Search
Close this search box.

How armed security impacts insurance coverage

What-Are-The-Benefits-Of-A-Security-Guard-Service

How armed security impacts insurance coverage

With careful consideration, insureds can implement security measures that best meet their needs and facilitate the right insurance coverage.

An organization needs to be confident that its security team has the training and experience to respond appropriately and handle weapons safely.

As organizations resume normal operations post-pandemic — with more people in their facilities and on their property — many are re-evaluating and updating their safety program.

It follows that your insurance customers may be considering whether to introduce or continue using armed security as part of their overall safety strategy. It’s a complex question, particularly when you add in policies around concealed carry.

Now is a good time to have conversations with customers about the type of security that best meets their needs and the implications for their insurance coverage. Here are a few key areas to cover in those conversations.

Armed security and liability

It is important for policyholders to understand the risks that can come with the use of a volunteer armed security team. When an organization asks or allows individuals to carry weapons on its behalf, much of the responsibility and liability for those individuals’ actions transfer to the organization.

That’s why it is strongly recommended that policyholders use off-duty law enforcement officers or a contracted security service. Only highly trained individuals, with a military or law enforcement background, for example, should be allowed to carry weapons as part of a formalized security team. In high-stress situations, an organization needs to be confident that its security team has the training and experience to respond appropriately and handle weapons safely. An armed security team of untrained volunteers often lacks this level of preparation and experience, creating an additional layer of potential risk.

Impact on coverage

Insurers may exclude coverage for a volunteer armed security team, as it creates an additional exposure that may not be contemplated in an organization’s policy. Insureds that have begun using volunteers for armed security or are considering doing so need to meet with their insurer to review all security policies and procedures and determine acceptability. If the organization does not meet best practices, an exclusion may be added. Organizations with an armed security team must be sure they have addressed this additional exposure with their insurer before an event takes place. 

Concealed carry

It is an organization’s choice to either allow or prohibit weapons on its property. It is imperative, however, that the organization and individuals carrying weapons comply with local and state laws. Organizations also need to document their decision about concealed carry in the form of policies, procedures and/or signage.

Candidly, this is the best practice for concealed carry in terms of an organization’s level of liability and responsibility: Only members of a formalized armed security team should carry weapons on behalf of the organization or while serving the organization.

If the organization chooses to allow concealed carry, those individuals should be carrying on their own behalf and in the interest of self-defense, bearing responsibility for their own actions. However, it’s important to note that if an organization allows a concealed carry holder to serve in a non-security-related function, the organization may still be liable.

At Church Mutual®, we recommend that an organization choose not to allow concealed carry on its property if the organization has an armed security team (volunteer or otherwise). If an event should occur, having an armed security team as well as other armed parties may cause confusion and unintended safety risks.

Acceptable exposures

Implementing several best practices in the planning and onboarding stages of a volunteer armed security team can help an organization develop an acceptable exposure — and potentially improve insurance pricing. Examples include:

  • Establish clear policies/procedures and formalize a written security plan.
  • Require all security team members to be over the age of 21.
  • Conduct mandatory background checks on all security team members.
  • Provide comprehensive training for all security team members (in addition to any previous training provided by other organizations).
  • Share response plans with local law enforcement to create awareness of the armed security team and allow for better coordination and training opportunities.

Additional resources

For anyone working through the complexities of armed security, Church Mutual offers free resources on the website. We provide a summary of armed vs. unarmed security considerations, insights on the 10 essentials of a security plan, a security assessment for organizations, and many other relevant documents.

With careful consideration and collaboration, organizations can implement the security measures that best meet their needs and facilitate the right insurance coverage.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related posts

Insurance-technology

Specific Technologies Driving Insurtech Investment in 2024

Understanding the Funding Decline The decrease in funding does not necessarily spell trouble for the insurance sector but instead highlights a strategic shift, the report suggests. “The insurance industry, like many sectors, is focusing on the most promising ventures with substantial insurance potential,” the report explains. “Insurers are directing their investments toward key areas and current trends such as embedded insurance, employee benefits, and cyber risk management. This strategic investment approach signals a forward-looking mindset within the industry.” Three Key Insurtech Trends for 2024 The report identifies three major trends shaping insurtech investments in 2024: Public Insurtech Companies: Financial and Growth Strategies The report also notes that public insurtech companies are prioritizing revenue growth as their main goal. These firms are restructuring their financial strategies to boost cash flow and capitalize on rising revenue streams. Their growth prospects are supported by expanding asset portfolios and strong market demand. “Public insurtech companies are focusing on revenue growth and optimizing their financial frameworks to increase cash flow,” the report states. “The growth potential for these companies is driven by increasing revenue opportunities, broadening asset bases, and a robust market for their services.” In summary, while global insurtech funding saw a decline in 2023, the industry’s focus on GenAI, digital process management, and connected insurance technologies is setting the stage for a dynamic and forward-looking 2024.

Read More
Business

Insurer Secures Unanimous Supreme Court Victory in New York Choice of Law Dispute

In the world of sports, a clean sweep, a shutout, or a perfect game is the ultimate achievement. In the legal arena, a unanimous decision from the U.S. Supreme Court is equally rare and significant. In a notable legal triumph, Great Lakes Insurance SE achieved a unanimous 9-0 victory in the Supreme Court on February 21, 2024. This victory follows a protracted legal battle that began in the District Court of Pennsylvania, advanced to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and culminated in the Supreme Court’s decisive ruling. Background of the Case: Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Company The heart of the dispute was the insurance contract’s clause selecting New York law to govern any future legal conflicts. Although the financial implications of this case were relatively minor compared to the broader marine insurance industry, the insurer’s determination to uphold a crucial maritime legal principle has significant long-term implications for marine insurance. Faced with the insured’s counterclaims—including allegations of breach of fiduciary duty, insurance bad faith, and violations of Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices Law—the insurer was confronted with serious risks. Such claims could lead to the shifting of attorney’s fees, treble damages, and more, which might normally encourage insurers to settle rather than risk pursuing justice. However, Great Lakes Insurance, supported by The Goldman Maritime Law Group, opted to challenge the Third Circuit’s decision and seek clarity from the Supreme Court. Supreme Court Ruling: A Landmark Decision In a landmark ruling, Justice Brett Kavanaugh affirmed that choice of law provisions in maritime contracts should be upheld by default. This ruling is a major victory for establishing a consistent federal standard in maritime law and avoiding a patchwork of state laws that could complicate marine insurance disputes. The Supreme Court’s decision overturned the Third Circuit’s earlier judgment, which had questioned whether Pennsylvania’s public policy concerns might override the insurance contract’s choice of New York law. By upholding the New York choice of law clause, the Supreme Court eliminated the extra-contractual bad faith claims under Pennsylvania law, thereby ensuring that the dispute could be resolved based on the merits of the insurance claim itself. Significance of the Supreme Court’s Decision This ruling represents a significant advancement in maritime law, affirming that choice of law clauses in maritime contracts are generally enforceable. The decision establishes a clear, uniform legal framework for resolving maritime contract disputes, which will streamline the process and ensure fair adjudication of future insurance claims. Justice Clarence Thomas’s concurring opinion was particularly notable for its criticism of the 1955 Wilburn Boat v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance decision, which had previously influenced maritime insurance law. Thomas argued that Wilburn Boat was incorrectly decided and stressed that a uniform and enforceable set of rules is essential for the development of maritime law. Impact on the Marine Insurance Industry The Supreme Court’s decision sets a “bright-line” rule affirming that choice of law clauses are valid unless there is a strong argument against the selected jurisdiction. By endorsing New York’s insurance laws as a reasonable choice, the ruling supports a more consistent and predictable legal environment for marine insurers. This decision represents a major step forward in maritime law, helping insurers better assess risks, determine premiums, and ensure fair and efficient resolution of maritime insurance disputes.

Read More
Try your instant quote