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

Such proposals are usually large pieces of legislation, of which one piece includes a requirement for gun liability insurance: that gun 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 that the liability product cover any sort of liability arising from any kind of use of the weapon, even acts that were illegal, he says.

“In New York State, for example, the bill as proposed says it would have to cover 'willful acts.' That would encompass even illegal acts under that language,” Hartwig says. But the general principal of insurance is it never has, and never will, cover illegal acts. “I think the bills were crafted quickly and without consideration with respect to what sort of things were not available in any insurance policy.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Such extended coverage is usually reserved for potentially dangerous things like backyard trampolines or a swimming pool; it's also usually low cost.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kevin M. Lynch, Assistant Professor of Insurance at the American College in Bryn Mawr, Pa., says he recently renewed his NRA membership and purchased first AR15 rifle in response the gun control debate.

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

The AR15 rifle is a style of weapon also called a sporting rifle, says Lynch, who has been teaching homeowners insurance for four years. He spent 40 years prior in insurance. “Simply, it's a semi-automatic civilian version of what most people refer to as the M16 in the military,” he says. “They look alike.”

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

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

Anyway, if insurance companies were able to create a firearms liability product they would need actuarial advice to underwrite it.

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

James Lynch, a New York-based actuary working on firearms liability research with the Insurance Information Institute, says as of yet, there is no actuarial correlation between gun ownership data and homicide rates in the United States. Further, firearm ownership is not a significant driver of homeowner's policy rates.

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

“I do know the standard ACORD homeowners application doesn't ask about firearms,” he says, referring to a January publication from GenRe, the reinsurance arm of Berkshire Hathaway, titled, “Gun Safety: In the aftermath of the unconscionable Newtown school shooting, we are a nation in shock and in mourning,” from Chairman and CEO Franklin (Tad) Montross.

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

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