Pistol packing 23 years old repossession agents, what could go wrong?

Details emerge on last weeks repossession shooting of borrower. Questions of agency practices arise

EDITORIAL

Up front, I am a second amendment supporter and a believer in a person’s right to self-defense. That said, as details began to emerge around the October 13 shooting of a borrower in San Antonio, Texas, questions of hiring practices, insurance and the carrying of weapons in the field were some of the first things that ran through my head.

Take the Poll Below!

Of course, the first thing everyone wanted to know, was who was the agency? Based on social media replies from the claimed company owner Ruben Gallegos, the company appears to be a A&S Towing of San Antonio. It is not at all uncommon for tow companies in Texas to perform repossessions provided they have all the proper licensing and insurance. Not that it is a requirement, but A&S Tow does not appear to have it’s own website let alone advertise that they perform repossessions.

With all of the current rancor over agent certification going on these days, it brings to question their diligence in this area. If they don’t advertise the service, how much effort have they likely performed to assure compliance with state laws? Self-defense or not, in a civil court, this could come back and haunt this company and the lender, whoever that is. I don’t doubt this agent had the right to defend himself, but civil court actions have a bad tendency of contradicting criminal law.

Insurance Issues

And of course, there are the insurance issues. From provided research, this company carries a Progressive 80/20 policy which means that no more than 20% of their business is supposed to be derived from repossession activity. While this policy has garage keeper’s coverage and “on-hook” coverage, it does not appear to cover wrongful repossession coverage. The Devil is in the details and this is why professionals only hire professionals.

Now, back to my initial emotional thoughts. The first question to cross my mind, was why would an agency have a 23-year-old recovery agent working solo?

In many states, you need to be 25 to even rent a car. This varies by state and is as low as 20 in some. In California and Florida, the age for repossession agent licensing is 18 and in Illinois, it is 21. Obviously, maturity and emotional IQ’s vary and the age can be somewhat subjective, but ask yourself, how comfortable would you be knowing an 18-year-old was out there running your assignments?

According to Ed Marcum, CEO of Recovery Specialist Insurance Group (RSIG); “most insurance companies are allowing for a minimum age of 23 for drivers of commercial vehicles with 25 being the desirable age. They will rate the 23-24 year-olds higher.”

“As for weapons, any claim from use or possession of a firearm is excluded under most General Liability insurance policies, including the policy issued through the RSIG program. There is plenty of case law on the books addressing possession of firearms during a repossession and none of it good for the repossessor. Case law tells us that if a gun is present during self-help repossession, a breach of the peace occurs. It does not matter who has the gun. It can be:

The Debtor.

The Repossessor.

A third party.

Even a police officer”

Ed adds case law to support this; “The court finds that a jury could reasonably decide if the plaintiff proves that Bobo (Repossessor) had his gun on his person during the repossession that the plaintiffs (Debtors) were in imminent apprehension of offensive contact.” Lingross v Heilig-Meyers Furniture 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 398 MS 1999.

Yes, Bobo was the name of one of the defendants in this furniture repossession related lawsuit.

Renee Low, Training & Education Coordinator of Harding Brooks Insurance Agency has advised that; “Most insurance companies including our carriers approve drivers to perform repossessions at 22. Our carriers do make an exception for a driver under 22, if it is a family member. Most insurance carriers require two years of experience.”

“Our application asks if the insured has a written and enforced policy prohibiting employees from carrying weapons on their person or in a vehicle. We also request a copy of the written no weapons policy. This is industry standard for most insurance companies who write repossession coverage. It is not industry standard for insurance companies who write tow accounts to ask if the insured has a no-weapons policy. The majority of the insurance companies who write towing do not intend for their policy to cover an account that does repossession.”

“Our policy includes a firearms exclusion as well.”

Further complicating this question is the challenges employers are having finding staff? Let’s face it, this job is becoming less and less attractive as the days got by. Agent commissions haven’t risen dramatically in many years, most assignments are contingent to recovery increasing pressure to recover and this job, often lacking any medical benefits and having rough hours coupled with dangerous work conditions, is simply not a job for everyone.

With rising minimum wages and employers feeling the pressure to keep their businesses running, the hiring of younger workers may become a trend. Who knows how long until recovery agents begin looking more like DoorDash drivers or those rodeo clowns and retirees on oxygen tanks that were out there performing lot inspections not long ago. Honestly, I don’t think even they would do this job, it take a special type of individual to do it and an even more unique one to do it right.

Weapons

My second question was, why would a tow company or repossession agency allow a field agent to carry a gun on the job, licensed or not?

I know of no repossession insurance carrier policies that allows agents to carry guns in the field. I doubt Progressive does, but then again, in all fairness to the tow company owner, we don’t even know if he was aware of his driver carrying a weapon. Regardless, this tow company will be dangling in the breeze when the lawsuit comes and that’ll be his cross to bear.

Let’s suppose we put the insurance aside and just look at it from a practical point of view, this is a hard one. Again, maturity plays a big part in it. In California, agents are prohibited from carrying firearms on the job, licensed or not. In Texas, where this shooting occurred, this is governed at the county level so, the agent involved in this incident was within his rights. Outside of the heavily regulated states, there are patchworks of laws governing this.

I suppose every situation is different, and in some rural areas, this is quite normal. But as a lender or agency owner, my comfort level with this wouldn’t be very high for a couple of reasons. First, when a gun is present in a potentially volatile situation, its probability of use increases. Second, when two firearms are present, their probability of use is almost assured.

I have watched in my career from afar, dozens of agents shot and killed on the job and strongly believe in the right to bear arms and self-defense and am glad the agent in San Antonio wasn’t killed. Would he have been shot had he not be armed? Possibly, reports state that the borrower fired first, warning shot or not, I don’t know, but he crossed the line and put himself at risk and, in my humble opinion, brought his critical wounds on himself. Regardless, you know some lawyer will initiate legal action against the tow company, the agent and the lender.

Enough of my rambling opinions, what do you think?