;
  • Report:  #3166

Complaint Review: The Hartford Insurance Co. - Hartford Conn.

Reported By:
- Sun City West, Az,
Submitted:
Updated:

The Hartford Insurance Co.
Connecticut Hartford, Conn., U.S.A.
Phone:
1-800-429-4545
Web:
N/A
Categories:
Tell us has your experience with this business or person been good? What's this?
It may be interesting to note that The Hartford Insurance Company will NOT give home owners insurance to any one who owns a gun and does not keep it under lock and key. I was an Illinois State Trooper for almost 27 years,retired and moved to Arizona. I tried to get insurance from them and they said I could'nt get it unless I kept my gun locked up some place. I asked them what good is a gun locked up when some one is trying to break in my home,do I ask the perpetrator to wait until I can unlock the cabinet so I can shoot him if necessary??? What a stupid outfit. I told them I have no children,just my wife and I,but they are not changing their policy. If you lie to them,and they should find out later that you had a gun NOT LOCKED UP,they will not cover your loss. THIS SHOULD BE OF SPECIAL NOTE TO ALL YOU POLICE OFFICERS OUT THERE,ESPECIALLY RETIREES. I guess to them we forget how to handle guns once we retire.Well, onward to a better insurance company


12 Updates & Rebuttals

Darren

Neenah,
Wisconsin,
U.S.A.
Robin, you are right... I am wrong.

#2Consumer Comment

Wed, July 28, 2004

Hi Robin, You are right. I guess I didn't notice that you had said that it was a rip-off instead of fraud. Sorry. You are right... fraud is pretty clear cut. The definition of rip-off is more difficult to define. I will go back to my previous statement and say that if the insurance company took the money and hid the fact that they wouldn't cover the gun, then that, to me, would also be considered a rip-off. I do believe that insurance companies are, and should be allowed, within their rights to determine what they consider acceptable risks for behaviorial situations. I say behaviorial because what is more scary than whether a person must or must not have a gun safe/trigger guard is that with genetic testing insurance companies are hoping to be able to restrict coverage for people who might have a predisposition for certain illnesses. If a company doesn't want to cover people with guns, smokers, drinkers or something else along those lines, then they should be allowed. Do I like it (as a smoker)... no. However, it is a choice that I can make. We have a selection of insurance companies to choose from. If one doesn't meet our expectations then we can go to another one. If the other insurance companies don't want to cover us either, than it is more a problem with the industry than the company. The customer is always right only when the company is willing and able to take our money for a service or product. So, even though you are right that I had the premise of your arguement wrong, I will amend it to say that I don't think that it was a rip-off in my opinion. That is only my opinion and others may have different feelings. Thanks,


Robin

Waldron,
Arkansas,
U.S.A.
Arguing semantics? Know what you are arguing about!

#3Consumer Comment

Tue, July 27, 2004

Darren, Before you begin arguing semantics, first know what you are arguing about! NOWHERE in my report is the word "fraud" mentioned. (Where are you getting that?) No one at the Hartford is being deceiving; they are very up front with their ripoff. Definition of fraud: fraud [ frd ] n. A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain. A piece of trickery; a trick. a. One that defrauds; a cheat. b. One who assumes a false pose; an impostor. What is mentioned is "RIPOFF". Definition of ripoff: Slang: To exploit (another) by charging too much for something: fleece, overcharge. Slang: clip, gouge, nick, scalp, skin, soak. Idioms: make someone pay through the nose, take someone for a ride, take someone to the cleaners. Insurance: Fraud, no; ripoff, yes. It is entirely possible to be a ripoff without being a fraud!


Darren

Neenah,
Wisconsin,
U.S.A.
Robin... Fraud?

#4Consumer Comment

Mon, July 26, 2004

Hi All, I just had to respond. Robin, I don't consider this to be fraud. Unfair, maybe, if you want to argue that... but not fraud. Lets not misuse words, otherwise they have no meaning any more. Without meaning we can not have a means of understanding. It would be fraud if the company hid this gun locking requirement in their policy hoping that someone didn't see it. I don't see any attempt to deceive anyone here. Waivers are between the company and the client. They need to be to the mutual benefit and agreeable to both parties. You can't force this company to insure you if they don't want to. Analogies need to be carefully constructed. Apples to apples stuff. I too, especially as a smoker and a person with a pre-existing medical condition, hate it when companies move into my life... I resent that they are needed in our life. I remember when they were raising my auto insurance in CA. When I asked why they said that they lost a lot of money in the last earth quake! I told them that that was too darn bad... We bet that we will need the insurance, they bet that we won't... They lost. I would not pay higher auto insurance to cover their loss on their property claims. They moved my rates back. Rose, insurance companies are all about discrimination! That could probably be the definition of their business. They make money by discriminating... giving insurance in exchange for money to those they determine to be a good risk and refusing those they consider a risk. It is very sad, but that is the case. Am I happy with that fact of life? NOT AT ALL. It makes me so angry, but that is the way things are when we insist that companies have more value than people. Also, I don't know if he eventually lied... but I have enough experience with cops in my extended family to know that they often see themselves as not to be held to the same standards as everyone else. That is besides the point... but I was pleased to see you see that. To the retired cop... they are called "accidents" because they aren't intentional. It is impossible to know what might happen in the future... a visiting grandchild, neighborhood kids break in while you aren't home and take the gun (yes, we might be wanting to think that anything bad that happened to them would be a good thing, unless they used your gun to hurt someone else)... No one can tell for sure and insurance companines have to play the averages and can't get into the absolute specifics of each and every prospective policy holder. As a cop, ex or otherwise, I don't really see you needing any higher level of protection than any other citizen. How many people are arrested for leaving an unlocked gun in the house and something happens? None of those people expected those things to happen... yet there they go. Bottom line... I don't see a fraud, deception or bad business here.


Jason

Charlotte,
North Carolina,
U.S.A.
Hartford & Guns

#5Consumer Suggestion

Sun, July 25, 2004

Tim, I really do understand your concerns. I have lived with guns most of my life. I have been trained to use weapons by several different organizations (some governmental). Incidentally, insurance companies often (and I do mean often) deny coverage to homeowners who have diving boards and swimming pool owners pay MUCH higher rates. Most reputable swimming pool builders will try and talk you out of installing a diving board. Schools can have the same problems becuase of the play equipment. The problem with the alcohol argument is two fold. First of all alcohol accidents in the home are rarely caused by alcohol. It's when one gets behind the wheel that there are problems. Secondly, the alcohol isn't purchased with the intent to harm others. The harm is purely unintentional. You see, the insurance companies aren't scared of you accidentally shooting a relative. They are scared of you shooting a burglar. Sounds stupid I know, but a great many courts have awarded the intruder millions of dollars for being shot while having trespassed on anothers property. That's why anyone in the insurance industry will tell you, in private, if you shoot someone they had better be dead. Your Liability (Homeowners) Insurance is 100% liable for ANY injury that occurs on your property. If the intruder can prove you were negligent in your operation of the weapon that injured him (which is very easy to do in jury trials), then your insurance company pays for the intruder to have a VERY nice life. If the intruder is dead, there's no argument against you and you must prove your life was in danger. Having seen transcripts from these trials, you would be surprised what the crook says. You'd be even more surpised by the lame arguments both juries and judges have accepted. Insurance is actually looking out for the greater good. They don't want to reward people for breaking into your home, getting shot for it and collecting millions. The Hartford and other insurance companies are not taking a way your right to own a weapon. They are ONLY saying they do not wish to pay out for any injury that results from your use of that gun. If it's an issue, ask for a exclusion to the policy that states you are responsible for all gun related injuries. They'll insure you. You might even find an insurer in the Suplus line to issue a policy for the gun injuries. Remember, these guys are running a business. It is not a god given right to have insurance bestowed upon you. It is a business decision.


Tim

Carrollton,
Texas,
U.S.A.
Guns, Then Dogs, Then Beer, Then What

#6Consumer Comment

Fri, July 23, 2004

I know many people feel that a firearm is a dangerous weapon, it is. However when we begin to let outside private business dictate what and how we conduct ourselves inside our private dwellings we are indeed going down a slippery slope. I do not know the exact stats for all of these examples but...following the logic that an insurance company can mandate how we handle guns leads to the obvious. Beer leads to far more at home injuries than Firearms (fact). So the use of Alcohol at your residence would lose you coverage. Dogs cause far more injuries and law suites than firearms (fact) so can't have that. Backyard swimming pools and play equipment cause more deaths and injuries than accidental discharge of a firearm by homeowners so ...yes get rid of those. Lets face it, people who think its ok for Hartford to dictate what you do with your gun, just hate guns!


Jason

Charlotte,
North Carolina,
U.S.A.
Homeowners & Guns... The insurance company is responsible for taking on your liability for owning that weapon.

#7Consumer Comment

Mon, July 12, 2004

I have just read the posts concerning the former law enforcement officer with a weapon and his issue with the Hartford's homeowners policy about guns. I understand the belief that both the officer and another poster have. I felt the same way for a VERY LONG TIME. Now that I am in the insurance industry, I have to disagree. The last blogger stated that it is none of the insurance company's business what the officer does in his home with the weapon. That is incorrect. The reason you are purchasing home owners insurance is to reduce your risk of a loss and to transfer that risk to the insurance company. The insurance company is responsible for taking on your liability for owning that weapon. If a lawsuit is waged against you for operating that weapon in your home, it is the insurance company that pays the claim. Having lived in New York, I know how these cases can go. You can be completely justified in mowing down a 14 year old kid who has just broken into your home and you will still be sued for shooting him. In many states you will likely lose that battle and these suits cost insurance companies millions. By purchasing this insurance you are asking the insurance company to take on this risk and pay the millions if you shoot someone. The insurance company has the right to say that they don't want to pay for this suit if you shoot someone. Look at it like this. Your son and daughter come to you tomorrow and ask for money for a broken bicycle tire because they have run over a piece of glass on your street. Next month, your son or daughter does the same thing and asks for money to repair the bicycle. The next month, again the tire is broken in the same manner and your child asks for repairs. Will you continue to keep paying for the tire every time your child runs over the glass? No. You will tell him/her to do one of a few things: 1.) Change routes. 2.) Stop Cycling. 3.) Buy stronger bicycle tubes. 4.) Remove the glass. How many months will it be before you tell your child to find a way to stop running over the glass. The insurance company isn't denying coverage because they don't trust you personally, but they have millions of children who everyday are running over the same piece of broken glass. In response to that they have decided to remove the glass. I hope this helps.


Jason

Charlotte,
North Carolina,
U.S.A.
Homeowners & Guns... The insurance company is responsible for taking on your liability for owning that weapon.

#8Consumer Comment

Mon, July 12, 2004

I have just read the posts concerning the former law enforcement officer with a weapon and his issue with the Hartford's homeowners policy about guns. I understand the belief that both the officer and another poster have. I felt the same way for a VERY LONG TIME. Now that I am in the insurance industry, I have to disagree. The last blogger stated that it is none of the insurance company's business what the officer does in his home with the weapon. That is incorrect. The reason you are purchasing home owners insurance is to reduce your risk of a loss and to transfer that risk to the insurance company. The insurance company is responsible for taking on your liability for owning that weapon. If a lawsuit is waged against you for operating that weapon in your home, it is the insurance company that pays the claim. Having lived in New York, I know how these cases can go. You can be completely justified in mowing down a 14 year old kid who has just broken into your home and you will still be sued for shooting him. In many states you will likely lose that battle and these suits cost insurance companies millions. By purchasing this insurance you are asking the insurance company to take on this risk and pay the millions if you shoot someone. The insurance company has the right to say that they don't want to pay for this suit if you shoot someone. Look at it like this. Your son and daughter come to you tomorrow and ask for money for a broken bicycle tire because they have run over a piece of glass on your street. Next month, your son or daughter does the same thing and asks for money to repair the bicycle. The next month, again the tire is broken in the same manner and your child asks for repairs. Will you continue to keep paying for the tire every time your child runs over the glass? No. You will tell him/her to do one of a few things: 1.) Change routes. 2.) Stop Cycling. 3.) Buy stronger bicycle tubes. 4.) Remove the glass. How many months will it be before you tell your child to find a way to stop running over the glass. The insurance company isn't denying coverage because they don't trust you personally, but they have millions of children who everyday are running over the same piece of broken glass. In response to that they have decided to remove the glass. I hope this helps.


Jason

Charlotte,
North Carolina,
U.S.A.
Homeowners & Guns... The insurance company is responsible for taking on your liability for owning that weapon.

#9Consumer Comment

Mon, July 12, 2004

I have just read the posts concerning the former law enforcement officer with a weapon and his issue with the Hartford's homeowners policy about guns. I understand the belief that both the officer and another poster have. I felt the same way for a VERY LONG TIME. Now that I am in the insurance industry, I have to disagree. The last blogger stated that it is none of the insurance company's business what the officer does in his home with the weapon. That is incorrect. The reason you are purchasing home owners insurance is to reduce your risk of a loss and to transfer that risk to the insurance company. The insurance company is responsible for taking on your liability for owning that weapon. If a lawsuit is waged against you for operating that weapon in your home, it is the insurance company that pays the claim. Having lived in New York, I know how these cases can go. You can be completely justified in mowing down a 14 year old kid who has just broken into your home and you will still be sued for shooting him. In many states you will likely lose that battle and these suits cost insurance companies millions. By purchasing this insurance you are asking the insurance company to take on this risk and pay the millions if you shoot someone. The insurance company has the right to say that they don't want to pay for this suit if you shoot someone. Look at it like this. Your son and daughter come to you tomorrow and ask for money for a broken bicycle tire because they have run over a piece of glass on your street. Next month, your son or daughter does the same thing and asks for money to repair the bicycle. The next month, again the tire is broken in the same manner and your child asks for repairs. Will you continue to keep paying for the tire every time your child runs over the glass? No. You will tell him/her to do one of a few things: 1.) Change routes. 2.) Stop Cycling. 3.) Buy stronger bicycle tubes. 4.) Remove the glass. How many months will it be before you tell your child to find a way to stop running over the glass. The insurance company isn't denying coverage because they don't trust you personally, but they have millions of children who everyday are running over the same piece of broken glass. In response to that they have decided to remove the glass. I hope this helps.


Jason

Charlotte,
North Carolina,
U.S.A.
Homeowners & Guns... The insurance company is responsible for taking on your liability for owning that weapon.

#10Consumer Comment

Mon, July 12, 2004

I have just read the posts concerning the former law enforcement officer with a weapon and his issue with the Hartford's homeowners policy about guns. I understand the belief that both the officer and another poster have. I felt the same way for a VERY LONG TIME. Now that I am in the insurance industry, I have to disagree. The last blogger stated that it is none of the insurance company's business what the officer does in his home with the weapon. That is incorrect. The reason you are purchasing home owners insurance is to reduce your risk of a loss and to transfer that risk to the insurance company. The insurance company is responsible for taking on your liability for owning that weapon. If a lawsuit is waged against you for operating that weapon in your home, it is the insurance company that pays the claim. Having lived in New York, I know how these cases can go. You can be completely justified in mowing down a 14 year old kid who has just broken into your home and you will still be sued for shooting him. In many states you will likely lose that battle and these suits cost insurance companies millions. By purchasing this insurance you are asking the insurance company to take on this risk and pay the millions if you shoot someone. The insurance company has the right to say that they don't want to pay for this suit if you shoot someone. Look at it like this. Your son and daughter come to you tomorrow and ask for money for a broken bicycle tire because they have run over a piece of glass on your street. Next month, your son or daughter does the same thing and asks for money to repair the bicycle. The next month, again the tire is broken in the same manner and your child asks for repairs. Will you continue to keep paying for the tire every time your child runs over the glass? No. You will tell him/her to do one of a few things: 1.) Change routes. 2.) Stop Cycling. 3.) Buy stronger bicycle tubes. 4.) Remove the glass. How many months will it be before you tell your child to find a way to stop running over the glass. The insurance company isn't denying coverage because they don't trust you personally, but they have millions of children who everyday are running over the same piece of broken glass. In response to that they have decided to remove the glass. I hope this helps.


Robin

Waldron,
Arkansas,
U.S.A.
A response to Rose regarding guns in the home

#11Consumer Comment

Thu, May 15, 2003

Hi, Rose, I beieve that the retired law enforcement officer was simply pointing out the policy of the Hartford Company. Do I consider this a ripoff? You bet I do! It is not the insurance company's business how or where I keep guns in my own home. Most people are responsible enough to take precautions when children are present; I am sure that the ex-trooper is probably more aware of the dangers than the average person. And there is much wisdom in the statement that there is no time to fumble with locks when the bad guy is crawling through the window! If this line of thinking continues on the part of insurance companies, the next question will be "Do you have sexual relations in your home? Oh, you do? Well, we can't cover you since you might get AIDS." Insurance companies want your premiums, but do not want to be responsible for anything at the same time. A waiver could have been placed on the policy in case of a firearm-related incident. I am tired of Corporate America trying to dictate what I can and cannot do in my own home and their intrusiveness grows daily!


Jerry

Minneapolis,
Minnesota,
U.S.A.
Why do you even need insurance?

#12Consumer Comment

Thu, May 15, 2003

You should put a sign out that says you're an ex-cop who keeps a loaded weapon next to his bed at night. That way you can waste any intruder and be in the clear.


Rose

Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma,
U.S.A.
Gun Toting Ex-Cop Shows his Ignorance

#13Consumer Comment

Thu, May 15, 2003

I feel that the company is right in not insuring your property. So many children are killed in accidental shootings each year! If you think that any company would accept the liability of a child's death under your home policy, you then reflect your ignorance. Just because you feel you know how to handle a gun, by allowing one person to leave their guns out, that also means that everyone would be insured in leaving THEIR guns out. Insurance is all about fairness and not discriminating. I feel that this person is frustrated at not finding anyone to insure his home. I also feel that he would lie to get what he wanted. This tells me that this person is not honest and has no integrity.

Reports & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
Also a victim?
Repair Your Reputation!
//