Search
Close this search box.

When It Comes to Active Shooters and Insurance Policies, Does Your Risk Manager Know What They’re Talking About?

pexels-cottonbro-3926747

When It Comes to Active Shooters and Insurance Policies, Does Your Risk Manager Know What They’re Talking About?

It’s a terrifying reality that active shooter incidents take place every day in the United States. From an employer’s perspective, it’s even more alarming that 48% of those incidents take place in the workplace. 

With active shooter situations remaining a threat, it’s no wonder that they’re never far from risk managers’ minds.

During the session “Active Shooter: Emerging Insurance and Risk Management Perspectives,” at the Future of Risk™ virtual conference, panelists discussed the growing number of active shooter claims across the nation, as well as the coverages these incidents may — or may not — trigger. The virtual conference was hosted by R&I’s parent company The Institutes® on April 2-3.

By the Numbers

To understand the gravity of the topic, it’s important to address the toll that active shooter incidents and mass murders have on human lives and the economy. 

  • According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, an active shooting incident is defined as an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined and populated area. A mass murder is defined as the killing of four or more people, not including the shooter. 
  • According to the Gun Violence Archive, there were 416 mass shootings and 31 mass murders (shootings where four or more people were killed) in 2019. That is more than double the amount that took place between 1966 and 2018, a forty-two year period. 
  • Gifford Law Center, a non-profit dedicated to preventing gun violence, reported that active shootings cost the American economy $229 billion annually, including $8.6 billion in direct expenses such as medical care.

The increased frequency of shootings has brought more attention to the policies behind active shooter coverage, the exclusions that may or may not apply when the incidents occur, and the legal obligation for organizations to properly respond.

“Because these mass shootings are happening more frequently, the duty of care has increased,” said Adam Roth, senior claims examiner, Employment Practices Liability Insurance, Arch Insurance Group.

Types of Policies Available

There are multiple lines of insurance that potentially cover losses related to mass shooting incidents, and more are emerging, including Commercial General Liability, Mass Shooting Professional Liability and employee benefits policies to protect traveling employees.

Adam Roth, senior claims examiner, Employment Practices Liability Insurance, Arch Insurance Group

There are also coverages that relate to property damage expenses, loss of revenue and loss of attraction relating to a damaged brand.

A range of claims can emerge from incidents of gun violence, including bodily harm, emotional distress and property damage, from victims, employees, and third parties. 

“In most of these cases, you’re going to have very questionable liability at best on a named insured. You’re starting with a tenuous coverage spot because liability is a key component of any conventional general liability coverage,” said Bob Titus, CLM Advisor and principal at Risk Analytics. 

“In the case of Sandy Hook, based on crisis management, it was recommended that the school be redesigned. So right there, that takes out any traditional insurance coverage that the school might have had.” — Bob Titus, CLM Advisor, principal, Risk Analytics

Coverage for workplace violence, such as an employee attempting to harm other employees, might be different. 

“For workplace violence, it’s specifically an endorsement on the D&O executive insurance policies,” added Roth.

“These are typically, on the employment side, added as an endorsement and have totally different limits that you wouldn’t have under EPL coverage parts, so it’s critical that brokers review these things with their insureds and see what benefits they have.”

Costs of Emotional Distress

Exclusions and excess costs are known to creep up on any insured, but they’re especially tricky in instances that can cause death and emotional distress.

A lot of financial impact from active shooter events comes from the avoidance of further trauma for those involved, such as the employees or students who have to return to the site where the violence took place. In such a case, funds to build a new facility would not be covered by insurance.

“In the case of Sandy Hook, based on crisis management, it was recommended that the school be redesigned. So right there, that takes out any traditional insurance coverage that the school might have had,” said Titus.

“In these types of situations you’re going to have a lot of claims that are exclusively emotional distress claims, which presents some challenges as well for conventional general liability policies.”

Titus also stressed the importance of having emotional distress coverage for third parties that may be involved in the event, such as first responders, in the case they bring a negligence claim against your organization. 

To make sure you are also covered for every exposed area of liability, it’s critical to think outside of the box about things like negligence. This could be against security guards or schools or municipalities’ preparedness operations. 

“There are all kinds of people who can be involved as potential claimants against your policy, aside from the ones you think of off the top of your head,” said Titus.

The increased frequency of events, as well as the emergence of new coverages, make knowledge of this niche market particularly specialized. That’s why it’s important to have a broker who reviews every policy’s details with insureds, so questions are answered beforehand in the unlikely event a tragedy takes place. 

“Arch claims handlers are taking a real step-by-step approach when going through policy language with insureds, to make sure everyone gets the full benefit of the coverage,” said Roth. 

Simply put: “When you have a broker who really knows their policies, it always benefits the insured.”

Taken from: https://riskandinsurance.com/when-it-comes-to-active-shooters-and-insurance-policies-does-your-risk-manger-know-what-theyre-talking-about/

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