If a PPO does not handle firearms, what type of insurance is necessary?

In the context of Private Protective Services in California, if a Personal Protection Officer (PPO) is not handling firearms as part of their duties, the situation allows for a different insurance consideration. Generally, liability insurance is crucial for security professionals because it provides coverage in case of bodily injury or property damage arising from their professional activities. However, if a PPO is not armed and thus doesn't pose the same level of risk associated with handling firearms, the requirement for liability insurance becomes less stringent.

Therefore, the claim that "no insurance necessary" can hold weight, particularly if the organization's policies or state regulations do not mandate a certain level of insurance for unarmed personnel. This option acknowledges that the risk profile is lower than that of armed professionals and aligns with the understanding that there are scenarios where specific insurance types may not be required. Thus, in this scenario, the implication is that a PPO not handling firearms might operate without the obligation of carrying insurance, given that their activity does not involve the same degree of risk.