Insurance and arming teachers

[John_galt]

"There is a huge difference between a school district "arming teachers" and not restricting the right to carry by teachers. I don't think any school actually provides a gun for teachers."



http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/15/u...achers-to-carry-guns.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Yes there are schools arming and training teachers. I'm on a school board near this district. We are considering using the same training company. It isn't cheap and it is a lot of training and ongoing training. I have talked with the owner of the company doing the training, they have quite a bit of interest in the program.

 

[dogtown tom]

John_galt

"There is a huge difference between a school district "arming teachers" and not restricting the right to carry by teachers. I don't think any school actually provides a gun for teachers."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/15/us...anted=all&_r=0

Yes there are schools arming and training teachers. I'm on a school board near this district. We are considering using the same training company. It isn't cheap and it is a lot of training and ongoing training. I have talked with the owner of the company doing the training, they have quite a bit of interest in the program.

The article is about training, and clearly states that the teachers furnished their own firearms.

 

[John_galt]

There aren't the only school in the area doing this. At least one of the other school has furnished weapons.

 

[Mitlov]

Anybody who thinks this isn't political is kidding themselves. I've been in the classroom for 20 years and the most dangerous activity - bar none - I've seen at the school has been...

It's not political. I'm a tort defense lawyer, and the reasoning makes total sense to me.

In a school with a school resource officer (police officer), if there is a negligent discharge or a stray bullet, the school will cross-claim against the police department for defense and indemnity. Furthermore, the jury, even if it found negligence, would likely place most or all of the blame on the police department.

Same with private security. The school will contract with a security firm. If there is a negligent discharge or a stray bullet, the school would cross-claim against the security company for defense and indemnity. Furthermore, the jury, even if it found negligence, would likely place most or all of the blame on the private security firm.

When a school arms teachers or janitors, it is the ONLY defendant in a case for a negligent discharge or stray bullet. Furthermore, that case will be far harder to defend than the other two scenarios because any plaintiff's counsel will raise questions about "where the wrestling coach got his training" or "how frequently the janitor trained with his firearm." And the school won't know. And that will be twisted to look very, very bad in front of a jury who is only looking at that one particular incident. So you'll likely have a higher damages calculation (angry jurors = higher non-economic damages award) and 100% of it will go against the school instead of 0%-20%.

Insurance companies aren't in the business of promoting social policy. They're in the business of making money. They don't tend to be on anyone's "side" but the almighty dollar. And here, there's a rational economic reason for why they are raising insurance premiums for schools that allow teachers to carry. It completely changes the dynamic of any tort action arising out of a negligent discharge or stray bullet and dramatically increases the possibility of a tort award against the school (that the insurance company would be picking up the bill for).

 

[denton]

There is a huge difference between a school district "arming teachers" and not restricting the right to carry by teachers.

Indeed.

In my state, people with concealed carry permits, including school employees, can carry firearms into public schools. It has been that way for years. We have had exactly zero problems.

The school administration is not party to the issue, and officially doesn't know who does or does not have firearms. Of course, neither do the bad guys.

 

[SleazyRider]

I have been in education for 28 years, about half of those in administration. I am also an avid gun owner and have a CC permit. My view on all of this is that I personally would not want just any principal or teacher carrying a firearm in a school. In the heat of the battle there are too many variables as to where people are, where they should not be or could be.

That being said, I would be in favor of states providing a week long (pick your time) hands on educational training that has some meat in it. Take an old abandoned school and train officers, principals, teachers, etc in a real life setting. Work with the insurance companies on this as well. There really are not that many companies that insure schools as this is a specialty area.

The last thing we need is some person with a CC permit using his/her firearm at school and the wrong person gets hurt. Jut my two cents

Your post makes sense to me. Isn't the National Teachers Hall of Fame in Kansas? Have the Newtown teachers been included? Seems that they are the very embodiment of what a teacher should strive to be---albeit they were unarmed.

 

[rcmodel]

This would be a good application for Dick Cheney's 'Don't ask, Don't tell' policy to make a strong comeback where it is really needed this time.

rc

 

[beatledog7]

Dogtown,

Arming teachers means having the school district play an active roll. Allowing them to make that choice for themselves--which I advocate--is not the same as arming them.

Denton's district would appear to have that exactly right.

 

[jfrey]

I've been a teacher for 20 years and seen the best and worst of students in that time. If our district ever decides to allow SOME teachers to arm themselves I'll be at the head of the line. There are certainly some teachers that I wouldn't want any where near a gun for any reason. I also wouldn't want the district arming teachers because that would mean issuing school purchased guns and I definitely prefer to pick my own. I don't like the idea of someone else deciding what is best for me to carry based on their personal preferences, as I have my own opinion on what is best for me to carry and conceal. With 55 years of shooting experience I think I can make that choice.

As far as insurance companies go, they like collecting premiums but don't like to take the risk. To me it goes with the territory but how many people have had their insurance canceled after only one ticket or accident, even though they have paid their premiums for years.

Additional training is almost always a good idea, depending on who is doing the training, and teachers should be able to avail themselves of that opportunity. There should also be ample time provided for them to get in sufficient range time to be proficient with what ever arm they choose to carry.

 

[beatledog7]

For those districts where CCW is allowed, have there been any problems that led to a claim? Have there been any shootings?

If no to both, then there's your answer.

Any decent liability/risk whiz should be able to do the math on that one.

 

[dogtown tom]

beatledog7 For those districts where CCW is allowed, have there been any problems that led to a claim? Have there been any shootings?

If no to both, then there's your answer.

Any decent liability/risk whiz should be able to do the math on that one.

In 2008, the Harrold ISD became the first Texas school district to publicly announce that they would permit certain staff to carry concealed handguns on campus. As far as i can tell there have been no incidents.

Unfortunately, in the Van ISD (East Texas) a district employee was injured when attending firearms training.

 

[Deltaboy1984]

Our District allows us to keep guns in our cars ,mainly cause many of the staff goes hunting after school. I also carry when we make post football game deposits. All I did was ask the Superintendent and he said no problem it was covered in our Board policy.

 

[denton]

For those districts where CCW is allowed, have there been any problems that led to a claim? Have there been any shootings?

If no to both, then there's your answer.

Any decent liability/risk whiz should be able to do the math on that one.

The entire state of Utah, years of experience, zero shootings, zero problems.

Yet if you decide to shoot up one of our schools, you'd best plan on the possibility that the office secretary or the art teacher is prepared to put two rounds in your center of mass.

 

[Agsalaska]

I have been in education for 28 years, about half of those in administration. I am also an avid gun owner and have a CC permit. My view on all of this is that I personally would not want just any principal or teacher carrying a firearm in a school. In the heat of the battle there are too many variables as to where people are, where they should not be or could be.

That being said, I would be in favor of states providing a week long (pick your time) hands on educational training that has some meat in it. Take an old abandoned school and train officers, principals, teachers, etc in a real life setting. Work with the insurance companies on this as well. There really are not that many companies that insure schools as this is a specialty area.

The last thing we need is some person with a CC permit using his/her firearm at school and the wrong person gets hurt. Jut my two cents

I agree with that.

 

[Mitlov]

For those districts where CCW is allowed, have there been any problems that led to a claim? Have there been any shootings?

If no to both, then there's your answer.

Any decent liability/risk whiz should be able to do the math on that one.

I never had a single car accident in my teenage years. Does that mean I should have gotten free car insurance as a teenage male? No. Insurance companies look at probabilities of events, not just whether they happen to have actually happened yet in a partilar district or state.

And yes, accidental shootings in schools do occur. Not often, but the payout in such a case is so high that an insurance company can't help but take the possibility into account when determining the premiums that a potential insured should pay. Here's one example from May of this year, separate from the teacher who was wounded during school-sponsored firearms training in February:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/14/aurora-high-school-studen_n_3274255.html

 

[AABEN]

Not sure if this should go in general or legal.

Link to article...http://www.freep.com/article/20130709/BLOG25/307090018/schools-armed-teachers-dropped-insurance

Sumery of article is that Insurance is being or proposed to be dropped or rates dirmatically raised with schools that let teachers carry.

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, vice president for business development for Iowa-based EMC Insurance. “Our guidelines have not recently changed.”

EMC is refusing to renew coverage “for schools that permit teachers and custodians to carry concealed firearms on their campuses under the new law,” the Des Moines Register reports. The company insures 85%-90% of all Kansas school districts.

In Oregon, the New York Times reports, districts will pay an additional $2,500-a-year premium for each armed staffer.

This isn’t a political move; it’s a business decision.

Bob Skow, chief executive officer of the Independent Insurance Agents of Iowa, told the Des Moines Register that he’s not surprised: “Insurance is all about risk and about pricing the cost of coverage in a way that correctly reflects it. That’s one of the reasons many schools have gotten rid of their trampolines, he said.”

That is cheaper than haring guards!

 

[AABEN]

Why raise it before they know what will happen ???

 

[beatledog7]

I never had a single car accident in my teenage years. Does that mean I should have gotten free car insurance as a teenage male? No. Insurance companies look at probabilities of events, not just whether they happen to have actually happened yet in a partilar district or state.

You are just one person. Obviously there will be people who never have a claim, but when you buy into a company's cadre of clients, you are still part of the overall equation even if you never file a claim. The only way your point would make any sense is if all the other drivers insured by the same company had equally clean histories. They don't.

If the industry has no history of incidents in districts where CCW is allowed, then it has no basis for charging high rates based on CCW being allowed. It is not using historical claims data--it is using hysterical whim.

 

[Mitlov]

You are just one person. Obviously there will be people who never have a claim, but when you buy into a company's cadre of clients, you are still part of the overall equation even if you never file a claim. The only way your point would make any sense is if all the other drivers insured by the same company had equally clean histories. They don't.

If the undustry has no history of incidents in districts where CCW is allowed, then he has no basis for charging high rates based on CCW being allowed. He is not using historical claims data--he is using hysterical whim.

Every single insurance company in the nation is suffering from the same "hysterical whim"? Insurance companies have hard economic reasons to leave whims and politics at the door. If there was no increased risk, all it would take is one insurance company to say "hey, we see no additional risk, so we'll offer you the same coverage as before at nearly the same price," and they'd get a TON of business. The fact that none of these companies, in competition with each other to obtain school districts as their customers, are all saying the same thing, suggests to me that it's not just "hysterical whim."

Accidental shootings happen. They do. Not often when you're just talking about one person's experience. But when you start talking about millions of people, they're a statistical inevitability. Google "firing range accidental shooting" or "police accidental shooting" or "military accidental shooting" and count the number of incidents. And when school employees are the armed ones instead of uniformed police or private security, the school districts will be the sole defendants in the inevitable (and almost-impossible-to-defend) personal injury lawsuits.

Thanks to the free market, insurance companies have an incentive to offer insurance at the lowest price they can while still making a profit. If they're all charging a high price for one particular type of insured, it's not because of emotion. It's because they're going to have more claims and/or more expensive claims for that insured. It's not a moral judgment, it's not a political position, and it's not emotion. It's just cold hard business.

 

[beatledog7]

Shooting ranges are bound to have accidents because--duh--everyone there has guns and is shooting them each and every time they go. Having nearly 100% of personnel armed is basically true for police and military operations as well. That's a very long way from having perhaps a handful of adults choosing to CCW in schools.

Consider--instead of places where everyone is armed--places where a relatively small number of people are armed and are mostly carrying concealed. How many accidental shootings now? Darn near zero. One could also compare the number of people accidentally shot in a "gun-free" zone to the number of people intentionally slaughtered in a gun-free zone by someone who purposely chose a zero-deterrence gun-free zone to carry out his mayhem.

Statistically, a person is clearly safer in a place where CCW is allowed than in one where it is not. Insurance rates are supposed to be based on real statistics, not suppositions. The districts that want to allow CCW and are warned about rate increases need to shop elsewhere or even consider self insuring.

Insurers will raise rates any time they think policy holders will pay them, statically valid reason or not.

You'll have a hard time convincing me that there's no politics and hysterics in this.

 

[Dean Weingarten]

EMC Insurance Backs off of "No Guns" Policy, but it may be too late

A Kansas law that allows teachers to carry weapons to protect children prompted EMC, the major insurance provider for Kansas Schools, to refuse to renew policies.

Three Kansas Community colleges looked for alternate insurance sources after EMC told them it would drop their policies if they allowed staff to carry guns to protect their students.

Independence Community College, Labette Community College and Neosho County Community College formed an insurance consortium at a considerable savings.

EMC made a counter offer, but it may be too late.

David Wallis, an incoming ICC Trustee said:

"I truly believe when the word gets out that there is an option, that this team will be joined by K-12, municipalities and universities across Kansas," he said. "That's why EMC is trying so hard to convince these entities to request the exemption. They need time to stop their ship from sinking."

This is the way that capitalism works. If you make stupid business decisions, you lose business. The question is: Will EMC and like minded companies be able to backpedal fast enough to avoid a major loss of income, or worse?

©2013 by Dean Weingarten Permission to share granted as long as this notice is included.

http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2013/07/emc-insurance-backs-off-of-no-guns.html

 

[Sam1911]

<Merged.>

 

[beatledog7]

If this company and others like it crash because of a "business" decision that's clearly more emotional and political than practical, it does so with my blessings.

The idea of forming a consortium is brilliant, and going with an insurer whose stance on firearms is neutral is even more so. If more entities explored the advantages of this, insurers who knee-jerk default to no-guns conditions in their policies would be in serious deep doo-doo. That'd be great in my book.

I remain convinced that the facts show we're safer where guns are allowed, and the sooner insurers figure this out, the better.

 

[Telekinesis]

This makes perfect sense from a business standpoint. Whether or not we are safer carrying guns is not at issue here, it's the liability of the insurer. As mentioned earlier, an insurer insures against the possibility of loss, not necessarily the statistical realization of that loss.

Right now, anything that happens with a gun on campus is not covered by the insurer, so they have no reason to include the charge in their premiums. But as soon as you start insuring people carrying guns, the possibility of something going wrong is there and must be covered. Imagine the lawsuit that would arrise should one of the teachers have a ND. You would have the angry parents of 30-100 kids suing the school (read: insurance company is liable for any payment) for everything they could think of including negligence, hearing loss, emotional distress, etcetera. That kind of lawsuit would easily be a multi-million dollar lawsuit.

Is it really that hard to believe that something could go wrong when you have people carrying guns? Look at gunshows: a place where everyone is expected to have at least basic gun safety knowledge AND all guns are unloaded. Can you honestly say that you've never heard of a ND at a gunshow? What makes you think that there is not even the possibility of something like that happening somewhere like a school?

 

[dab102999]

Look at gunshows: a place where everyone is expected to have at least basic gun safety knowledge AND all guns are unloaded. Can you honestly say that you've never heard of a ND at a gunshow? What makes you think that there is not even the possibility of something like that happening somewhere like a school?

That is a very good point. I am sure there have always been incidents of this, of course over the last 6 months they have been on the news more then they ever have before. But with that statement I am sure that these shows have to carry insurance. How are sistuations like that handled in those cases? And how could that apply to the insurance for schools?