House Panel Backs Ban on Insurers Discriminating Against Gun Owners

By: Jim Turner News Service of Florida | Posted: February 5, 2014 3:05 AM
Gun and bullets photo illustration

Insurance companies could face tougher penalties if they impose higher rates, refuse to issue or cancel auto or homeowner policies due to gun ownership, under a measure backed by a House committee Tuesday.

Florida law already prohibits such action, but Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fort Walton Beach, said his proposal (HB 255) would provide a remedy other than with the state Office of Insurance Regulation by allowing a policyholder to sue if an insurer took such an action.

"It just gives greater access to courts," Gaetz said. "It's unlawful now, but the only entity that has the ability to enforce it right now is OIR."

A staff analysis of the bill notes that "an issue with the current law is that it lacks specific authority to take action against any insurers which violate the proscribed behavior."

Gaetz added that while such actions by insurers haven't been seen in Florida, cases have been tracked in Ohio, Indiana and Pennsylvania.

"In Florida that has not been a circumstance, but this is a prophylactic in the event that events we've seen in other parts of the country proliferate here," Gaetz said.

Rep. Kevin Rader, D-Delray Beach, an insurance agent, cast the lone vote on the Insurance and Banking Subcommittee against the measure. He called the measure "unnecessary."

"If an insurance company wants to exclude assault-type weapons, it seems to me that it is good to exclude if they desire to," Rader said. "Certainly I know on animal exclusions they exclude Doberman pinschers and rottweilers."

Gaetz said insurance companies wouldn't be prohibited from asking potential policyholders about gun ownership, nor would they face state scrutiny if they lowered rates for a gun owner based on an actuarial determination that gun ownership reduced the risk of burglaries.

Insurers also wouldn't be prohibited from charging a supplemental premium, as long as it's not deemed unfairly discriminatory, to insure a firearm or firearm collection.

National Rifle Association lobbyist Marion Hammer said the issue was raised as Citizens Property Insurance Corp. had included a question in its new policy clearinghouse regarding gun ownership.

"The only reason for insurance companies to start asking you about what guns you want is so they can discriminate against gun owners," Hammer said. "They have no right to ask those questions."

A spokesman for Citizens said the question is no longer a part of the clearinghouse questionnaire.

The question was included in early testing of the site, as one of the four private companies currently set up to potentially receive new policies, United Property & Casualty Insurance Co., has been allowed by OIR since 2005 to consider firearms when underwriting policies.

Sandra Starnes, OIR director of property and casualty product review, said United is allowed to exclude homeowners if they are "in possession of dangerous firearms."

Assault and rapid fire weapons could be classified as "dangerous," but game hunting rifles and shot guns would be excluded from the prohibition, she said.

The measure must still get through the Civil Justice Subcommittee and Regulatory Affairs Committee.

The Senate companion (SB 424) has already been backed by the Banking and Insurance and the Criminal Justice committees, and has only to clear the Appropriations Committee before reaching the Senate floor.

Tags: News, Politics

Comments (5)

John Grey
1:53PM FEB 7TH 2014
It's clear that not having a car reduces auto accidents. In many cities people commute via public transportation. The evidence is clear.
The only hope is that we continue to look at am "object" or symbol to deal with human behavior. We need laws, more laws, more politically correct speech, bans on specific breeds of dogs & everyone will obey, "good boy"......Err I mean "immediately Comrade".
8:44PM FEB 7TH 2014
PS, you may want to tell the youth minister and family advice columnist in North Carolina whose 3 year old boy capped his 17 month old sister after finding daddy's pistol in a "secret hidden location." Nope, guns in the home pose no risk at all that might warrant an insurance company charging an added preminum.
6:50PM FEB 7TH 2014
Ah yes, if one does not own and drive a car, one does not pay for car insurance. If one drives a car that has a record of being stolen more or if one's driving record has many accidents one pays more-Comrade Grey.
5:19PM FEB 6TH 2014
Well damn, another verity shattered. I thought conservatives let the market decide what was best and that conservatives do not care for folks being able to sue bizness. The evidence is clear that having guns in the home results in more accidents and deaths than not having guns in the home.
10:52AM FEB 5TH 2014

Leave a Comment on This Story

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.