Insurance and arming teachers

[dab102999]

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.”

 

[Guy de Loimbard]

A car with an alarm system and airbags has a lower premium, but armed teachers would raise premiums? Armed teachers seem like a safety feature to me.

 

[dab102999]

I wonder if the NRA could help point them in the direction of an Insurance provider?

 

[Huskerguy]

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

 

[dab102999]

Huskerguy...I agree with what you say. When the whole idea of letting teachers be armed I truely believe that only those that want to be armed should be the ones who carry. No different then general sociaty. And I also feel that what you propose just shows that there are some simple easy answers to this "believed" problem.

 

[Bob2222]

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.

Insurance underwriters tend to be a very conservative bunch. I doubt that the actual risk is anywhere near a "$2,500-a-year premium for each armed staffer". It is political in the sense that nobody in the company really wants to sign off off on this. So they're pricing it so high that they hope that nobody will take them up on it.

If I were advising a school district, I'd suggest that they shop around to multiple insurers and reinsurers.

Reinsurance companies have prices worked out for almost every eventuality. They even have life insurance rates worked out for astronauts -- and they've been fairly accurate at predicting the risk over the years!

 

[beatledog7]

Arming administrators and teachers is not the answer. Eliminating gun-free zones so that there exists in the shooter's mind the possibility that some adults in that school might be armed and ready to fight back is the answer. Deterrence works because mass shooters are, at heart, cowards.

 

[Hanzo581]

I would not want any school employee armed around my child without extensive training. Seeing how unsafe people are in general I wouldn't want it any other way.

Also agree that only willing people should be able to carry, people forced into something like that would only be a danger.

 

[Blackbeard]

A car with an alarm system and airbags has a lower premium, but armed teachers would raise premiums? Armed teachers seem like a safety feature to me.

The problem is school liability. The school is not liable for a spree killer that comes in and shoots people, but they are liable if a teacher shoots someone or is otherwise injured by the teacher's gun. So, allowing guns may save lives, but it increases risk to the school district and therefore the insurance company.

 

[tyeo098]

The problem is school liability. The school is not liable for a spree killer that comes in and shoots people, but they are liable if a teacher shoots someone or is otherwise injured by the teacher's gun. So, allowing guns may save lives, but it increases risk to the school district and therefore the insurance company.

Schools SHOULD be liable for providing insufficient security if a wacko comes in and shoots up the place.

 

[dab102999]

I would not want any school employee armed around my child without extensive training. Seeing how unsafe people are in general I wouldn't want it any other way.

Not argueing with your point of view but that same statement has been a arguement with what most of us feel is our basic right given to us under the 2nd admendment. I do not believe teachers as a whole would put themselves or the children they protect in harms way just to carry a gun.

 

[Hanzo581]

Not argueing with your point of view but that same statement has been a arguement with what most of us feel is our basic right given to us under the 2nd admendment. I do not believe teachers as a whole would put themselves or the children they protect in harms way just to carry a gun.

They wouldn't purposely put them in harm of course. And it is absolutely a right to carry if you choose, until I hand over my child into your care...after that I get some say in what goes on.

 

[kludge]

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

It says a lot about our society that 20+ kids dying and a teacher using her body to take bullets shielding her children is preferable to the alternative of a dead perp and a couple kids injured/dead in the crossfire.

Israel has had armed teachers/security for many years and we'll never know how many lives have been saved.

 

[Hanzo581]

You are assuming so much in that one statement....

 

[Cosmoline]

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

I don't believe that for a second. Insurance companies are not apolitical entities that adjust premiums based solely on some supercomputer's math. This is an excellent case in point. For example, a school's decision to have field trips can greatly increase exposure for the carrier. But how many carriers penalize schools for having them, or jack rates up by thousands for each bus full of kids going off on an adventure in tortland? How many carriers jack rates up because the technical theater class is using skill saws? How many are penalizing schools for having that ultimate magnet of injuries--a FOOTBALL team?

This decision is being made to punish districts as a political matter by a carrier who's owners just don't like the idea of armed teachers. This is another pertinent point:

The company insures 85%-90% of all Kansas school districts.

So they have little competition to fear, and can dictate policy as a result.

 

[dogtown tom]

<-----------teacher

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.

If the district were to provide training, certification or grant approval.......heck yeah there would be a huge liability risk. I don't want to see my district financially liable because a fellow teacher used a firearm negligently. The simple answer is the state legislature crafting the law to exempt the district (or any employer) from liability for the negligent use or misuse of a firearm by an employee. Let each employee obtain their own insurance.

Teachers should be allowed to carry firearms anywhere anyone else can. Being that criminals don't care about laws period, this means I should be allowed to carry on campus WITHOUT RESTRICTION. This includes HR policies.

Currently Texas law does not allow me to do so and since TSRA has sidestepped this issue for the last several legislative sessions it doesn't look like I'll have the ability to do so anytime in my lifetime. Heck, teachers aren't even covered under the "parking lot" bill.

beatledog7 Arming administrators and teachers is not the answer.

So who the heck would you want on campus? When seconds count how long will it take for someone armed to arrive?

Hanzo581 I would not want any school employee armed around my child without extensive training.

But its okay for a criminal with no training to come on campus with a gun? I agree......training is great, but when is it "extensive" enough? 5 hours? 10 hours? A week? Why should a teacher exercising their Second Amendment rights have to have more training than non teachers.

tyeo098 Schools SHOULD be liable for providing insufficient security if a wacko comes in and shoots up the place.

Absolute nonsense.
Should you be held liable if a wacko comes into your home during your kids birthday party and shoots up the place?

 

[Apple a Day]

Re:Huskerguy,
Insurance companies give discounts for "safe driver" courses. I'd like to see the same sort of thing for training voluntarily armed teachers.

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...

... wait for it...

...competition cheerleading. I kiddeth thee not.

 

[mgkdrgn]

any on-site armed security should be provided by uniformed, qualified law enforcement officers,”

Whom in various studies have been shown, what, 7X more likely to shoot an un-involved civilian than a CWP holder? I would think the premium should go DOWN.

 

[mgkdrgn]

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.

Be nice if the most of the POLICE in this country actually had that much training. Front Site in Nevada has a standing offer to train teachers, sent by their school districts, for free. For years. I don't think they have had anybody take them up on it.

 

[whanson_wi]

I'd want any armed staff to have additional training. It's been a while since I've been in a classroom, but I remember teachers who couldn't operate an overhead projector.

A person who has trouble with the mechanics of the cap on a felt-tip marker probably should be discouraged from carrying a firearm around kids.

 

[blarby]

<--------- Insurance Guy

Anybody who thinks this isn't political is kidding themselves.

Then I'll have to put myself in the camp of a kidder.

While I think the premium raise is a bit excessive, changing the rate based upon a new risk profile is pretty much par for the course in Insurance.


A good comparison in auto insurance would be going from a 94 saturn 4 door to a 2013 Bugatti- you'd be paying quite a bit more.

What this article doesn't mention a lot of (that other outlets have) is that there ARE other insurers who will take the risk, and have offered assistance. About the best we can hope for is that no "armed teacher" has an incident that leads to a loss payout, or the premiums for renewal are going to make someone choke on their coffee.

 

[manithree]

I don't believe that for a second.

Agreed. The other perinent point being some free states have allowed teachers and administrators to carry for over a decade. Where's the evidence the actuaries are using to show the increased risk to the insurer/reinsurer? There's not any, it's simply liberal hopolophobia.

I've never heard of a gun accident in a school from a teacher or administrator carrying in Utah, and if it happened it would be all over the news.

 

[blarby]

Where's the evidence the actuaries are using to show the increased risk to the insurer/reinsurer?

Its pretty easy to spot- its the gun.

Now, I'm not saying that the risks of having unarmed teachers vs armed teachers outweighs anything or everything... That is a different issue.

What is at issue is that the higher the risk ( more guns) the greater the chance that error will occur ( loss payout). Thats what your premium dollar hedges against- a potential loss. If your insurance dollars hedged against a certain loss, you'd never be able to get coverage.

Unfortunately, more guns DOES equal more risk of something averse happening. Thats just how it is. Does that mean it WILL happen ? No. All it means is that there is a higher CHANCE of it happening.

In this case, there are no actuarial tables to be used... they are using something called Judgement rating. Feel free to look it up !

 

[manithree]

A good comparison in auto insurance would be going from a 94 saturn 4 door to a 2013 Bugatti- you'd be paying quite a bit more.

Actually, that's a terrible comparison. In that case there would be actuarial evidence that a much more expensive car in a certain class costs more to insure. There may even be evidence that the class, or certain characteristics of the Bugatti (top speed, hp, etc.) affect the likelihood of causing an accident based on actual data from accident records.

In this case, there are no actuarial tables to be used... they are using something called Judgement rating.

Which seems to directly contradict your previous comparison.

So when one insurance company completely ignores the statistical evidence that allowing school employees to carry causes no measurable increase in gun-related accidents and instead imposes a draconian fee, what exactly is your evidence that it's completely non-political? And an unsupported statement by the author of the article (who is obviously anti-gun) doesn't count.

 

[blarby]

Quote:
A good comparison in auto insurance would be going from a 94 saturn 4 door to a 2013 Bugatti- you'd be paying quite a bit more.
Actually, that's a terrible comparison. In that case there would be actuarial evidence that a much more expensive car in a certain class costs more to insure. There may even be evidence that the class, or certain characteristics of the Bugatti (top speed, hp, etc.) affect the likelihood of causing an accident based on actual data from accident records.

No guns = no incidents. More (any) guns = possiblity of incidence.

There ya go.

Again, they are insuring against the possibility of loss, not the certainty of loss.

what exactly is your evidence that it's completely non-political

Conversely, where is your evidence that it is.