Gun insurance? Ridiculous

As a note of credibility I'll start by telling you that I spent 20 years as an insurance claims adjuster, followed by 30 years as a property and casualty insurance agent. Now, some facts. Any liability insurance policy follows the basic rule of insurance requiring the occurrence be of a "fortuitous" nature. For those of you proposing this ridiculous gun insurance, that means the act is accidental in its being. Furthermore, it is a fact all liability policies specifically exclude coverage for any intentional act of the insured that causes damage or injury to a third party. One can't insure the gun for its action — it's just a chunk of iron.

Assuming the discharge of a firearm causing loss, damage or personal injury was in fact accidental, coverage is predicated on negligence (liability), not the mere ownership of the firearm.

Specific gun insurance makes no sense. A homeowner's policy or renter's insurance already has a personal liability section built in subject to the above provisions.

I'm sure there are insurance companies that would be more than willing to take a premium for a liability policy that would more than likely never be called upon to pay a claim.

RALPH M. SAXTON

Modesto