Nation's First Gun-Insurance Mandates Take Effect. Will They Hold up in Court?

• Published in: Insurance Journal 2023-01
• Main Author: Lehmann, R J
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: City ordinances; Consent; Firearm laws & regulations; Firearms; Injuries; Insurance coverage; Liability insurance; Permits; Property damage; State court decisions; Supreme Court decisions
• ISSN: 0020-4714

According to the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office, there are only 36 permitholders in the city, out of an estimated 50,000-55,000 households who own or possess firearms. Generally, this would mean guests, contract workers, or other visitors to the insured's property, or in some cases, to third parties who were injured by the insured off-premises. [...]the paradigmatic example of a tragic firearms accident—a child gets hold of an unsecured firearm and injures his or her sibling—would not be covered. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 70% of firearms injuries are the result of assaults, while less than 20% are unintentional. [...]ultimately, the state Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld exclusions for "expected or intended" injury as barring coverage, including in Voorhees v. Preferred Mutual Insurance Co. (1992), SL Industries v. American Motorists Insurance Co. (1992), and Harleysville Insurance Cos. v. Garitta (2001). [...]in 1990's Figueroa v. Hartford Insurance Co., the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey held that an injured party could be collaterally estopped from suing a third-party's insurer to relitigate questions of intent where that intent had been settled in a previous criminal action, such as by a guilty judgment or plea.