Wonder how much of the cost of a new gun is the liability insurance for the maker?

[vito]

With the anti-gunners looking for any and every way to sue gun manufacturers, and local anti-gun governments joining in the effort, I assume that liability insurance for these companies is very, very expensive. It makes me wonder about how much of the cost of most guns is due to this real expense by the gun companies. I know that in some other product areas, such as private aircraft, the manufacturer's insurance is a major factor in the pricing of planes, and suspect that the same holds true for guns.

 

[buckaroo]

Depends who the gun manufacture is. Ruger being the most successful, while Glock is still privately own. It's ain't cheap I'm sure and I would guess at least 25% the cost of the gun. Ruger is successful because they make everything in house and have factories all over the country. A lot of them are barely a shoestring operation.

That's been the new plan for a few years now to get around the 2nd amendment, the first part of the plan was allowing families to sue the individual even in a righteous shoot. And if you are a home owner they are coming after you. The Blacks have it down to almost a science in fact they hope a relative is shot by the police to sue the cities, easy money after Al and the gang get their cut.

As a lawyer once told a class I was in, "if you ever have to use your firearm in self-defense it will be perhaps the worst day in your entire life"

 

[Chief 101]

We have liability clauses in the rules for politicians and drug companies(thems people do us wrong intentionally), we need to work on that for gun companies...

 

[XP100]

Don't know about manufacturers but I paid 10% of my gross sales for liability insurance per year when I had my gun shop.

I read almost 1/2 the cost of a new vehicle goes to pay retirees benefits.

 

[cowboycopus]

I was told long ago that over half the cost of a stepladder was product liability insurance.
Might be about the same for firearms.

 

[bobski]

just a wild idea, isnt the purpose of insurance to keep assets from being seized?
why not forgo insurance and if someone is sued, just let em have it and go start another co and chalk it up as loss. keep the mfging cost super low so its not such a loss abd lease the big equipment. sorta like '.coms.' if it fails, they just start a new website under a new name.
just a wild thought. feedback?

 

[buckaroo]

feedback?

Manufacturing by 'owner' is far different than .com importing from the kitchen table. The laws need to be changed but the game is to circumvent the 2nd amendment. At the very least cap the awards like GW did down in Texas when he was govenor for malpractice. It will keep the vultures at bay.

 

[dweis]

I think that claims for illegal use of firearms is or will be more likely excluded from liability coverage. Federal law relives the manufacturer from liability. State laws do not. Remington is perfect example in CT, where it was sued for Sandy Hook. Remington was found liable for 73 million dollars for the families of the victims. If Remington was covered for that, I’ll bet that coverage was cancelled.