I Have to Agree With Caleb

Caleb thinks that Concealed Carry Insurance is a waste of money, because it’s what’s known as “Surplus Lines Insurance.”  I don’t work in the insurance industry, as Caleb does, but it certainly makes sense that for an unusual policy, where risks are difficult to calculate, and costs won’t be spread out amongst a very large pool of policy holders, that you’re going to invariably be overcharged.  Insurance companies typically don’t like placing bets if there’s a chance they’ll lose.

But being involved with having to defend yourself in court for a questionable suit does rise to the level of things one should consider buying insurance for, namely a devastating financial loss.  But as a personal matter, I wouldn’t pay hundreds of dollars a year to cover something that’s a stunningly rare occurrence in the first place, and an even rarer to end up financially devastating if it does happen.

UPDATE: Xlrq has more on the topic here.

5 thoughts on “I Have to Agree With Caleb”

  1. Actually you do pay hundreds of dollar for rare occurnces. Your homeowner policy covers fire and that is a rare occurence. But the financial risk is high so you choose to buy it or your mortgage holder requires it.

    Buying insurance is a risk calculaton. Many people buy health insurance when they are young and healthy though they may not use the cost of the premium every month.

    A general personal libility policy may be a better policy , It covers more risks and the cost may be less.

  2. “Surplus lines” just means it’s written by a carrier not admitted in your state, presumably because it’s not available on admitted paper. I don’t see that, in and of itself, as a reason to purchase or not purchase the coverage. The likelihood that it doesn’t cover any risks not already covered by your homeowners policy, however, would be a great reason not to purchase the stuff, and may also be a reason no admitted carrier will offer it.

  3. The “risk calculation” part is also a big deal – the statistical odds of you actually 1) having to shoot someone, followed by their family then suing for wrongful death are pretty stupendous.

  4. I would disagree Caleb. While the risk of a defensive firearm use is very low, I think that the likelihood of a civil suit is high. Especially if you are an established professional with enough assets to make a suit worthwhile to a lawyer working on a contingency basis.

  5. This will be a fair test of how actuarially-driven the insurance industry really is. Since the number of concealed-carriers has skyrocketed, and the “risk” of actual use is so low, they should have an accurate picture of that social reality in no time, what with computers and all.

    In happy world. I’m still leery of them from when they tried to ban convertibles (they did, too!) in the 70’s, and lined up all expert opinion against motorcycles (experience may yet bear them out on that), then spent millions of ad dollars going after those markets when people bought them anyway.

    Next month I will be demolishing a building that no one will insure, ostensibly due to the arson onslaught brought about by These Troubling Economic Times. Underwriters make no differentiation between pyromanic evictees and a house I see from my living room, which we’ve owned free & clear since my father was a teenager. Thus I’ve come to think that insurance doctrine is a social-theory function, driven by the slippery ideals of the elite, and only justified to the paying rubes by those intricate tables you wouldn’t understand. It’s not as if they haven’t been caught at that before (see “Industrial Insurance,” the dime-a-week scam).

    If so, it doesn’t bode well for cheap carry insurance.

Comments are closed.