Cedric Stephens | Gun insurance: Are policymakers and legislators asleep at the wheel?

Should the authorities impose a rule that licensed firearm holders must have liability insurance? This issue exercised my mind as I read about a recent shooting incident in which a 38-year-old man, called a ‘bird bwoy’ (a relic of our colonial past?) by devotees of this pastime, was accidentally killed last month. The accident occurred in Barrett Hall, St James.

The victim was shot after the firearm of a hotel executive went off as he took aim at a bird. Bird-shooting season began that same weekend. The deceased was reportedly employed by shooters to recover dead birds.

Jamaica’s insurance penetration rate is between four and five per cent. The rate, according to The Economic Times, indicates the level of development of the insurance sector. It is measured as the ratio of premiums in a particular year to gross domestic product.

It is, therefore, unlikely that most of the people who participate in bird shooting buy liability insurance to protect themselves should something go wrong. Additionally, most owners of licensed firearms do not think about liability insurance as they normally would in the case of a motor vehicle. Is this the fault of the gun owners, the insurance market, the authorities, or all three?

There is no reference to insurance on the Firearm Licensing Authority’s website or in its enabling legislation, The Firearms Act. The latter permits individuals “to own, carry, and use firearms and ammunition, subject to the appropriate firearm authorisation”. Why the difference in treatment between firearms and motor vehicles?

The AI tool in my browser, which I suspect is based exclusively on information derived from US sources, offers intriguing comments about gun ownership and insurance mandates. Some of them apply to the local situation.

Arguments for insurance mandates:

1. Financial responsibility: Proponents argue that just as car owners are required to have insurance to cover potential liability in the event of accidents, gun owners should also be financially responsible for any harm caused by their firearms.

2. Risk reduction: Insurance companies could incentivise safer behaviour by offering lower premiums for gun owners who take safety courses or use gun safes. A seven-year-old child was recently found with a submachine gun in a school in St Elizabeth.

3. Economic burden: Mandates could help offset the significant economic costs associated with gun violence, which often fall on taxpayers and the healthcare system.

4. Accountability: It could create a system of accountability, ensuring that victims of accidental shootings or negligence have a means of financial recourse. Will the dependants of the man who was killed in Barrett Hall receive monetary compensation for his untimely death, and, if so, how much?

Arguments against insurance mandates:

1. Second Amendment concerns: Critics argue that such mandates could infringe on US Second Amendment rights by imposing additional barriers to gun ownership. This argument against would not apply since the Jamaican Constitution does not confer a right for citizens to bear arms.

2. Effectiveness: There is scepticism about whether insurance would cover most gun-related incidents, especially intentional acts, which are typically excluded from coverage.

3. Implementation challenges: There are practical challenges in implementing these mandates, such as determining appropriate coverage levels and ensuring compliance. A similar argument can be raised against compulsory liability insurance for motor vehicles.

4. Market reluctance: Insurance companies may be reluctant to offer coverage.

Victim compensation

The Government of Jamaica ‘insures’ members of the security forces who use firearms while carrying out their duties. No information is publicly available about the costs and expenses and the amounts awarded to citizens and their dependants who are killed or injured because of the improper or negligent use of firearms.

The US city of San Jose in the state of California and the state of New Jersey require firearms owners to obtain and maintain liability insurance, although some observers question whether the measures will survive Second Amendment challenges in the courts.

The San Jose law mandates gun owners residing in the city to “obtain and continuously maintain in full force and effect a homeowner’s, renter’s or gun liability insurance policy from an admitted insurer or insurer as defined by the California Insurance Code”. The coverage must extend to losses or damages resulting from any accidental use of the firearm. Homeowners and renters’ policies only extend coverage for injuries to third parties. Intentional acts are excluded.

In the state of New Jersey, “every private citizen who carries a handgun in public in this State shall maintain liability insurance coverage insuring against loss resulting from liability imposed by law for bodily injury, death, and property damage sustained by any person arising out of the ownership, maintenance, operation or use of a firearm carried in public wherein such coverage shall be at least in an amount or limit of US$300,000, exclusive of interest and costs, on account of injury to or death of more than one person and for damage to property, in any one incident”.

In Europe, liability insurance for guns is not uniformly mandated across all countries. Some countries do have specific requirements. For example, in Germany, gun owners must have liability insurance for personal injury and property damage, with a minimum coverage of €1 million.

In Jamaica, the Private Security Regulation Authority is a statutory body under the Ministry of National Security. It was established “to monitor and regulate the operations of private security organisations, including contract security organisations, proprietary security organisations, private security guards, private investigators, and security trainers”.

Surprisingly, the only reference to insurance in the law is about health insurance even though there are scores of private security providers who employ hundreds of persons who are licensed to use firearms.

Are policymakers and legislators asleep at the wheel? Shouldn’t the combination of smartphones and the availability of artificial intelligence help to make members of this group more productive in discharging their duties?

Cedric E. Stephens provides independent information and advice about the management of risks and insurance. For free information or counsel, write to: aegis@flowja.com or business@gleanerjm.com