Insurer sues to stop shooting club’s Uzi death claim for 8 Year Old

[RamboLiberal]

Two years after an 8-year-old boy fatally shot himself at a gun show in western Massachusetts, an insurer for the Westfield Sportsman’s Club claims it isn’t obligated to pay a wrongful-death settlement to his family.

A federal suit filed late last week by underwriters at Lloyd’s of London alleges the club’s policy doesn’t cover claims arising out of “criminal activity” - and also cites an exemption for all liability related to gun shows.

In October 2008, Christopher Bizilj of Ashford, Conn., was allowed to try out a fully automatic Micro Uzi machine pistol at the club’s annual Machine Gun Shoot and Firearms Expo. As his father, Dr. Charles D. Bizilj, stood several feet away with a camera, Christopher lost control, fatally shooting himself in the head.

http://www.bostonherald.com/business/general/view/20101014insurer_sues_to_stop_clubs_uzi_death_claim/

In this case I don't think they should have to pay, there was recklessness by all involved especially the police chief who put a 15 year old in range officer.

[PavePusher]

1. I'm torn on this one.

While there was certainly negligence, I'm not convinced any crime was commited.

[Callisto32]

24. It wasn't a CRIME.

But...man, how do you hold people accountable for that much stupid?

[pansypoo53219]

2. the gun club can pay.

and the father is an IDIOT.

[diveguy]

3. It should not be the responsabilty

of the insurance carrier to pay the claim. The people involved need to pay the family.

[pipoman]

4. Really?

Just exactly why do you think the gun club was paying liability insurance premiums? Jeeezuz, are you really siding with denial of a legitimate insurance claim by an insurance company?

[RamboLiberal]

12. I bet the insurers argument is that they weren't aware

that the gun club would allow a full auto shoot. I would bet club insurance might not cover outside events.

Having attended competitions I know almost all the clubs because these are being attended by non-members has each individual competing that if they are injured or killed the club is not responsible.

If this club didn't have each shooter or guardian sign that waiver they are really stupid.

The policy may only cover club property, members engaged in normal club activities and member's registerd guests. And I wonder if the club would even normally allow a full auto gun to be fired on the range. Most don't.

[pipoman]

13. If this is a blanket liability policy

as I suspect it is, it is what most Lloyd's underwritten policies are, I believe it is for policy holder negligence. The article states thet the claim is being denied because of "criminal acts" and a "gun show" exemption in the policy. I am not aware of any criminal charges in this case, I may be wrong. I also am curious the definition of "gun show" in the policy because by most people's definition this wouldn't be a "gun show", but maybe an exhibition. It does seem that I read somewhere that there was a waiver for attendees, waivers become very shaky legal ground if something like this happens. Again, I would like to read the policy. I would guess that when the dust settles, I am closer to right as to why this was really denied with my response in post #5.

[Callisto32]

25. WELLLL....

Okay. Even if there is a definition in the policy, that may not matter, as courts construe insurance contracts VERY broadly in favor of finding coverage. If "gun show" is not defined, this will be covered because of contra proferentem, the idea that we construe any ambiguity in a contract against the drafter; in insurance cases, almost always the insurer. There is also a principle called "reasonable expectation of the insured" where even if something is technically not allowed to recover under the contract, if a reasonable person reading the contract would believe it to be covered, the court will probably compel coverage. The idea here is that most people buying insurance don't really understand the ins and outs of their policy and expect it to cover many things that it really doesn't.

[pipoman]

28. SOOO...

Do you agree or disagree with with post #5?

[Callisto32]

29. What part of it?

That denying claims is good business? I supposed it could be. I don't know how accurate your numbers are, though. Certainly, insurers are willing to take premiums, and can be, lets say "less enthusiastic," about paying claims. However, I have spent a lot of time the last 2 months reading insurance contracts, and the legal cases that spring up around them. Often, things that a person would not expect to be covered are, and things you would expect to be covered are not. The people buying the insurance frequently don't seem to understand the contract they have signed. My point above was that that may not matter, though; because when you litigate insurance contracts, courts are quite willing to go beyond the "four corners of the document."

If you are asking if I agree with the undertone of "insurance companies are evil organizations bilking people out of their hard-earned money and then not paying them what is rightfully theirs to make obscene profits" the answer is "no." My recent experience suggests to me that the case is far more often "the insurance actually DOESN'T cover that, and if you had made sure you understood the contract before singing it you could have bought another policy or placed a rider on a current one to cover that thing you want covered." Sometimes these companies pull abhorrent crap, certainly, but the courts are so pro-coverage that most of those dirty tricks don't work that well any more.

[pipoman]

34. I certainly have never said anything like

"insurance companies are evil organizations bilking people out of their hard-earned money and then not paying them what is rightfully theirs to make obscene profits" , as the quotation marks would indicate. My dad was an insurance agent, for the same company, for 35 years. In addition I have done hundreds of investigations for insurance companies. I have no great problem with insurance companies. My experience with these specialty liability policies is that merely winning a liability case against an insured is not the end of the road for receiving payment for the liability...actually it is just the beginning of the fight. Most states allow for interest to accrue from the date of judgment, the problem is that the interest rate is based on a savings account which an insurance company can beat by 4 fold. It isn't until the injured party fights through the courts to the point that the courts either allow for asset levying against the insured or imposes dramatic penalties for continued nonpayment which exceed the interest the company can earn. Usually before it reaches this point the insurance company has made an agreement with the injured person to pay less than the awarded amount in exchange for immediate payment...just business..

All that said, it is true that most people never even bother to actually read their policy...If they do actually read it once, they never revisit it...and certainly don't revisit it prior to submitting a claim.

In this case the definition of "gun show" within the policy is, IMHO, the most important aspect of this argument. If the policy doesn't define "gun show" (which I doubt very much), then the insurance company will never prevail on that argument.

[pipoman]

5. Welcome to the wonderful world

of insurance reality. They will accept your premiums 'til the cows come home, the minute you need to claim on that policy, well, that's when the shuckin' an' jivin' begins. Let's see how this works out. I suspect Lloyd's has significant holdings around the world, likely makes a cumulative 10% return on their money, no? The claim is for $4 million x 10% = $400,000 annually. The cost of denial and the subsequent legal battle, what? maybe $200k for 5 years worth of delays? = $2 million over 5 years not even considering 'the magic of compound interest' on the money. Fighting a legitimate claim is good business..

To their reason for denial...the media is who has claimed this to be a "gun show". I would like to know the definition of a 'gun show' given in the insurance policy.

In this case I don't think they should have to pay, there was recklessness by all involved especially the police chief who put a 15 year old in range officer.

These types of liability insurance policies is EXACTLY for accidents arising from negligence on the part of the policy holder. The policy holder has already been found to have been negligent. Others were negligent too, but it seems indisputable that the policy holder was certainly negligent. I have never been to a range of any kind which didn't have a range master who was responsible for policing overall safe shooting. No rangemaster in their right mind would think it a good idea to have a 15 year old monitoring an automatic weapon unsupervised....no, I blame the range the most in this tragedy.

[zbdent]

6. oooo, this should be interesting ...

gun lobby vs insurance industry ...

:popcorn:

[pipoman]

7. Uh, no

it is policy holder vs. insurance carrier...not at all unlike any other insurance claim denial when it is time for the insurance company to actually pay up.

[SteveM]

36. Really? What "lobby" do you speak of, where is it, how are they involved?

Maybe too much chemically-enhanced butter in the popcorn?

[Remmah2]

8. Father gives the kid permission and thinks he hit the lottery.

"In October 2008, Christopher Bizilj of Ashford, Conn., was allowed to try out a fully automatic Micro Uzi machine pistol at the club’s annual Machine Gun Shoot and Firearms Expo. As his father, Dr. Charles D. Bizilj, stood several feet away with a camera, Christopher lost control, fatally shooting himself in the head."

All the $$ in the world will not change a thing for the kid. He's still dead. On the other hand his dad thinks he hit the lotto.

When I work with inexperienced shooters we load one round at a time until I'm comfortable they are ready to move up (kids and adults alike.)

My son and I are avid canoers, he's gone out on trips w/others without me. When I have felt the water was too dangerous I've pulled him from the trip. The bottom line is as his parent I've supervised and monitored him. (As opposed to advocating for a canoe ban.)

In the case above the "Dr." father might just as well handed his kid lit fireworks. Dad needs to man up and admit he screwed up and stop blaming everyone else. (Bad attitude if you're a doctor and operating on people.)

[diveguy]

10. Thats right

why should the insurance pay a criminal who allowed his child to get killed.

Example: A car-jacker wants your car. your sitting at a redlight and he walks up and busts out your window to drag you out and take your car. In the process, he cuts his arm. should he sue your insurance company for the damage.

This is a case of a man exploiting the death of his child to collect money.

[pipoman]

14. Not quite

as a patron of an advertised event at a gun range the father has a reasonable expectation of safety by the experts running the show. Instead of your example, this would be more akin to someone bringing their minor child to a plastic surgeon for an unnecessary chin tuck and the minor dying on the table. Would the parent be an idiot? IMO, yes. Would the parent be to blame for the error of the experts? No, again IMO. Because the parent is an idiot shouldn't negate the greater error of the experts, thus malpractice should apply.

[diveguy]

15. But, should the parent profit

The doctor would explain that medical procedures has risk. Just like allowing children to fire machine guns have risk. The parent knows the risk. Why should they profit.

[pipoman]

16. Should they? I don't know.

No amount of money would equal profit in return for the death of my child. While I think the dad screwed up, it is the pros who I put the most blame on. Patrons of shooting ranges would do all kinds of stupid shit if there weren't range masters...I've seen it too many times. As for the risk, this was unnecessary extreme negligence on the part of the range people (equivalent to a patient coming to a Dr. for a chin tuck and coming out of surgery with their arm amputated), not freak accident type risk...there is a difference. The question here is should the club be liable for this accident? I believe that they should. The courts have determined them liable too, to the tune of $4million. The insurance premiums have been paid all these years to limit the damage of liability on the club, to keep the club solvent in the event of a liability. This isn't punishment for the insurance company, it is their responsibility because they collected premiums in exchange for accepting risk. They are refusing to pay because it makes good financial sense to do so.

[rrneck]

17. I always expect any corporation

to avoid responsibility for profit. It's what they do. But in this case, I have to wonder. It was so abysmally stupid to allow a child to fire that weapon and to furthermore allow another child to oversee him that I can almost understand their reluctance to pay up.

To use an ever popular car analogy; you can get car insurance all day long, but if you do something beyond what someone might reasonably expect you to do with it, especially if that activity is criminal, then their obligation to make those who are injured whole is nullified.

I'll be interested to see what the courts decide.

[pipoman]

18. This differs in the car insurance annalogy

in that in the car insurance instance they are making the insured whole, not a damaged third party. An insurance co has to pay the victims of their insured getting drunk and injuring others...they may not have to pay to repair the drunk's car. I suppose it depends who one believes has the most responsibility and to what degree. I believe those putting themselves out as experts, sanctioning the event, and allowing the event on their property are most responsible for providing a safe environment for this event. It should be their responsibility to determine rules and enforcing those rules. One rule, IMO, which should have been in place was nobody under 18 may shoot these weapons...they failed to either adopt such a rule or failed to enforce it.

The insurance co is money ahead every day they avoid paying.

[rrneck]

20. LOL I have the damndest time making those car analogies work. nt

[benEzra]

19. So you're saying that if a drunk driver hits me and puts my entire family in the hospital...

his liability insurance doesn't have to pay a dime?

I'm not saying you're definitely wrong on this (you may be right), but this is certainly news to me, although insurance law is certainly not my forte. Do you have a cite or direction for further reading?

[rrneck]

21. Nah. I was fulla shit. I'm gonna give up on car analogies. nt

[diveguy]

22. That is one person hurting another.

Should the insurance co pay the drunk for harming your family. What if the drunk had a child with him and the child is killed. should the insurane co have to make the drunk a millionare because of his criminal stupidity

[benEzra]

27. The kid's dad wasn't the one who was really negligent here.

If you let your kid attend a ski class, and the instructor puts your novice kid on a slope that (unbeknownst to you) is a triple black diamond, and sends him down with no supervision except a 15-year-old, and your child breaks his neck, do you think there might be grounds for a lawsuit?

The range paid lots of money every year in liability insurance premiums, and then one of their people at an official event hands a child one of the trickiest-to-control subguns in existence and leaves him under the supervision of another minor. The instructor, at least, was grossly negligent.

Normally, when a full-auto shoot is being conducted, an instructor (not a kid) will be at the shooter's elbow to ensure it stays pointed in a safe direction, and if the shooter is a novice or small, the instructor will often have a hand on the weapon if muzzle flip is a possibility. And generally, a child would be only allowed to shoot something either tripod mounted or with a shoulder stock, with far less recoil and far more moment of rotational inertia than a Micro Uzi.

[Remmah2]

30. If the parent was not present I would agree.

The kids parent was present and part of the supervision.

In support of your argument (meaning I'm partially agreeing with you.) It seems the range failed to set minimum requirements for a youth (or anyone) to operate the machine gun. There seems to be shared responsibility/neglegance here. Seems only the lawyers will benefit on this one.

[PavePusher]

31. Except the parent in this situation is not presumed to be experienced...

with machine guns. So he has no expectation of knowing what might be a bad idea. All theoretical, of course.

[Remmah2]

32. Point taken. nt

nt

[benEzra]

35. Unless the parent was himself knowledgeable about the difference

between a Micro Uzi and a typical Title 2 automatic weapon, then his being there is less relevant than it might seem. Same as if the parent in my analogy was not himself an advanced skiier and so did not know that a double black diamond means a dangerous experts-only slope or whatever.

A minimum age requirement suitable for, say, an M16A2 or a Title 2 AK-47 would be far different than for an Uzi Micro. Heck, I don't think the average inexperienced adult would necessarily be safe with a Micro without an instructor hands-on.

I just don't see blaming the father for not being the expert here, and I particularly don't see accusing him of trying to "cash in" as a "lottery winner", as some have tried to do upthread. Sure, in hindsight, there were serious lapses by the police chief and the range that he should have questioned, but if he didn't have the experience to know they should be questioned, then I'm not sure how he could be considered culpable for that.

[SteveM]

37. Is this a "comparative negligence" state?

[-..__...]

9. Well, that's a schocker...

the family's not suing the firearms manufactuerer, ammo manufactuerer, magazine manufactuerer, the people that printed up the "gun show" ad/flyers and anyone else they can extort/bleed money from.

[RamboLiberal]

11. Are we sure?

Don't know the full details of a lawsuit.

[Callisto32]

23. I'd have to see the policy to know about the payment stuff....

but this story just gets worse and worse. Talk about a perfect storm of stupid. Dr.'s Chiefs of police, "S.O.'" Proving once again that alphabet soup in someones name doesn't actually indicate any level of competence, or intelligence. Everybody involved in handing an 8 year old a full auto micro-uzi and "NOT HELPING HIM EFFING CONTROL IT!" needs to be held liable for their recklessness (at the very least negligence)....

[aikoaiko]

26. This is what liability insurance is for.

I'm not saying the Westfield Sportsman Club was the only one negligent in this case, but the argument could be made that they are partially responsible.

[jeepnstein]

33. I teach shooting sports.

The insurance company won't be cutting a check for this one if the range master didn't have proper safeguards and procedures in place. From what I've read about the shooting there was a rather lax attitude displayed by the safety people. If the insurance company can prove that the gun club was reckless they won't pay a dime.

Too bad it's all about money now. The kid is dead because someone was too lax about safety. Ultimately it will fall on the range master's head. Someone was in charge and they chose to run things in a reckless manner. That's who should ultimately be held responsible. The parents of the dead child are also on the hook for this and my heart goes out to them. That's a thing they will carry with them for the rest of their lives.

[SteveM]

38. I tend to agree with your position...

The insurance company must pay for actions of the range's designated representatives (range master), though this should be mitigated by parental actions. This is not only very sad, but indicates the mindset that "reality" is what you see on T.V. (the one-handed use of Uzis in crime shows, ad nauseum).