent teacher's gun certainly exist. Odds also favor a less than perfect teacher making the occasional fatal (or resulting in a very costly/serious injury) mistake by using a gun. The school insurance company has absolutely no added liability for the actions of a mass shooting nut, as their criminal actions are not covered by the policy, while the insurance company is responsible for the actions of the school staff. Adding armed personnel to a school's insurance policy would clearly increase liability risk, whether that be armed teachers or added armed school security personnel.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Logic dictates that the odds of a crazy student getting hold of a less than diligent teacher's gun certainly exist. Odds also favor a less than perfect teacher making the occasional fatal (or resulting in a very costly/serious injury) mistake by using a gun. The school insurance company has absolutely no added liability for the actions of a mass shooting nut, as their criminal actions are not covered by the policy, while the insurance company is responsible for the actions of the school staff. Adding armed personnel to a school's insurance policy would clearly increase liability risk, whether that be armed teachers or added armed school security personnel.

Are you sure about that?

I think the school can be held liable for injury/death of a student regardless of whether a school employee had anything to do with it. Schools are already getting rid of swings and merry go rounds at the behest of their insurers even though injuries caused by that equipment is not the fault of school employees.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Are you sure about that?

I think the school can be held liable for injury/death of a student regardless of whether a school employee had anything to do with it. Schools are already getting rid of swings and merry go rounds at the behest of their insurers even though injuries caused by that equipment is not the fault of school employees.

Yes I am sure. School equipment, property and personnel actions are covered, but not the actions of "unlawful invaders". Try to sue a school, business, park or even police department for not protecting you from a criminal attack.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Schools Seeking to Arm Employees Hit Hurdle on Insurance




If school employees are armed, the argument goes, then potential shooters will think twice about targeting schools, and therefore the children will be safer.

However, the insurance people, you know, the guys who make a living on risk assessment, don't seem to be behind the idea.

Those companies are flat out lying, also telling is that they aren't companies I ever heard of when I was in the business. Any given risk model would be neutral to actuaries because more kids are harmed by playground equipment than anything else, and that's not even counting that only adult employees would be allowed to carry. Statistically, those kids are in no more danger than having electricity to the school campi.

Also, from my business experience I can tell you that I LOVED when insurers got too uppity with conditions to government agencies because it left the door open for competitive negotiations, those companies would either price their agents out of the negotiation or give unreasonable conditions, either way that meant that new blood had a shot at BEHEMOTH contract potential.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Are you sure about that?

I think the school can be held liable for injury/death of a student regardless of whether a school employee had anything to do with it. Schools are already getting rid of swings and merry go rounds at the behest of their insurers even though injuries caused by that equipment is not the fault of school employees.

It's pretty simple to me, CCW holders tend to have the lowest incidence rates of any firearms owners, use that and apply all laws to employee carry and IMO the problem is minimized.

 

[Sarcogito]

Those companies are flat out lying, also telling is that they aren't companies I ever heard of when I was in the business. Any given risk model would be neutral to actuaries because more kids are harmed by playground equipment than anything else, and that's not even counting that only adult employees would be allowed to carry. Statistically, those kids are in no more danger than having electricity to the school campi.

Sure, but all those other risks such as electricity and playground equipment are already figured into their policies. We’re talking about adding a new risk, even if it is a small one.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Sure, but all those other risks such as electricity and playground equipment are already figured into their policies. We’re talking about adding a new risk, even if it is a small one.

Yeah, but it doesn't work that way. Risks are weighted by likelihood of occurance more than anything, for example, certain careers have ceilings of acceptability and can effect risk class like diving, pilots, race drivers, etc.

IOW, there isn't any significant change to risk to assert the policy changes, and I'm saying that the actuaries know that, and the executive who made the decision is lying.

Two reasons they may have lied;
1) May be political, the executive may be a statist
2) Could be an excuse to gouge.

 

[joko104]

Yes, insurance companies care about themselves.

IF employees are raped, assaulted or murdered, there is no liability to the insurance company. But if an employee shot someone wrongly, the insurance company is 100% on the hook - thus the economics they let the employees die.

This same reasoning is why ships traveling thru known pirate waters are also always unarmed. If everyone on the merchant ship is murdered, it doesn't cost the insurance company a dime. What would change all of this is if law recognized employers are liable if they do not provide protection to employees against crime.

Insurance companies aren't out $1 if every child is school is murdered, but would be liable for a school staffer using a firearm wrongly. Thus, insurance companies calculate they have no reason whatsoever to see children protected. It comes down to that.

 

[CalGun]

Many schools here are self insured. They pay significant sums into a pool and buy a super premium for the big hits and pay the little claims out of the pool. I can see an anti gun zealot making this up, and even asking the insurance company "so if we arm the staff our rates will go up "right" wink and nodd..."

 

[Surtr]

[h=1]Schools Seeking to Arm Employees Hit Hurdle on Insurance[/h]


If school employees are armed, the argument goes, then potential shooters will think twice about targeting schools, and therefore the children will be safer.

However, the insurance people, you know, the guys who make a living on risk assessment, don't seem to be behind the idea.

I have a better idea than arming the faculty: Put armed police in the schools, and require those officers to undergo training that is more specific to that role. The key to that is training. Simply having a gun does not necessarily increase overall survivability in a very high stress scenario like dealing with a mass murderer. It's like thinking someone can play a beautiful sonata because they bought a piano. It doesn't work like that. Just like learning how to play an instrument, learning how to engage an enemy takes a lot of regular practice and training.

People want to think they're a Billy Badass because they bought themselves a piece, but without the training to back it up, they won't add up to much. Especially if they find themselves up against a heavily armed assailant who has decided that everyone in that general area must die. I'm all for keeping a weapon for personal protection, but leave the mass shooters to the professionals, and increase response time by putting those professionals in the schools.

 

[tererun]

[h=1]Schools Seeking to Arm Employees Hit Hurdle on Insurance[/h]


If school employees are armed, the argument goes, then potential shooters will think twice about targeting schools, and therefore the children will be safer.

However, the insurance people, you know, the guys who make a living on risk assessment, don't seem to be behind the idea.

Actually, the insurance companies think of "what is a good excuse to raise rates." I would love to say that insurance companies are saying something realistic here, but that would be admitting insurance companies have anything but profit in mind. Guns in school make a great reason to charge extra for insurance. before anyone gets into the revoking thing, that is a great way to blackmail more money because you have to have insurance so they cancel you and then you get a huge rate from someone else because you are a risk.

Of course, i would really hope parents think twice before letting the person assigned to watch their little hellian have a gun. Most children are annoying at some point and make their own parents want to kill them, and now you are going to put an unrelated person in the room with them and 30 other hellspawn, plus add crazy management on top of that? We won't need crazy kids to shoot up the schools anymore, let us just make that the teacher's job.

Do not get me wrong, i am not arguing against this idea. The evil sadist in me absolutely loves this idea. Maybe teachers will be able to take back the classroom with the threat of imminent death.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Actually, the insurance companies think of "what is a good excuse to raise rates." I would love to say that insurance companies are saying something realistic here, but that would be admitting insurance companies have anything but profit in mind. Guns in school make a great reason to charge extra for insurance. before anyone gets into the revoking thing, that is a great way to blackmail more money because you have to have insurance so they cancel you and then you get a huge rate from someone else because you are a risk.

Of course, i would really hope parents think twice before letting the person assigned to watch their little hellian have a gun. Most children are annoying at some point and make their own parents want to kill them, and now you are going to put an unrelated person in the room with them and 30 other hellspawn, plus add crazy management on top of that? We won't need crazy kids to shoot up the schools anymore, let us just make that the teacher's job.

Do not get me wrong, i am not arguing against this idea. The evil sadist in me absolutely loves this idea. Maybe teachers will be able to take back the classroom with the threat of imminent death.

Look, I'm going to tell you this, and you are wasting your time with a response. You didn't work in the insurance business, I DID, some companies do in fact look for rate increase opportunities, and like anyone else some play politics, but you nor I know which it was.

I know that the numbers don't match the lie and the technicals of why, you don't. All you have is talking points, and everyone knows it, you don't know anything about either the insurance business or guns/gun control, and we all know it.

 

[CRUE CAB]

[h=1]Schools Seeking to Arm Employees Hit Hurdle on Insurance[/h]


If school employees are armed, the argument goes, then potential shooters will think twice about targeting schools, and therefore the children will be safer.

However, the insurance people, you know, the guys who make a living on risk assessment, don't seem to be behind the idea.

Then the insurance agents can stand a post at the schools.
If you are not willing to let educators and or police on campus, YOU provide security.
Either that or your and my kids are fish in barrel.
I would also bet that most school districts are self insured.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Then the insurance agents can stand a post at the schools.
If you are not willing to let educators and or police on campus, YOU provide security.
Either that or your and my kids are fish in barrel.
I would also bet that most school districts are self insured.

Agents don't set prices, risk departments do. Whoever made this call in the risk department is not going by numbers that back up the rate increases, this could either be for politics or for an excuse to price gouge but either way the numbers don't add up.

 

[CRUE CAB]

Agents don't set prices, risk departments do. Whoever made this call in the risk department is not going by numbers that back up the rate increases, this could either be for politics or for an excuse to price gouge but either way the numbers don't add up.

Yea, I know. The ex is an all lines agent.
Point is anyone that denies security to the schools willfully, can stand a post. Walk a few halls, be there to protect what everyone says is our most presious asset in this country.
Funny though, the people in the Sandy Hook are voted down more money for schools that would have paid officers to be there for their supposed most presious asset.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Yea, I know. The ex is an all lines agent.
Point is anyone that denies security to the schools willfully, can stand a post. Walk a few halls, be there to protect what everyone says is our most presious asset in this country.
Funny though, the people in the Sandy Hook are voted down more money for schools that would have paid officers to be there for their supposed most presious asset.

Honestly, all the schools would have to do is threaten to terminate the contract at renewal and the issue is dead. No insurance company or agent is going to lose a huge contract like that for a couple of dollars or politics.

 

[VanceMack]

[h=1]Schools Seeking to Arm Employees Hit Hurdle on Insurance[/h]


If school employees are armed, the argument goes, then potential shooters will think twice about targeting schools, and therefore the children will be safer.

However, the insurance people, you know, the guys who make a living on risk assessment, don't seem to be behind the idea.

The insurers probably dont have kids in those schools that had a 10+ minute police response time...

 

[Joe Steel]

... Also, from my business experience I can tell you that I LOVED when insurers got too uppity with conditions to government agencies because it left the door open for competitive negotiations, those companies would either price their agents out of the negotiation or give unreasonable conditions, either way that meant that new blood had a shot at BEHEMOTH contract potential.

Maybe the NRA can assume the risk. They can create an insurance company and sell liability insurance to every school who wants guns on campus.

What do you think?

 

[LaMidRighter]

Maybe the NRA can assume the risk. They can create an insurance company and sell liability insurance to every school who wants guns on campus.

What do you think?

I think you also have no idea what you are talking about. The NRA is not an insurer.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Yes I am sure. School equipment, property and personnel actions are covered, but not the actions of "unlawful invaders". Try to sue a school, business, park or even police department for not protecting you from a criminal attack.

So, if a crazy gunman shoots a kid, then the school isn't liable, but if an employee accidentally shoots one, or if a kid gets hold of the gun, then it is. That does put a new twist on the insurance company's viewpoint, doesn't it?

Crazy gunman kills a kid, teacher returns fire and kills said crazy gunman, but the bullet passes through his worthless carcass and hits another kid, the school isn't liable for the one hit by the gunman, but is for the one hit by the ricochet.

That's just illogical enough to be plausible.

 

[Joe Steel]

I think you also have no idea what you are talking about. The NRA is not an insurer.

That's easy to fix. Just create an insurance company or buy one. The could call it North American Man Gun Love Association.

 

[LaMidRighter]

That's easy to fix. Just create an insurance company or buy one. The could call it North American Man Gun Love Association.

Just stop. I don't care what you think here, and your weak insults against gun rights groups don't phase me. You don't show any real knowledge of either subject at play here and I'm finished with this.

 

[LaMidRighter]

So, if a crazy gunman shoots a kid, then the school isn't liable, but if an employee accidentally shoots one, or if a kid gets hold of the gun, then it is. That does put a new twist on the insurance company's viewpoint, doesn't it?

Crazy gunman kills a kid, teacher returns fire and kills said crazy gunman, but the bullet passes through his worthless carcass and hits another kid, the school isn't liable for the one hit by the gunman, but is for the one hit by the ricochet.

That's just illogical enough to be plausible.

Doesn't add up though. It's such a rare occurance it doesn't even register. I'd be more concerned with playground equipment as a risk manager.

 

[Joe Steel]

Just stop. I don't care what you think here, and your weak insults against gun rights groups don't phase me. You don't show any real knowledge of either subject at play here and I'm finished with this.

Hey! I'm serious...sort of.

If insurance companies don't want to assume the risk of gun-carrying school staff, an insurance company dedicated to insuring gun things might be necessary and it might be very profitable. Every gun guy in the country would want to deal with them. I'm sure you, with all your "real knowledge," know that though, don't you?