Legislators from the federal government to the state level havebeen vocalizing their request for improved gun control, and hereand there, slipping in a measure that would mandate liabilityinsurance for all legally-owned firearms.

Such recent sentiments are backlash to the outcry of grief andanger following the December grammar school massacre in Newtown,Conn.

And while lawmakers in legislative offices around the countryhave mulled things over and postured for position in the monthssince the shooting, the insurance industry has remained subtlyquiet.

For en masse, the industry knows one thing: illegal acts cannotbe insured.

As of yet, there are no laws that say firearms owners mustpurchase liability insurance, either at the federal or state level.Several states have introduced bills that contain liability wordingas part of an overall gun legislation package: California,Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, andMaryland.

Such proposals are usually large pieces of legislation, of whichone piece includes a requirement for gun liability insurance: thatgun owners be required to purchase this, says Robert Hartwig,president and economist at the Insurance Information Institute.

“Usually there are many other components to these proposals,”Hartwig says. Generally, the bills as proposed would require thatthe liability product cover any sort of liability arising from anykind of use of the weapon, even acts that were illegal, hesays.

“In New York State, for example, the bill as proposed says itwould have to cover 'willful acts.' That would encompass evenillegal acts under that language,” Hartwig says. But the generalprincipal of insurance is it never has, and never will, coverillegal acts. “I think the bills were crafted quickly and withoutconsideration with respect to what sort of things were notavailable in any insurance policy.”

What is covered under a typical homeowner's policy is“unintentional discharge that injures or causes damage to someoneelse's property,” Hartwig says.

For instance, if a homeowner has a knife in his house and theknife falls on the ground and cuts a neighbor's foot, thehomeowner's policy would respond, he says. “But if you take thatvery same knife and you decide to murder your neighbor with thatknife, it's not covered,” Hartwig says.

“It's the same thing with a baseball bat,” Hartwig says. If aneighbor's kid gets a concussion while playing baseball in yourbackyard, you're covered. “Take that same bat and kill yourneighbor with it, it's not covered.”

Currently firearms liability concerns are not an insuranceindustry problem, says Bill Gatewood, director of the Burns &Wilcox Personal Lines Center of Excellence. But that could changeas it becomes public policy across the nation.

“Any time the government starts getting involved in insurance Iget very scared,” Gatewood says. “Once it's all settled theindustry will have to respond to anything the government does.”

Yet talk of mandating liability for firearms can be seen not asa threat to insurers, but an opportunity for agents and brokers totalk with their clients about umbrella policies.

“That's a very undersold policy,” Gatewood says. “If you'relooking at something that increases your chance of a liabilityclaim, consider having an umbrella so you've got at least $1million in excess liability cover available.”

Such extended coverage is usually reserved for potentiallydangerous things like backyard trampolines or a swimming pool; it'salso usually low cost.

“It's not an expensive insurance product; probably the leastexpensive policy on a dollar-for-dollar basis,” Gatewood says. “Youcan get $1 million of liability coverage for $150 a year. It's veryreasonable.”

“This could solve a lot of problems,” he adds.

Getting gun collections insured for liability has never reallybeen a problem, Gatewood says: “There's been plenty of marketcapacity for property and liability coverage for firearms andhopefully that doesn't change.”

It's inevitable that the insurance industry should be broughtinto the national debate about the gun issue, says Howard Mills,director and chief advisor of Deloitte's insurance industry groupand a former New York State insurance commissioner.

In terms of a broad-based solution to the question of guncontrol, liability insurance is “very politicized,” Mills says.Insurance is already political by nature as it is regulated by thestates, and the proposed bills are simply adding to that regulatorycontrol a controversial issue, with divergent opinions.

Mills notes that the National Rifle Association (NRA) alreadyoffers liability insurance for gun owners who are members.

“The NRA's excess coverage basically covers injuries in ahunting accident or a shooting range,” Hartwig says. “But they'venever, under any circumstances, never have, don't today, and neverwill, cover illegal acts.”

Kevin M. Lynch, Assistant Professor of Insurance at the AmericanCollege in Bryn Mawr, Pa., says he recently renewed his NRAmembership and purchased first AR15 rifle in response the guncontrol debate.

“I did take it very seriously that my second amendment rightswere being jeopardized,” Lynch says.

The AR15 rifle is a style of weapon also called a sportingrifle, says Lynch, who has been teaching homeowners insurance forfour years. He spent 40 years prior in insurance. “Simply, it's asemi-automatic civilian version of what most people refer to as theM16 in the military,” he says. “They look alike.”

The AR15 doesn't have the same features: no auto-firecapability, Lynch says: “Not even the three-round burst capabilitythat police and military have access to.”

But the AR15 looks like a “scary gun,” which is whylegislators are using it as “the scapegoat of all the anti-gunparanoia right now,” he says.

Anyway, if insurance companies were able to create a firearmsliability product they would need actuarial advice to underwriteit.

“They would gather this data. Does it exist today? Why would itexist today?” Prof. Lynch says. “Many gun owners are not registeredgun owners. I may have inherited a rifle or shotgun from my daddyand sold it to your husband, using a legal bill of sale—totallylegal—but there's no record of that transaction anywhere.”

James Lynch, a New York-based actuary working on firearmsliability research with the Insurance Information Institute, saysas of yet, there is no actuarial correlation between gun ownershipdata and homicide rates in the United States. Further, firearmownership is not a significant driver of homeowner's policyrates.

“I am not aware of any actuarial studies about the correlationbetween firearms ownership,” says Lynch, who is owner of JamesLynch Casualty Actuary LLC.

“I do know the standard ACORD homeowners application doesn't askabout firearms,” he says, referring to a January publication fromGenRe, the reinsurance arm of Berkshire Hathaway, titled, “GunSafety: In the aftermath of the unconscionable Newtown schoolshooting, we are a nation in shock and in mourning,” from Chairmanand CEO Franklin (Tad) Montross.

“From that I infer that firearm ownership is not a significantdriver of homeowner rates,” James Lynch says.

“Before a company is going to insure any action they're going tohave to have actuarial data upon which it bases the rate andpremiums. If there's no data out there how are they going to dothat?” Prof. Lynch says. “I can just imagine the field day. Like wedon't have enough attorneys suing enough people as it is.”