[30 cal slob]

...if he (or she) is involved in a righteous self-defense shooting?

I was told there's nothing out there to cover intentional torts.

But SOMEBODY has to offer SOMETHING?

[K3]

Imagine how it would look in court if you had insured yourself against a lawsuit stemming from a SD situation. The way people (and lawyers) are today, you'd be painted as one who was seeking to shoot. As was mentioned in another thread, it's a shame that being prepared is twisted into something malicious.

[30 cal slob]

*sigh*

lawyers.

[deadin]

I would imagine you could find something in the speciality market. You just might not like the premium.
I woked in the insurance industry for 20 years and we had an underwriter that said he would insure a burning house, if he could get the rate.:evil:

[IllHunter]

Homeowners all risk liability umbrellas "should" cover any act leading to a lawsuit on the insured property. Unless there is a specific exclusion a case caould be made, especially if guns are insured in the property section and if such defensive precautions as alarm systems are identified in the policy.
Imagine trying to defend the policy and saying , "Yes your honor, we knew they had guns and we were so concerned with their security that we gave a premium discount due to the presence of a monitored alarm system at the insured location. The insured acted lawfully and now we think we have no liability because they shot/killed an intruder in the insured location."
I'm not a lawyer but I could win that argument!!!:D

[IllHunter]

After I posted my previous thought, I found this in another post. I didn't know how to link so I copied it here.
Perhaps he may divulge more about his company insuring his actions. The link was regarding having your gun confiscated after an incident.

:D
QuarterBoreGunner
Senior Member



Join Date: 03-10-03
Location: The City by the 'Bay' with the big 'Gold' bridge.
Posts: 1,838 In my situation, it was a pretty freaking clear case of self-defence ( the bad guy did have a rifle pointed at me and had already cranked off a bunch of rounds). But my firearm was put into evidence and stayed there for about four years. One year for the trial and then another three years for all his appeals to run out.
I did get it back eventually, but in the meantime I had replaced it of course, so now I have two of the exact same model G30, right down to the night sights.
And yes, I was sued. Not by the mutt in prison, but by his adoring mother, who couldn't believe that her darling baby boy was really going to kill me and the two others involved. My insurance company settled with her for a lousy $5k on a one-time, take-it-or-leave-it deal. I fought it but ultimately it was there decision and I still think it sucks.
__________________
/Chris

"Honest Honey! This isn't a new rifle! It was just in the back of the safe!..."

"If your morals or your religion are getting in the way of your politics, you're not helping anyone.We don't have civil rights so we can be politically correct. We have civil rights so we can be different and offensive."- madmike, 2/18/04

[lysander]

Imagine how it would look in court if you had insured yourself against a lawsuit stemming from a SD situation. The way people (and lawyers) are today, you'd be painted as one who was seeking to shoot. As was mentioned in another thread, it's a shame that being prepared is twisted into something malicious.

Possibly not...after all...it is generally not acceptable for a lawyer to bring up the fact that a defendant carries liability insurance except in specific circumstances. Meaning the plaintiff's attorney (representing the family of the injured/dead bad guy) can't introduce the fact that a defendant carried insurance as a means to show some kind of propensity to engage in a self-defense shooting.

Does carrying auto-liability insurance indicate a pre-disposition to crash your car?

[K3]

Possibly not...after all...it is generally not acceptable for a lawyer to bring up the fact that a defendant carries liability insurance except in specific circumstances. Meaning the plaintiff's attorney (representing the family of the injured/dead bad guy) can't introduce the fact that a defendant carried insurance as a means to show some kind of propensity to engage in a self-defense shooting.

Does carrying auto-liability insurance indicate a pre-disposition to crash your car?

Never claimed to be a lawyer, as my tail doesn't have rattles.

However, you said: "generally not acceptable"

Is this the phrase used in an actual law somewhere?

The car analogy is a strawman. Irrelevant. It's the same as when people use the oft repeated 'Cars kill more people than guns' when arguing with an anti. The numbers may very well be true, but it has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

[lysander]

Is this the phrase used in an actual law somewhere?

It depends on your jurisdiction. I say "generally" because, as with everything in law, there are rules and then there are exceptions to the rules. Absent a specific understanding of the facts of a situation (and even then) it is hard to make project an answer.

I know for a fact that the Federal Rules of Evidence specifically exclude mentioning Liability Insurance for the purposes of proving that a person acted negligently or wrongfully.

Federal Rule of Evidence 411. Liability Insurance

Evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is not admissible upon the issue whether the person acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully. This rule does not require the exclusion of evidence of insurance against liability when offered for another purpose, such as proof of agency, ownership, or control, or bias or prejudice of a witness.

An example of how the defendant's liability policy might get into evidence would go something like this:

K3 carries a "self defense" liability policy, the policy provides that in the event K3 faces a civil action as a result of involvement in a defense shooting, the insurer will provide an expert witness (like Ayoob) to testify on the shoot. The opposing lawyer would be able to introduce the liability policy to show that the expert witness is being paid (and thus may be biased) by the insurer, but not to prove that K3 acted wrongfully. However, the judge would instruct the jury that proof of the policies existence could not be used to determine wrongdoing, only as a possible indicator of bias on the part of the expert witness. The possibility of bias would go to the weight the jury assigned to the expert's testimony. Make sense?

The car example isn't a strawman...it is an argument by analogy...and I wasn't attributing the argument to you...I was asking a rhetorical question.

1) Gun is like Car (both are tools which may be used responsibly and irresponsibly)
2) Guns and Cars can cause injury (both intentionally and unintentionally)
3) Drivers can carry insurance to insulate themselves from the civil costs of causing such injuries.
4) If a person could carry liability insurance to insulate themselves from the civil costs flowing from a justified self-defense shoot then, it is likely that policy would be treated the same as auto-liability insurance.

But again...this would all be fact dependent and would require a hard look at your particular jurisdiction's Rules of Evidence. I don't have my rattles yet...so I am not offering any legal advice here.

[lysander]

To answer the original poster's question...

Here might be a good place to start:

http://www.locktonrisk.com/nrains/selfdefense.asp

[30 cal slob]

hmmm. interesting. thanks for the link!

[damien]

Phil Spector Defense

Insure for accidents. If you have a SD shooting say that you were pointing the gun at the perp (or actress, in Phil's case) but really didn't intend to shoot - it was a finger spasm or something. Ergo, the shooting, itself, was an accident. Then the insurance will pay.

[Lone_Gunman]

Do you think a plaintiff's attorney would be more likely or less likely to take the case if he knew you had a fat insurance policy he could collect?

My limited knowledge of tort law is mainly only involving medical malpractice cases. I certainly believe the fact that doctors carry large malpractice insurance policies encourages lawyers to sue.

[The Law]

Do you think a plaintiff's attorney would be more likely or less likely to take the case if he knew you had a fat insurance policy he could collect?

My limited knowledge of tort law is mainly only involving medical malpractice cases. I certainly believe the fact that doctors carry large malpractice insurance policies encourages lawyers to sue.

It's not just insurance policies. ANY assets available will be included in the decision.

I've spent a few years as a plaintiff's attorney (a little P.I., not much) and of course there has to be some payoff for the attorney. We don't work for free. ;)

If you own your home. Check. There's an asset to go after. A judgment lien can be attached to your property. Wages can be garnished. Lost of options.

An in depth asset check in that situation will be automatic. The attorney will see what he can go after. A fat insurance policy, while definitely appealing, also provides the policy holder with a means for defense. The insurance company should pick up the tab on legal defense so the policy holder doesn't have to pay out of pocket for an attorney. That's one of the benefits of having insurance. (I briefly worked for an insurance defense firm).

Just make sure that a SD situation would be covered.

I'd rather err on the side of caution and have insurance. And know a good criminal defense attorney.

[Brad Johnson]

Prepaid Legal Service.

It ain't exaclty tort insurance, but it will help with the attorney bills.

Brad

[RS2]

An example of how the defendant's liability policy might get into evidence would go something like this:

K3 carries a "self defense" liability policy, the policy provides that in the event K3 faces a civil action as a result of involvement in a defense shooting, the insurer will provide an expert witness (like Ayoob) to testify on the shoot. The opposing lawyer would be able to introduce the liability policy to show that the expert witness is being paid (and thus may be biased) by the insurer, but not to prove that K3 acted wrongfully. However, the judge would instruct the jury that proof of the policies existence could not be used to determine wrongdoing, only as a possible indicator of bias on the part of the expert witness. The possibility of bias would go to the weight the jury assigned to the expert's testimony. Make sense?


No, actually not. Expert witnesses, whether Mr. Ayoob, an accident reconstructionist or an orthopedic surgeon, are retained by defense counsel, not the insurance company.

Under absolutely no circumstances where FRE 411 or its state equivalent is applicable would the fact of the defendant's insurance come into evidence.

And, yes, my tail's been rattling for 23 years ... in the courtroom.

[Cosmoline]

Imagine how it would look in court if you had insured yourself against a lawsuit stemming from a SD situation.

This is nonsense. Nearly every auto accident, plane crash, slip and fall or other tort that works its way through the courts involves some measure of insurance. The system feeds on insurance. Having insurance against a risk cannot be used to establish liability. Evidence of the insurance isn't even allowed before the jury.

The opposing lawyer would be able to introduce the liability policy to show that the expert witness is being paid (and thus may be biased) by the insurer

Where are you getting this? I've hired over a hundred experts on the insurance company's dime as defense counsel and no attorney has been allowed to ask them about the writing on their checks in front of the jury.

Do you think a plaintiff's attorney would be more likely or less likely to take the case if he knew you had a fat insurance policy he could collect?

This is a valid consideration. In general, your insurance coverage should match the assets you are protecting. You don't want to be overinsured, as it can become an attraction to potential claimants. Talk to a broker about it and get some objective ideas about your exposure and the cost of coverage.

[MillCreek]

Since I also work on the defense side and run the claims operation of a liability insurance company, I again point out the 'intentional act' exclusion in most homeowners' and personal umbrella liability policies. Most legal jurisdictions have case law interpreting this exclusion and establishing that a self-defense shooting is not covered by your homeowners or personal umbrella insurance policy. Therefore, the insurance company neither defends nor indemnifies you for any claims. There are a few states in which coverage may be available, based on the case law decisions. If the fact pattern is of a completely accidental shooting, there will generally be coverage. It would be pretty difficult to portray a self-defense shooting as an accident such that there should be insurance coverage, but there is also case law on this very issue in many states. Here in Washington, there is pretty much no coverage for an intentional shooting. One of the more famous cases claimed that a man was pointing a gun at someone when it went off. He claimed it was an accident but the court found no insurance coverage.

In my experience, the plaintiff bar is pretty well aware of the lack of insurance coverage for these actions. Only if you had other substantial assets or wage earning potential would you likely be an attractive defendant. And the above comments on introducing insurance coverage as evidence are correct; in fact, it would often be grounds for a mistrial if this was mentioned in front of the jury. In real life, of course, in my medmal cases, everyone knows that the hospitals and providers have insurance, anyway.

[Lone_Gunman]

In general, your insurance coverage should match the assets you are protecting. You don't want to be overinsured, as it can become an attraction to potential claimants.

Lets say I have $500,000 of assets I am trying to protect, so I guess I would go get a $500,000 insurance policy to cover that. If I get sued, wouldnt the plaintiff's attorney sue for $1,000,000? ie, the insurance and my assets?

And if I double the jackpot the lawyer can win, doesn't that increase his chances of wanting to play the lottery?

It looks like to me the best thing to do might be (at most) to carry a modest policy, say $50,000-100,000 to cover your defense attorney fees in case you are sued. I would think massive payouts for a legitimate self defense shooting would be rare, especially in my are (south Georgia). I don't intend to shoot anyone unless I can defend my actions later.

What would you think about that?

Does a plaintiff's attorney have the right to ask you if you are insured for self-defense shootings?
If not, how would he ever know you had the insurance?
Are plaintiff's attorneys allowed to ask about your assets?

[RS2]

Lets say I have $500,000 of assets I am trying to protect, so I guess I would go get a $500,000 insurance policy to cover that. If I get sued, wouldnt the plaintiff's attorney sue for $1,000,000? ie, the insurance and my assets?

And if I double the jackpot the lawyer can win, doesn't that increase his chances of wanting to play the lottery?

It looks like to me the best thing to do might be (at most) to carry a modest policy, say $50,000-100,000 to cover your defense attorney fees in case you are sued. I would think massive payouts for a legitimate self defense shooting would be rare, especially in my are (south Georgia). I don't intend to shoot anyone unless I can defend my actions later.

What would you think about that?

The best thing to do is to have a homeowner's policy plus an excess umbrella of at least $1,000,000.00. No one actually wants your personal assets if there is sufficient coverage.

And move to a state that has a statute that prohibits suit by a person who is injured or killed during the commission of a crime where the defendant's actions are justified.

Does a plaintiff's attorney have the right to ask you if you are insured for self-defense shootings?
If not, how would he ever know you had the insurance?

Yes, by way of interrogatories or discovery deposition.

Are plaintiff's attorneys allowed to ask about your assets?

Technically, only AFTER a judgment has been entered on a jury verdict, through what is called a creditor's examination. During discovery, however, I can find out an awful lot about a person's assets through indirect questioning.

[pcf]

Talk to a lawyer, not an insurance agent in your state.

Find out what assets and income you have that a judgment can be rendered against and then figure out what and how much coverage you need. If your judgment proof, being sued would be low on my list of concerns. Sit down with a lawyer, figure out your risk and coverage needed and make an informed decision from there.

Carrying excessive amounts of insurance can be bait for lawyers and a waste of money on your part. Sometimes (Take the Goldmans, for example) will sue someone to get a feeling of justice, vindication, or revenge, but the overwhelming number of suits are solely about money, and when there's no money (your assets, income, or insurance) to be won, there's no lawsuit.

Insurance for intentional acts does exist, many child care centers and nursing homes carry it cover deliberate criminal or grossly negligent acts committed by their employees against their customers. And, the business would have to show that they were not vicariously liable or negligent in the acts of their employees.

[RS2]

Insurance for intentional acts does exist, many child care centers and nursing homes carry it cover deliberate criminal or grossly negligent acts committed by their employees against their customers. And, the business would have to show that they were not vicariously liable or negligent in the acts of their employees.


Close. Such coverage insures the employer, but not necessarily the employee who committed the intentional tortious act. What you meant in the second sentence is that the business/employer's liablity would have to be SOLELY vicarious pursuant to the doctrine of respondeat superior, and that the business wasn't actively negligent.

[MillCreek]

Does a plaintiff's attorney have the right to ask you if you are insured for self-defense shootings?
If not, how would he ever know you had the insurance?
Are plaintiff's attorneys allowed to ask about your assets?

Absolutely. These are some standard questions about these matters that plaintiff counsel ask about in interrogatories. Interrogatories are written questions that are submitted to the plaintiff and defendant. I assist my insureds several times a month in answering interrogatories, which actually means that I do the draft answers and then have the insured check it for accuracy.

It is important to bear in mind the difference between discoverability and admissibility in civil litigation. The attorneys for both sides are permitted to ask about, or discover, almost anything relevant to the lawsuit. Admissibility in court can be more limited and the judge can deny admitting things into evidence if it can be prejudicial, irrelevant or the like. If it is denied, then the jury will never hear about the evidence.

[Cosmoline]

I don't think we're talking about homeowner's insurance here. As pointed out the standard exclusions will likely preclude coverage for a defensive shooting. That's why I suggest you talk to a broker and see what's available, if anything.

[security6]

If you have a standard policy (you didn't specifically ask for anything special), then you will have an exclusion for intentional acts.

A crime is always an intentional act, and will (almost) never be covered. Hence it better be a good shoot if you even want a shot of having your insurance company cover your six (pun intended).

Some states say that valid self-defense is an intentional act and is not covered. Other states say that valid self-defense is not an intentional act for insurance policy reasons, and thus the insurance company has to cover the defense and any claims for negligence.

Here is a list of cases, with key language for a few states:

Appellant, Tracey Roberts, shot and killed Dustin Wehde when Wehde allegedly broke into Roberts's home and assaulted her. Wehde's estate sued Roberts contending she assaulted Wehde and wrongfully caused his death. Roberts contended she acted in self-defense and tendered her defense to appellees, AMCO Insurance Company and Allied Property and Casualty Insurance Company. Roberts contended her actions were insured by policies she had with AMCO and Allied and that the insurance companies were required to defend her pursuant to the policies. AMCO and Allied sought a declaratory judgment that led to this appeal in which they contended Roberts was not covered for her acts and they were not bound to defend or indemnify her. AMCO and Allied moved for summary judgment and their motion was sustained by the district court. In sustaining AMCO and Allied's motion for summary judgment, the district court held that AMCO and Allied did not have a duty to defend or indemnify Roberts. On appeal, Roberts contends (1) the AMCO farm master insurance policy included an exception that prevented application of the expected or intentional injury exclusion, (2) the district court erred in applying the expected or intentional injury exclusion because Roberts's actions were in self-defense and defense of her family, and (3) the district court should have denied the motion for summary judgment pursuant to the reasonable expectation doctrine. We affirm. 2006 WL 650234 (Iowa App.)

An injury is intentional, i.e., the product of an intentional act, only when the person who acts either consciously desires the physical result of his act, whatever the likelihood of that result happening from his conduct; or knows that the result is substantially certain to follow from his conduct, whatever his desire may be as to the result.

Pique v. Saia, 450 So.2d 654, 655 (La.1984); Barton v. Allstate Ins. Co., 527 So.2d 524, 526 (La.App. 3 Cir.), writ denied, 532 So.2d 157 (La.1988).
[2] This state's jurisprudence provides that the intentional act exclusion applies when the insured acts intentionally in self-defense. Hewitt, 726 So.2d at 1123 (citing Simpson v. Angel, 598 So.2d 584 (La.App. 4 Cir.), writ denied, 605 So.2d 1091 (La.1992)); Barton, 527 So.2d at 526. The courts have rationalized that the aggressive act of pulling out a loaded gun and firing it supports the conclusion that the defendant intended the result that was almost certain to occur. Barton, 527 So.2d at 526 (citing Vascocu v. Singletary, 434 So.2d 597 (La.App. 3 Cir.1983); Tobin v. Williams, 396 So.2d 562 (La.App. 3 Cir.1981); Monk v. Veillon, 312 So.2d 377 (La.App. 3 Cir.1975); Brasseaux v. Girouard, 269 So.2d 590 (La.App. 3 Cir.1972), writs denied, 271 So.2d 262 (La.1973); Horde v. Foucha, 396 So.2d 441 (La.App. 4 Cir.), writ denied, 401 So.2d 976 (La.1981); Freeman v. Bell, 366 So.2d 197 (La.App. 2 Cir.1978), writ denied, 369 So.2d 151 (La.1979)).


Sperli v. Guiterrez 772 So.2d 805, *807 (La.App. 5 Cir.,2000)
The cases, as evidenced by those already cited, point out that when one acts in self-defense the actor is not generally acting for the purpose of intending any injury *193 to another but, rather, is acting for **641 the purpose of attempting to prevent injury to himself. It can easily be said that such act, though resulting in bodily injury to another, was neither expected nor intended within the terms of the policy. What was expected or intended was that there be no injury to the actor. It appears clear to us that unless and until a final determination is in fact made that Novak is legally obligated to pay and the basis for that obligation is determined, the question of Allstate's obligation to pay on behalf of Novak cannot be decided. An injury resulting from an act committed by an insured in self-defense is not, as a matter of law, an expected or intended act within the meaning of a policy of insurance exempting bodily injuries or property damages which are either expected or intended from the standpoint of the insured.


Allstate Ins. Co. v. Novak 210 Neb. 184, *192-193, 313 N.W.2d 636,**640 - 641 (Neb., 1981)

Bailey v. Bevilacqua, 815 N.E.2d 1136
Ohio.App.11.Dist.Portage.,2004
When an insured admits that he intentionally injured a third party and the surrounding circumstances indicate that he acted in self-defense in causing the injury, the insured's insurance company may not refuse to defend the insured from the third party's intentional tort claim on the grounds that the third party's injuries fall within an exclusion from coverage for bodily injury which is either expected or intended from the standpoint of the insured.

Farmers and Mechanics Mut. Ins. Co. of West Virginia v. Cook, 557 S.E.2d 801
W.Va.,2001
A loss which results from an act committed by a policyholder in self-defense or in defense of another is not expected or intended by the policyholder; thus, where a policyholder establishes he or she properly acted in self-defense or in defense of another, the liability insurer may not rely upon an intentional acts exclusion to deny coverage.

Stoebner v. South Dakota Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 598 N.W.2d 557
S.D.,1999
Injuries inflicted in self-defense are not always expected and intended within the meaning of an intentional acts exclusion in a liability policy. (Per Sabers, J., with one justice concurring and another concurring specially.)

Safeco Ins. Co. of America v. Tunkle, 997 F.Supp. 1356
D.Mont.,1998
Under Montana law, shooting of an intruder in self-defense was not an intentional act precluding coverage under a homeowner's policy intentional act exclusion, which precluded coverage for bodily injury "which is expected or intended by any insured or which is the foreseeable result of an act or omission intended by any insured"; acts taken in self-defense were volitional but not intentional, and an insurer defending a suit by the injured intruder would be seeking a determination that the shooting was legally justified.


It does matter what your insurance policy says, however, most insurance policies are written by ISO and are the same. Hence, unless you asked for something special you probably have a standard policy.

What does matter is how your state has ruled on the matter. States have gone both ways. Your best bet is to talk to a lawyer.

[lysander]

No, actually not. Expert witnesses, whether Mr. Ayoob, an accident reconstructionist or an orthopedic surgeon, are retained by defense counsel, not the insurance company.

Under absolutely no circumstances where FRE 411 or its state equivalent is applicable would the fact of the defendant's insurance come into evidence.

And, yes, my tail's been rattling for 23 years ... in the courtroom.

RS2,

I believe you...and hopefully I can make this a learning experience (for me and other readers...not for you :D).

Regarding my point about an expert witness. If we are talking about a civil tort liability policy, that is intended to insulate a shooter from civil damages sought by the victim of a self-defense shoot, would not that policy holder be the defendant? Could an expert witness not be called by the insurer via the insurer's subrogation rights, to testify on behalf of the defendant/shooter if the terms of the policy included such an option?

Second, in the event that an expert witness is called, is it not valid in some jurisdictions for opposing counsel to point out the fact that the expert is employed (temporarily or otherwise) by the insurer in order to show bias?

I understand that FRE411 is not going to get the actual policy into evidence...but that doesn't mean that it can't be mentioned at trial for the purposes enumerated within the text of the Rule. (agency, ownership, control or bias/prejudice of a witness) In your experience is this incorrect? (bearing in mind my understanding of this is restricted to the Federal Rules)

Where are you getting this? I've hired over a hundred experts on the insurance company's dime as defense counsel and no attorney has been allowed to ask them about the writing on their checks in front of the jury.

Cosmoline,

Pg. 231 of Evidentiary Foundations by Imwinkelreid (UC Davis Law Professor) is what I was drawing on to make the point about showing bias, it says (paraphrasing) that many jurisdictions will allow a plaintiff's attorney to point out that a witness is employed by an insurance company for the purpose showing bias. I wasn't trying to make any kind of jurisdiction specific statement.

My understanding of this stuff is strictly pedestrian....so I look forward to both of your corrections. :D

[CraigJS]

In Minnesota Statute 611A.08 subd.2. states:
Subd. 2. Perpetrator's assumption of the risk. A perpetrator assumes the risk of loss,
injury, or death resulting from or arising out of a course of criminal conduct involving a violent
crime, as defined in this section, engaged in by the perpetrator or an accomplice, as defined in
section 609.05, and the crime victim is immune from and not liable for any civil damages as a
result of acts or omissions of the victim if the victim used reasonable force as authorized in
section 609.06 or 609.065.

Complete 611A text here:
http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/bin/getpub.php?type=s&year=current&num=611A.08

[RS2]

Regarding my point about an expert witness. If we are talking about a civil tort liability policy, that is intended to insulate a shooter from civil damages sought by the victim of a self-defense shoot, would not that policy holder be the defendant? Could an expert witness not be called by the insurer via the insurer's subrogation rights, to testify on behalf of the defendant/shooter if the terms of the policy included such an option?

Lysander, this would be the same in essentially any tort trial, whether the situation we are discussing, a third-party auto case or a slip and fall on an icy porch, where P[laintiff] sues D[efendant] for some tortious act and D is insured by I[nsured]. There is no subrogation issue here. The Insurer defends and indemnifies D, or does so under a reservation of rights, or simply denies the claim for defense/indemnification as being outside the terms of the policy. Hence, the Insurer is not a party to the case, and does not "call" any witnesses. The Defense attorney retains the expert and presents his testimony at trial. The Plaintiff is certainly free to attack the credibility and potential bias of the expert by asserting that he was hired by the defense, but may absolutely NEVER mention the underlying insurance policy.

Second, in the event that an expert witness is called, is it not valid in some jurisdictions for opposing counsel to point out the fact that the expert is employed (temporarily or otherwise) by the insurer in order to show bias?

I understand that FRE411 is not going to get the actual policy into evidence...but that doesn't mean that it can't be mentioned at trial for the purposes enumerated within the text of the Rule. (agency, ownership, control or bias/prejudice of a witness) In your experience is this incorrect? (bearing in mind my understanding of this is restricted to the Federal Rules)


I won't speak as to all jusrisdictions, but under the Federal and Michigan Rules of Evidence, it would be inadmissible and grounds for a mistrial if the Plaintiff's attorney were to mention that the expert was hired by the Defendant's insurance company, rather than by the Defendant and/or his attorney.

The issue of using evidence of insurance to establish agency might, for example, be where P sues D1 for some tortious act and also D2 under a master-servant relationship theory. If D2 were to deny that D1 was in fact his agent, P might be able to offer evidence that P2 paid for insurance that covered P1's actions. Thus, such use of evidence of insurance would not be for the purpose of proving P2 was negligent, but that P1 was in fact the agent of P2.

[lysander]

RS2,

I think I follow. My misunderstanding is based upon the various parties and their relationship to the underlying cause of action...not necessarily the implementation of FRE411.

I'll ruminate on this a bit...

Thanks!

[MillCreek]

Our defense firms hire expert witnesses up the wazoo for my medmal cases. They are retained by the firm, not the medmal insurance company. They are not employees of the insurance company. Plaintiff counsel does the same thing in hiring expert witnesses. You may see one side or the other try to impeach the credibility of a medical expert by asking about such things as when they last took care of patients, how much income do they make per year testifying, how many cases a year do they testify on, and what percentage of these cases are for the plaintiff or defense. When someone says that they retired from patient care 10 years ago, and make $ 250,000 per year testifying on 20 cases, and they only review cases for plaintiff attorneys, the jury tends to conclude they are not an impartial expert.

Now, in some cases, such as auto accident cases, you may see experts who are employees of an insurance company giving testimony. The accident reconstruction experts come immediately to mind. It is par for the course for the identity of their employer to be elicited at trial. A liability insurance company is not going to have any staff people who are experts in self-defense shootings, since this is generally not a covered exposure.

Recall that the bread and butter of property/casualty cases are car crashes, structure fires, workers' compensation, floods, construction defects and the like. Those are the areas of expertise that an insurance company will likely have in-house experts.

[Pat McCoy]

My Farmers Umbrella specifically states defense of persons or property with reasonable force is not excluded as an intentional act. Still leaves the question of reasonable force, as well as an ambiguity in definition of "occurrence" where it uses "accident" in the deinition.

Probably would be coverage due to interpretation of ambiguity against the company, but I hope I don't get to be the test case.

[MillCreek]

My Farmers Umbrella specifically states defense of persons or property with reasonable force is not excluded as an intentional act. Still leaves the question of reasonable force, as well as an ambiguity in definition of "occurrence" where it uses "accident" in the deinition.

Probably would be coverage due to interpretation of ambiguity against the company, but I hope I don't get to be the test case.

You may or may not necessarily have coverage, depending if this policy provision has already been interpreted by the appellate courts in your state. If it has been interpreted, then there is likely no ambiguity in favor of the insured.

When I have coverage questions on a policy, I generally call or email the underwriting or legal department of the insurance company. They are a reliable source of information for coverage issues, since they do the coverage interpretation. I am not in favor of calling the agent or broker for complex coverage issues, since they do not speak for the insurer and generally cannot bind the insurer for these sort of coverage questions.

[Pat McCoy]

Millcreek,

You must have better luck with the company claims folk than I do.

As an agent they always rely on the "every case must stand on it's own facts" reply.

I guess I could estop the company, but don't intend doing that on purpose.

Pat

[Fogerdoger]

A new twist in a very old story on your website - Cold Case Arrest of alleged victim

With the updates found here:

http://www.stormlakepilottribune.com/story/1751019.html

http://www.messengernews.net/page/content.detail/id/541679/Suspect-s-bond-to-remain-at--1-million.html?nav=5010

Videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOZchJc9Zb0

http://www.ktiv.com/story/15239265/richter-roberts-bail-remains-at-1-mil-for-now

Ex-Husband's statement:
http://www.authorizedstatement.org/people/michael-roberts/statements/tracey-richter-aka-sophie-edwards.php

Keep on blogging,

Rog.

[Sebastian the Ibis]

Is There Tort Insurance Protection The Average Joe Can Buy...
...if he (or she) is involved in a righteous self-defense shooting?

I was told there's nothing out there to cover intentional torts.

But SOMEBODY has to offer SOMETHING?

Obscure insurance of this type covers nothing but peace of mind (until you need it) it is absolutely useless when you need it. Insurance companies deny EVERYTHING that's how they make money. Insurance companies will blame you for blowing the roof off your house in a hurricane, do you think they will really run out and hire an expensive lawyer to defend you when you are sitting in an interrogation room after you just shot an intruder at your girlfriends place after you had a couple drinks? If you believe that I'll sell you an insurance policy and a bridge right now.

If you think you might be in an uncomfortable legal situation, start talking to lawyers and find the one you want representing you, memorize his phone number and let him know who you are. Take him shooting, invite him to speak at your VFW do something so that he knows who you are and will take your phone call at 3:00 am, when you need him. No matter how much insurance advertisement kool-aid you drink you have to understand that an insurance company is not, under the best of circumstances, approving your claim and appointing counsel while you are in the police interrogation room when you need an attorney. You may get one 30 days later, if you are lucky. Think of car insurance, even if you rear-ended a cop and are guilty as hell with a $500k rated policy, and the insurance co. knows it has to pay, they still cannot get you to an attorney before you make a statement. In a SD shooting the statement is the only factor that really matters.

Criminal defense attorneys are like HD guns, when you need one you need him/it immediately. You can't wait 30 days to see if you meet the financing approval. Go out and find your own attorney right now, today, so that if you are in ever in a sticky situation you can get an attorney at your side in hours not months.

Also, insurance makes absolutely no sense in a criminal setting. The insurance company can't serve your jail sentence for you. All they can do is pay a judgment and pay for an attorney. Since at the end of the day it does not matter in the slightest to them if you go to jail, they are going to hire the cheapest retarded attorney they can find. This is the last thing you want, you want to hire the guy you want.

You asked about Tort liability, not Criminal liability, however in a SD shooting they are both present and the latter is infinitely more important. I think your $$ would be much better spent with additional health or auto insurance instead of worrying about defeating a criminal prosecution for shooting someone and a whole new civil trial on a preponderance standard.

[TexasRifleman]

Another zombie thread brought back for questionable reasons so.... closed.