Another anti-CHL business

[50calRay]

Personaly, I could see all Insurence companies posting 30.06 signs in the near future. I mean most businesses probaly refuse firearms due to insurence reasons. They're more or less afraid of being sued in the event something should happen even it it was a legal shooting. Just look at how many people has been sued in a civil court for legal shootings. So an insurence company probaly sees this first hand and wants to limit their liablility since they have some pretty deep pockets. If that makes any sense.

 

[phatcyclist]

I just went into the Progressive office here in Austin. I believe they had a sign reminding people without a permit that it is illegal for them to carry in there. The wording on it made it seem they recognized CHLs and had no problem with it though.

 

[roy]

After another reading, I believe you are correct. What I didn't see is an actual reference to government buildings rather a meeting of governmental entities. Not sure why it is worded this way but it is.

On a side note I thought the next line was funny.......

(j) Subsections (a) and (b)(1) do not apply to a historical reenactment performed in compliance with the rules of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission.

Just the agency and the event connection struck me as hilarious.

This means that you can wear your sword to the Renaissance Festival.......and other events.......

 

[Mark F]

It appears as though PROGRESSIVE really isn't...

My Insurance Agent keeps a 45 in his top drawer, and a 380 in his pocket. ****Now that's what I'm talking about! ****

 

[roy]

It appears as though PROGRESSIVE really isn't...

My Insurance Agent keeps a 45 in his top drawer, and a 380 in his pocket. ****Now that's what I'm talking about! ****

It sounds like your agent also believes in "self-insurance"..........

 

[Glockzilla]

Remember, as much as 30.06 signs suck - it is a simple property rights issue - and since all liberty stems from the protection of property rights, I just decide to do business or not with that company. Don't get mad because they don't want guns on THEIR property, just don't do business with them....

Fair enough, just be sure to let them know why you quit doing business with them

 

[Shorts]

I think it'd be fair and prudent to the the business know they are now liable and financially responsible in the event you are harmed in a situation where self-defense was required since they refused you the right and ability to protect yourself

I believe that's in some fine print somewhere....

 

[TJ Willy]

Fair enough, just be sure to let them know why you quit doing business with them

That is an awesome image. Thanks for posting.

 

[JKTex]

I think it'd be fair and prudent to the the business know they are now liable and financially responsible in the event you are harmed in a situation where self-defense was required since they refused you the right and ability to protect yourself

I believe that's in some fine print somewhere....

They have no different risk if you are armed or not. And if you ask their insurance company (which you can bet they and/or their council have done) they'll show you the calculated risk in a case where a bad guy harms a customer on their property.

Bean counters rule the world.

 

[Shorts]

They have no different risk if you are armed or not. And if you ask their insurance company (which you can bet they and/or their council have done) they'll show you the calculated risk in a case where a bad guy harms a customer on their property.

Bean counters rule the world.

The risk might be the same, but do you think the business is willing to give a customer a written guarantee they will not be harmed and will be fully protected?

 

[JKTex]

The risk might be the same, but do you think the business is willing to give a customer a written guarantee they will not be harmed and will be fully protected?

Of course not, but the risk is already assessed and addressed.

Have you considered what protections the law provides a business in the case they are illegally entered and a crime committed and all the conditions that would impact liabilities?

It's complex but Attorneys and Insurance Co's have it worked out. They don't need to be reminded what responsibility or liability they have.....they already know.

 

[Shorts]

Of course not, but the risk is already assessed and addressed.

Have you considered what protections the law provides a business in the case they are illegally entered and a crime committed and all the conditions that would impact liabilities?

It's complex but Attorneys and Insurance Co's have it worked out. They don't need to be reminded what responsibility or liability they have.....they already know.

Well sure, corporate headquarter has an idea of estimated risks. But a branch manager is easier to influence than corporate. Why not disagree when you have the chance?



I think 'OnTheFly' said it well HERE with:

I believe it has been discussed before in the "L & P" section, but my "If your company is not willing to bear the weight of such liability (whether legally or financially)..." comment was meant to at least invoke some thought about their moral obligation regardless of whether they could be legally held responsible.

Edit: Off the top of my head, speaking of "risk assessments", Pizza Hut is a nice example. They have a pretty antigun policy in regards to their employees carrying, especially the delivery people. I imagine the delivery people who have carried regardless of the policy and who have defended themselves with their ccw would rather be fired than being forced with the alternative, hospitalization or death. Their disagreement with corporate policy saved their lives on a particular day. Now I'm pretty sure PH is well aware of this, that delivery guys are going to carry regardless of their policy. So for PH, its a double good thing. They get of fthe hook about their gun policy to the public and they can easily (cheaply) fire an employee and replace them. So who does that leave holding the bag??? The delivery guy.

 

[JKTex]

I think it'd be fair and prudent to the the business know they are now liable and financially responsible in the event you are harmed in a situation where self-defense was required since they refused you the right and ability to protect yourself

I believe that's in some fine print somewhere....

This is what I originally replied to.

Well sure, corporate headquarter has an idea of estimated risks. But a branch manager is easier to influence than corporate. Why not disagree when you have the chance?

I almost feel like we got sidetracked, or maybe I'm too tired.

We might as well be talking hypothetical which goes no where. If we're talking about a large company with branches all over, a Branch Manager will be able to share customers thoughts on somehting like this, but in most cases, in no way will they be in a position of authority on it.

I agree it's stupid to post 30.06 and can't think of a case where it would be justified. But a business can do what it wants. I can let them know why I may choose not to do business with them if I think it'll do any good, or I can just move on.

 

[Shorts]

I almost feel like we got sidetracked, or maybe I'm too tired.

lol sidetracked? On a forum??? NOOooooo

Well, hypotheticals, while going nowhere, allow us to stretch our brain-legs for a bit and let them run. I know mine enjoys a good joy ride now and again

 

[bertel]

kinda odd that I would be reading this thread right now. I had almost this same discussion at work with a coupld friends of mine.
The ultimate question was: "does the company benefit from lower insurance premiums if a 30.06 sign is underwritten into their policy?".
As things go, my mother is a property/life/auto/commercial insurance office manager.
I sent her an email asking the simple question. Her response:

"The short answer – no and no.

Asked one of my underwriters as I have never even heard of a 30.06 sign and this hasn’t come up in any discussions or training. As there is no place to include this for rating purposes on a general liability application other than as a note, I was guessing it didn’t make any difference. She confirmed that there is no rating discount for the sign. I’m guessing it is a decision made by a business owner as an effort to prevent situations that could result in a claim/potential law suit that would increase his insurance rates - - - tho I hardly think they are thinking of their insurance rates when post these signs. If I have this kind of information I will include it in an application – even if it is by note in the email coversheet when I submit an app – because underwriters have some discretion in the final premium # and sometimes it will sway them if I give them as much info as possible concerning the operation."
​

 

[JKTex]

And I'll bet there's an Attorney somewhere that will tell you how fast they'd have an Insurer in court if they showed favor to a business by way of premium discount if they would exclude any citizen acting in an legal manner from entering their property.

If the law prohibits discrimination based on race, religion etc., they can't discriminate based on an opposing sociopolitical views either.

I think there's way too much at risk for them.

kinda odd that I would be reading this thread right now. I had almost this same discussion at work with a coupld friends of mine.
The ultimate question was: "does the company benefit from lower insurance premiums if a 30.06 sign is underwritten into their policy?".
As things go, my mother is a property/life/auto/commercial insurance office manager.
I sent her an email asking the simple question. Her response:

"The short answer – no and no.

Asked one of my underwriters as I have never even heard of a 30.06 sign and this hasn’t come up in any discussions or training. As there is no place to include this for rating purposes on a general liability application other than as a note, I was guessing it didn’t make any difference. She confirmed that there is no rating discount for the sign. I’m guessing it is a decision made by a business owner as an effort to prevent situations that could result in a claim/potential law suit that would increase his insurance rates - - - tho I hardly think they are thinking of their insurance rates when post these signs. If I have this kind of information I will include it in an application – even if it is by note in the email coversheet when I submit an app – because underwriters have some discretion in the final premium # and sometimes it will sway them if I give them as much info as possible concerning the operation."
​

 

[JKTex]

Oh, I did see my first 30.06 sign though. Presbyterian Hospital in Plano. I actually had to go back and disarm, then head back in, then when we found out my wife's surgery had been scheduled across the street at Presbyterian Diagnostic (Hospital next door) they did not have a 30.06 posted but they did have a little white outlined sign that said firearms were prohibited. It was cute but the nurse taking care of my wife was a lot cuter, and I was glad I didn't have to go back out this time!

 

[bertel]

And I'll bet there's an Attorney somewhere that will tell you how fast they'd have an Insurer in court if they showed favor to a business by way of premium discount if they would exclude any citizen acting in an legal manner from entering their property.

If the law prohibits discrimination based on race, religion etc., they can't discriminate based on an opposing sociopolitical views either.

I think there's way too much at risk for them.

My response to her was along the lines of; I doubt an insurance company is wanting to make it official that their client's establishment is safer one way or the other. It's probably a lot bigger can of worms than they're looking to open.

 

[GlockandRoll]

Jim Clark's grandson is a friend of mine here in Austin.
He owns a business, and when he told his agent that he was going to allow concealed carry in his business - they dropped him, for everything, even his cars.

He's not the type to sue... however I was piping hot when he told me that.

 

[JKTex]

Jim Clark's grandson is a friend of mine here in Austin.
He owns a business, and when he told his agent that he was going to allow concealed carry in his business - they dropped him, for everything, even his cars.

He's not the type to sue... however I was piping hot when he told me that.

That's one of the more ridiculous thing I've heard.

For 1, he can't "allow" concealed carry in his business. He can disallow it, but can't allow it and neither one has anything to do with an insurance Agent. Agents sell and service policies, they don't underwrite, drop etc. Agents actually make money by keeping people insured; it's what they do, it's their livelihood. Agents don't gain anything from an insurance company dropping one of their customers; they lose.

Now we need to hear the rest of the story.....

BTW since you used his name, I assume this Jim Clark is someone we should know?