As you stand in your home looking at the space where your gun safe used to be located is not the time or place to be asking yourself … “Am I covered for my firearms under my homeowner insurance policy?”
The fact that it was bolted to the closet shelf most likely offered no resistance to the unseemly individual – who thought he or she was entitled to your collection of pistols which had been professionally modified to increase your edge during the USPSA or IDPA competition. Not only did the thief want your weapons, gun safe but they also felt obliged to also relieve you of the custom holsters, ammunition, reloading supplies, and other related equipment all of which had a total value far in excess of $5000.00
The following discussion is offered for educational, discussion and informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.
The Massachusetts homeowner insurance policy provides insurance coverage for the homeowner commonly known as “the insured” under two separate sections of the insurance policy.
The first section of the policy generally provides coverage for the property of the insured including the building and contents subject to various limitations and exclusions
The second section of the homeowner insurance policy generally provides a coverage for the homeowner in the event of a claim or if litigation is brought against the insured.
This current segment will only address and discuss section I coverage. Insurance coverage under Section II of the homeowner insurance policy will be the subject of a separate future segment.
Under section I coverage of the Massachusetts Homeowner Insurance Policy, firearms are considered to be personal property of the insured.
The standard Massachusetts insurance policy provides coverage for personal property owned or used by an insured while it is anywhere in the world.
It should be a noted however, that firearms and related equipment are subject to special limits of liability.
The limit for liability is generally $2,500.00 for loss by theft of a firearm and related equipment.
Although the term firearm generally requires no interpretation. Many times the question focuses on what is “related equipment”
The following case provides some guidance on the interpretation of insurance contracts:
“The proper interpretation of an insurance policy is a matter of law to be decided by a court . . . .” Boazova v. Safety Ins. Co., 462 Mass. 346, 350 (2012). “[L]anguage in an insurance contract ‘is no different from . . . [language in] any other contract, and we must construe the words of the policy in their usual and ordinary sense” Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Cotter, 464 Mass. 623, 634-635 (2013), quoting Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Morrison, 460 Mass. 352, 362 (2011). We assume that every word in an insurance contract serves a purpose, and “must be given meaning and effect whenever practicable” (citation omitted). Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., supra at 635.
Where unambiguous, the terms of an exclusion “should be construed ‘in their usual and ordinary sense'” (citation omitted). See Bagley v. Monticello Ins. Co., 430 Mass. 454, 457 (1999). “Any ambiguities in the language of an insurance contract,” however, “are interpreted against the insurer who used them and in favor of the insured.” Allmerica Fin. Corp., 449 Mass. at 628. This rule “applies with particular force to exclusionary provisions,” Hakim v. Massachusetts Insurers’ Insolvency Fund, 424 Mass. 275, 282 (1997), and an insurer bears the burden of proving that a particular exclusion is applicable, see Allmerica Fin. Corp., supra. When in doubt as to the proper meaning of a term in an insurance policy, we “consider what an objectively reasonable insured, reading the relevant policy language, would expect to be covered” (citation omitted). See Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 460 Mass. at 362. See also James B. Nutter & Co. v. Estate of Murphy, 478 Mass. 664, 670 (2018), quoting Golchin v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 466 Mass. 156, 159-160 (2013) (“standard insurance policies must be interpreted in light of ‘what an objectively reasonable insured . . . would expect to be covered'”) Dorchester Mut. Ins. Co. v. Krusell, SJC-12856 at *11-12 (Mass. Aug. 13, 2020)
In general terms, firearms and related equipment are treated like other personal property on the homeowner insurance policy in the event they are destroyed by a fire, hurricane or similar type of occurrence. In such a case, there generally would be no limit on coverage up to the contents limit of liability.
This limit of liability would be subject to any changes that have been made to the basic form as a result of insurance carrier or insured adding a specific endorsement. In simple terms and endorsement is a modification which modifies and/or changes certain policy language
You should note that depending upon the insurance company, this $2,500 limit may be increased by requesting an endorsement to increase that limit.
If you have been a victim of loss by theft of firearms and related equipment, special attention should be paid in the filing of the claim with respect to the issue of related equipment.
If the other items or related equipment that were lost as a result of a theft can be used in connection with something other than a firearm, it may not fall within the category of related equipment and therefore, may not be subject to the $2,500.00 limit.
The tools and equipment used with reloading may not be “related equipment” if they can be used for other household tasks.
Should you feel that your coverage is inadequate among your options is to obtain and endorsement to your policy increasing the limits.
Another option would be to obtain supplemental insurance coverage from those organizations and insurance companies which concentrate and focus on the owners of firearms.
It is my understanding that statistically if your safe and/or gun safe cannot be opened by the would-be thief on the premises, then the level of protection is greatly heightened. If the intruder/thief can remove the safe, he or she can spend as much time as necessary to force it open.
It is suggested that care should be taken to securely bolt and/or affix the safe to the dwelling – as then your argument becomes that the gun safe is no longer personal property but is part of the dwelling, and it should be excluded from the limitation. If your gun safe is bolted to a removable shelf it strengthens the insurance company’s argument that the gun safe is in fact household contents.
I invite you to read our companion segment which will briefly focus on section II of the Massachusetts homeowner insurance policy which provides coverage for the homeowner against claims which have been brought by someone outside the household who is seeking to recover for damage or injury caused by the homeowner or insured.
Hopefully this segment has given you sufficient information and direction in order to further educate yourself on the issue of firearm coverage and whether to seek additional coverage above and beyond the standard homeowners insurance policy
Do you have a listing of all your firearms and accessories with values along with photographs in the event that you need this information for insurance claim
The time to think about insurance coverage for your property is before you need it.
DISCLAIMER: This and other segments posted on this website are offered for educational, informational and discussion purposes only and is not offered as legal advice. .