Yet another mass shooting has occurred, this time in a small church in Texas. This time it appears to be related to domestic issues, however twenty-six innocent people were killed, and at least twenty others injured. This incident was different however, in that armed bystanders challenged the gunman and took chase. Reports state that upon leaving the church the gunman exchanged fire with an armed bystander before getting into his vehicle and taking off. The bystander flagged down a man in a vehicle who picked up the bystander and both pursued the gunman at speeds of up to ninety-five miles per hour. Finally, the gunman lost control of his vehicle and hit a tree. The bystanders were in contact with police through the chase, and after the gunman crashed, they stayed at their vehicle with a gun directed towards the gunman's vehicle until the police arrived.

The actions of the bystanders add a different element to this situation. The gunman's actions are not going to be covered by insurance, since it was an intentional act. Bystanders' took action that could have resulted in bodily harm or property damage, would insurance cover those injuries or damages? One exchanged fire with the gunman; he could have hit an innocent person or damaged property in that exchange.

While exchanging fire with the gunman is an intentional act, the homeowners policy contains an exclusion under Personal Liability and Medical Payments coverages for injury or damage resulting from the use of reasonable force by an “insured” to protect persons or property. There is nothing in the policy that requires the persons or property being protected to be related to or belong to the insured, or even be on the premises. If the insured is found legally liable for injury or damages from shooting at a gunman, there is coverage.

Some might question coverage since the loss must be due to an “occurrence”, a defined term. The definition states that an “occurrence” means an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to the same general harmful conditions resulting in injury or damage. If the insured shoots at a gunman and misses, striking a bystander or other property, that is an accident. The insured did not intend to hurt the other party, just the gunman. Shooting a gunman in the throes of shooting into a group of people may be intentional but any injury that might occur to others by stray bullets is not intentional, and falls under the exception for using reasonable force to protect persons or property.

In this particular situation the bystanders took pursuit in a vehicle. Had one of the bystanders fired from the moving vehicle, and struck an innocent party, would there be coverage under the auto policy? This is complicated since the auto policy does not have any provisions for protecting persons or property. Autos are seen as transportation, and not a location where self-defense or protection of people or property is needed. The auto policy provides coverage for injury or damage from which any insured becomes legally responsible because of an auto accident. The firing of a gun, whether or not the bullet hits the intended target, is not an accident. Court cases that allow injuries from a fired gun in a vehicle to be considered an auto accident relate to accidental discharge if the weapon was jostled, or accidently fired while being loaded or unloaded into the vehicle, or using the vehicle as a gun rest. In all these situations, the gun is in or upon the vehicle, and the discharge is accidental. If the passenger, while firing at the gunman accidentally shoots the driver, or even a bystander, there would be coverage since the injury happened from inside the vehicle. A moving vehicle does not provide a steady position to aim from, so a missed shot that wounds another would be an auto accident.

This type of situation presents many new wrinkles in insurance coverage. Americans love their weapons, and many believe that the way to prevent mass shootings is for more people to carry weapons. However there are many side issues, the injury of innocent others by well-meaning bystanders can have implications the armed bystanders have not considered.