I won't discuss the names nor businesses involved (I changed the names to create anonymity), but here is the following:

Jim owns a hardware store. He has had burglary and issues with theft, etc. He wants to install fake cameras to deter the random acts.

His insurance agent Bob, states if he does do that he will be liable for incidents that occur in the store whereas one would believe he/she would be protected by the recording cameras. If installed, they should function. This is especially true if you have a sign on the front door stating you are under constant camera surveillance. Bob explains a parallel of putting a sign on the door stating armed security is present and in fact they are not. Jim would assume liability the patrons were misled about an armed guard protected environment that does in fact not exist.

Bob then states, posting to forbid CCW is the same situation. When one enters the store, they KNOW they are unprotected and assume the risk.

Jim then talks with Lem, another insurance agent not associated with Bob's company. Lem parrot's Bob's statements. Lem states this has been a popular conversation since the enactment of CCW and has made some businesses change their surveillance, etc. signage.  

V
OUT

The way I comprehend the sentence in red, is the business owner has no liability because the customer has been informed that they are unprotected and therefore the customers are assuming the risk. Is that correct?

I would think it'd be this way... the customer has been informed, by the signage,  that weapons are forbidden on the premises, therefore they are to assume they are safe from harm by others who may have weapons, because there should be no weapons present... the signage says so. Just as a sign stating "you're under video surveliance" should have REAL video surveliance, a sign prohibiting weapons should force the owner to make sure there really are no weapons. If that means stop & frisk, or metal detectors, so be it. They're assuming that responsibility by posting.

If a no weapons sign would lead customers to assume they are unprotected and they assume risk by entering, how would the lack of a no weapons sign lead customers to assume they ARE protected, and there is no risk? There's no reason to believe there will be a CHL with a gun present to provide protection, just because there's no prohibiting signage.

Yes the customer assumes the risk.

The NO Weapons sign solely exists to show patrons CCW is not allowed. The under constant surveillance sign solely exist to show patrons they are under constant surveillance. No bathroom means no bathroom, etc.

A lack of the sign infers nothing.

I find how insurance companies interpret customer's thoughts absurd and crazy. It's as dumb as one assuming restrooms all have toilet paper...LOL.

V
OUT

I fail to see why the customer isn't also assuming risk if there's not a No Weapons sign. Unless there's armed, uniformed, security guards present, the owner is not promising anything.  

I never really fully understood the "lack of posting" relieving the premises' owner from liability for harm caused by a concealed weapon, that's in the CCW statute. This seems to contradict that whole idea, by relieving liability for posting no weapons signs.  

I agree with you wholeheartedly.

We are wrong.

V
OUT

So the insurance guys are saying that posting "no weapons" relieves liability for harm from owners... um, OK.

But are they also saying that not posting a "no weapons" sign does the reverse, and  places liability for harm on the owners? Even though the statute says they have no liability?

Or is there no liability both ways, sign or no sign?

No, a no weapon sign means just that to these two companies. I believe, as a patron I must leave my weapon outside and am defenseless inside, so with that thought I concur.

As for liability, whatever circumstance the insurance company describes is what the owner is covered under with liability. Due to liability cases being mostly lawyers trying to make $ for themselves and their clients, I look at it as just that. Interpretation is also why we are swimming in frivolous lawsuits.

I am just pointing out how similar these two insurance company interpretations are and how absurd it is.

BTW: Jim went with fake surveillance cameras...LOL.

V
OUT

With all due respect Jim is a major tard. It's not hard to have working security cameras; it's not like you need to pay someone to sit and watch them 24/7.

There are two types of cameras in my past experience.
1. Fake ones to deter (one time cost of $5 each).
2. Real ones that are IR, off site recorded ($3000+ one time cost for 6 cameras and $100+ per month monitoring).

All in between are basically on site and bad guy accessible.

Major Tard Jim is just going the cheaper of the two routes.

V
OUT

It wouldn't be hard to rig a cheap ass off site backup with a cheapo motion detecting camera with a time-stamper. If he's worried about people ninja accessing his recording files something isn't right about his neighborhood.

My 2 cents.

Most burglaries around here have the recorder accessed and destroyed and I live in a dirt farmer small county with good neighborhoods compared to elsewhere in WI (my guess since I'm from Pittsburgh).

Also, I am too dumb to do what you stated about rigging off site back-up...LOL.

V
OUT

We still need to establish case law by someone being a victim in a posted place, suing, and winning. Those insurance agents will change their minds pretty quick.

There's a 3rd option. On-site DVR for the camera(s), with the DVR unit either very well hidden, or securely locked up in an old safe or equivalent, securely anchored. Or locked in a secure room behind a steel door with good deadbolts. Drilling holes in the back / sides / top of a safe for cable & power cord access is no big deal, and once the video images are recorded inside, they're secure. One time cost, no monthly monitoring etc. I've seen these set-ups, as I was called upon to change combinations on the lock of the old safes they were in, or rekey / install the deadbolts.

One guy went so far as to have cameras with completely wireless transmission, and the DVR receiver locked in a very expensive safe behind a false wall, and receiver's antenna was above the tiles of a dropped ceiling. It'd take hours just to find it.... then they'd have to open it (and they'd be recorded the whole time unless they found the hidden camera that watches just the safe too). By using wireless cameras, the thieves can't just follow cables to the DVR. They have no clue where it is, or if it's even in the building.

FWIW, I also have seen some ingenius stuff in peoples' homes too. I know two guys (brothers) who have taken mini-game cameras that record video with "blacked out" IRs, and painted them white and disguised them to look like a common CO2/smoke detector, aimed directly at their gun safes in their basement utility rooms, and they turn them on when they'll be out of town. They hang on a wall near the furnace in plain sight... they fooled me.

If I understand the OP scenario, the "insurance agent" has some bad information.

I am not a lawyer and this isn't legal advice.  

Pasted below is a excerpt from a presentation I give to business owners on this issue.

• “A person that does not prohibit an individual from carrying a concealed weapon on property that the person owns or occupies is immune from any liability arising from its decision”. Wis. Stat. 175.60(21)(b)
  Person = a business or an entity.
  Meant to be a fairly broad blanket of liability protection.
  Intended to get a defendant out of a tort action quickly and inexpensively
  Intended as an incentive for businesses to allow patrons to carry concealed weapons.

This position has been confirmed by the Wisconsin Bar Association but not tested yet in court.

Jeff

You aren't "Jim" are you?

The fact that thieves go out of their way to destroy recorded data is something new to me. You'd think they'd be preoccupied with un-assing the store.

I find this thread interesting, so please keep it up, but $3000 is far too much.

You can purchase 6x decent IR, wide-focus, HD H.264, an on-site NAS with Raid-1 or RAID-5, pushing to an off-site archive, for $1000-1200 and maybe $30-40 a month if you include a portion of your internet access in it.

I'd have to assume that extra $1600-1800 is paying someone to install it. Clearly I should switch jobs.

LOL!

No, but I wish I were Jim or ANYBODY with a business. I believe that is what this country is all about.

Look up how Bradley Young ran around for 4+ years, burglarizing (2 places a night at most times) successfully without being caught.

V
OUT

I think what is interesting was more of what the insurance agent encompassed in thought and his overall scope.

We believe X (based on no court data or real data for that matter). If it is not in the fine print (which 99% of policies do not have an addendum) we will cover you, but will likely drop you when it is time to renew because you did not heed our warning. Now explain to the next insurance company why you are an established company but were dropped. I.e. do what we suggest or your rates will go up...

Again, this is all civil in regards to lawsuits, not criminal.

V
OUT

I think the application of liability is an inherent necessity for the property owner.

If a property owner restricts the civil liberties of its patrons then it should be providing for their defense, since that is what the 2A is for, & you have denied it's purpose on your property.

Now as far as the fake camera?

I draw a distinct difference between something being construed as a deterrent vs being viewed as something that gives a certain amount of safety.

A camera does not offer "Safety" of any kind. If that perspective is held it is done so under false pretense any way, regardless of functionality.

Now, if those cameras were believed to be man operated & had means by which to deploy a mechanism or object to defend those on-premise, then yeah it comes with an inherently established expectation of protection or defensiveness.