After reading GrassRootsSC's State Farm article, Kellyrae contacted his State Farm agent. The agent confirmed, after discussion with State Farm region underwriter, that State Farm has (had) a national policy to cancel in the event of a client having a private shooting range.
Subsequently, Kellyrae wrote letter as shown in FreeRepublic post #52 (see below) advising his State Farm to cancel all of his policies. (Well-written letter)
Kellyrae advised in Jan 2, 2001, update that his State Farm agent agreed to maintain his homeowner coverage, even with full knowledge of Kellyrae's home shooting range. As Kellyrae indicates, he is assuming his State Farm agent has authority to maintain the coverage under the "case by case" terminology despite his agent's earlier position.
We could perhaps call this progress, of sorts, despite the vague wording of State Farm's official responses to date.
#52 Posted on 10/06/2000 12:32:36 PDT by kellyrae:
Follow-up: After lining up insurance with another company, I contacted my State Farm agent this morning. My agent is big into hunting and shooting, so when I explained about Mr. Atkinson, he was really surprised and more than a little skeptical. He called his underwriter to clear things up, and his underwriter asked him if he had seen "THE ARTICLE". My agent said no, but he had a customer canceling his policies this morning over it. The underwriter confirmed that there is a nationwide corporate policy that State Farm will not insure homeowners with private gun ranges. My agent said his underwriter told him that if he knew about a gun range on the property, he was supposed to not renew the policy the next time it came due.
My agent is worrying about all of the State Farm "farm and ranch" policies. If the same no-gun-range stand applies to those policies, it will be tough on him. He suspects (but obviously doesn't know FOR SURE) that most people around here with those type of policies have a shooting range and dove hunt on their property. Now he is faced the choice of canceling those policies or putting his head in the sand, assuming that none of those farmers/ranchers sight in their rifles or hunt doves on the back 40.
Here is the letter I sent to him, with a copy of "THE ARTICLE" attached, of course:
It has recently come to our attention that State Farm may not cover homeowners who conduct noncommercial target shooting activities on their own property. Enclosed is an Internet article describing State Farm's termination of Mr. Gary Atkinson's homeowners policy, in Chapin, South Carolina.
Mr. Atkinson set up a small private target shooting range on his property, in compliance with all local codes and regulations. Although there was no written restriction in Mr. Atkinson's homeowner's policy regarding the use of firearms on his property, when his State Farm agent found out about the gun range, his policy was terminated because State Farm regarded his shooting activities as a "factor of increased risk." When Mr. Atkinson obtained other insurance for the separate parcel of property containing the gun range, and offered to insert a written disclaimer for all shooting activities into his State Farm homeowner's policy, State Farm refused.
This defies common sense and can only be explained by an anti-gun stance on the part of the local State Farm agent, who has the full support of the corporate office. It makes us wonder, what next? If having a private target shooting range is considered an unacceptable risk to State Farm now, in the future will simply owning guns be considered an increased or unacceptable risk? Will gun owners be required to register their firearms with State Farm and pay extra premiums for having them? How high will those premiums be? Will they be high enough to encourage gun-owners to get rid of their guns? Will certain types of firearms be targeted as "extra high risk?" Will policies like State Farm's tempt gun-control proponents to try to implement their agenda of full registration through private insurance firms like yours?
We are strong supporters of every law-abiding citizen's right to keep and bear arms and we try our best to do business with companies who share our values. If State Farm wishes to have a policy allowing your agents to deny coverage to gun owners for simply engaging in legal shooting activities, that is certainly your right. However, this incident has prompted us to obtain our insurance coverage from another provider who does not consider legal hunting or target shooting activities on our property objectionable.
Please cancel the above policies immediately. Thank you.
One thing is for sure, I was told by State Farm agents Renee Wilder and Roe Young on July 20th that absolutely no shooting range was acceptable on property covered by State Farm. This position was then confirmed independently with another State Farm agent in West Columbia who was NOT familiar with my case. No shooting range, PERIOD. --Gary
PERMISSION TO REPRINT: "Please feel free to use my October 6 post and/or letter on your website. You are correct, my location is Waco, TX. I doubt we will ever get a CLEAR definition of "normal, recreational shooting" from State Farm. Vague policies, like vague laws, are made that way on purpose. One clarification: My State Farm agent told me he would not cancel my policy ("I wouldn't do that to you!"), and I assume he had the authority to NOT cancel me, even after learning of our shooting range, under the case-by-case basis part of the policy. I don't really know. I do know that State Farm would have sanctioned his cancellation based solely on our private target range, if he had been so inclined." --kellyrae1/2/2001
Interesting side-note: Here is an email exchange between me and Prudential. The original article is at WorldNetDaily and FreeRepublic. What happened to the Connecticut police officer is exactly what I warned against in my situation with State Farm. I'm sure you'll appreciate the relevance between my State Farm story and this one. --Gary
This is in response to your inquiry about Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance Company's position on providing Homeowners Insurance coverage when there are firearms or gun collections in the home.
Prudential's Homeowners policy automatically provides physical damage, theft and liability coverage for homeowners who own firearms. In addition to these basic coverages, additional insurance protection for theft and physical loss of the firearm can be purchased with a Scheduled Personal Property Endorsement.
The ability to offer Homeowners insurance protection to a large number of policyholders, and to stand behind these policies by paying claims presented, is based on the insurer's ability to evaluate and manage the level of risk. Recently, Prudential's practices in this area were questioned based upon the Company's refusal to insure a special purpose Mossberg shotgun with an 18 inch barrel.
Based upon the number of firearms owned in the Untied States, Prudential recognizes that a significant number of policyholders own firearms. Prudential's preference is to insure the vast majority of firearms which are designed for sporting activity (i.e. hunting, target shooting, etc.) or historical types of firearms which are normally collected.
However, Prudential prefers not to insure other types of firearms (i.e. assault weapons, firearms designed for special purposes other than hunting or target shooting, or firearms which are restricted or illegal by state law/regulation).
We hope this answers your questions regarding Prudential's policy concerning Homeowners Insurance coverage.
The Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance Company
Dear Prudential,
Thank you for your prompt reply to my inquiry regarding your recent cancellation of a Connecticut police officer's homeowner policy over his ownership of a Mossberg Model 500 shotgun. It is apparent from the details of your response, and those brought to light in recent news articles on your company's position, that Prudential has little real understanding of firearms and, more importantly, the Bill of Rights to the US Constitution.
Certainly, Prudential should attend to their business as they best see fit. Certainly, your informed customers should do the same.
By this time tomorrow I will have divested my holdings in all Prudential Securities products. I will also endeavor to encourage every, single gun owner, hunter and shooting enthusiast that I encounter to avoid all Prudential products and services.
Again, thank you for your prompt and candid response.
Gary J. Atkinson
Chapin, SC
How High will State Farm Let this Counter Get
Before Coming Clean with Gun Owners?