spacemanspiff
New member
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-02/nra-branded-insurance-program-is-unlawful-n-y-regulators-say
There are a few things at issue here. For starters, the insurance that Lockton Cos was offering is what is referred to in the insurance industry as 'surplus lines' or 'non-admitted'. And in order to place such insurance, one of two conditions must be met: 1. The type of coverage is identified by the states Division of Insurance as being unavailable by admittied insurance carriers; or 2. Three different admitted insurance carriers must have declined to write that particular account. This Carry Guard insurance was not on that placement list, so Lockton should have been pursuing three declinations for each policy.
Second, Does this mean though that the Carry Guard insurance is unlawful? By my interpretation of the news articles i've been reading today, No, it is indeed lawful to purchase such insurance. But since each state defines the lawful use of deadly force in self defense differently, some states apparently define self defense as an 'intentional criminal act'. Which insurance policies are never intended to cover. In most cases, these types of insurance programs would have had to get authorization from each states Division of Insurance before they could market it to all 50 states. Its possible that NY DOI already approved this coverage in the past.
Third, the marketing of this insurance is at question, did the NRA need an insurance license to sell another companys policies? Seeing how only NY DOI is challenging this, and NOT any other state, that leads me to believe that NYs insurance laws are further behind the curve than the rest of the country.
There are a few things at issue here. For starters, the insurance that Lockton Cos was offering is what is referred to in the insurance industry as 'surplus lines' or 'non-admitted'. And in order to place such insurance, one of two conditions must be met: 1. The type of coverage is identified by the states Division of Insurance as being unavailable by admittied insurance carriers; or 2. Three different admitted insurance carriers must have declined to write that particular account. This Carry Guard insurance was not on that placement list, so Lockton should have been pursuing three declinations for each policy.
Second, Does this mean though that the Carry Guard insurance is unlawful? By my interpretation of the news articles i've been reading today, No, it is indeed lawful to purchase such insurance. But since each state defines the lawful use of deadly force in self defense differently, some states apparently define self defense as an 'intentional criminal act'. Which insurance policies are never intended to cover. In most cases, these types of insurance programs would have had to get authorization from each states Division of Insurance before they could market it to all 50 states. Its possible that NY DOI already approved this coverage in the past.
Third, the marketing of this insurance is at question, did the NRA need an insurance license to sell another companys policies? Seeing how only NY DOI is challenging this, and NOT any other state, that leads me to believe that NYs insurance laws are further behind the curve than the rest of the country.