>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>MarcSpaz wrote:I can tell you as the owner of multiple businesses in my life, firearms never came up as a point in insurance. That includes in my retail store fronts.
I mentioned to an insurance broker that we keep weapons in the stores for personal defense. I said "will this affect my rate at all?" The broker said, "only if the criminal lives. Dead people can't sue you." LOL
Broker was true to his quote. May rate didn't change after hearing we had weapons in the store for employees to use to defend themselves. How could my customers affect my rates?
As I said, I also doubt insurance considerations mandated the no-gun policy, but I would not be willing to say it did not/will never happen.
First, there is a big difference between arming your employees, who are under your control and direction and who you can train, and allowing your customers, over whom you have almost NO control, to be armed.
The thinking might be that customers in a bar while armed are riskier customers than those who are not armed because there is greater potential for injuries or deaths among armed people if they get into a conflict. By allowing people to carry on the premises when they might legally have prohibited it, the ambulance-chasers would argue that the owners/operators of the locus in quo created an extraordinary risk; or that selling armed people alcohol should be subjected to strict liability as a hazardous activity (like blasting, for instance) where the person conducting the activity is liable for injuries whether ort not he was negligent. I don't subscribe to that, but it wouldn't surprise me to see it attempted, at least in some jurisdictions, although it would be less likely in Virginia.
