You could beat this in court, because an "assault rifle" has no legal definition. The "underwriter" is almost certainly some 20 something girl who knows NOTHING about firearms but is checking a list she has. It probably does not contain a list of prohibited guns (although it may). These girls (and guys sometimes, but usually women) will always play it safe. If it says "assault rifle" it doesn't matter that it is a made up phrase that has crept into the public vocabulary. I own an insurance brokerage, and I deal with many of these folks every day. I can tell you that 1) you would expect the claim to be denied and 2) you could collect by going to court. Who needs that kind of hassle? However, you can be a change agent. Before you go to another company, write a nice, polite letter to the head of underwriting, the head of sales, and the president of the company. Don't insult, berate, threaten or demean them, but tell them that you are disappointed that they have chosen to insert vague, legally imprecise and legally unsupportable language into their contracts re: "assault rifles." Tell them the correct LEGAL usage of that term means a fully automatic machine gun type rifle, and not just something that looks frightening to the uninitiated. Tell them there are thousands semi automatic rifles legally sold to shooting enthusiasts around the nation who use them legally, responsibly, and carefully for hunting, target and competitive events. It is not inappropriate to state that most owners of semiauto rifles take great pains to keep them secured and locked away, so that the theft rate is LOW from house breakins. Mention that we/you have them secured in safes almost every time. Tell them you are disappointed that they APPEAR to have allowed a shrill, uninformed, and irresponsible element of society to cause them to shun a huge and growing element in our society, and that those people are extremely politically and socially sensitive. If they knew Travelers had such a policy they would move their homeowners/fire policies to other, more reasonable companies immediately. Then I would add something like this. "I wanted to give you the opportunity to clarify Travelers' position on this issue. After all, in some states, the insurance commissioner does not even allow companies to disallow items considered distasteful to the religious, racial, social or political predilections of the company employees, so this may -in fact- be an illegal practice. Before I make a statement in numerous electronic and print forums (including the National Rifle Association, which has an impressive financial and political clout), I just thought it fair to ask if this might be the false statement of an uninformed underwriting clerk who confuses automatic weapons with legal items that can be purchased with no more than a driver's license and a criminal background check in many states. Please clarify Traveler's position on so called "assault rifles," for me, if you would be so kind. I would love to do business with your company and have good and positive things to say about it."
Send them something like that, saying you await their response. You MAY be a change agent. I have seen things like that happen. There is idiotic hostility to guns among the ranks of all big corporate insurance companies (far less so if you find a small local company with no affiliation with the east coast, in my experience), but NEVER attribute to evil and maliciousness what you can chalk up to bureaucratic stupidity and ineptness. You might just help them out, believe it or not.
My first post here. Sorry to write a book.
