Self Defense Insurance


PDA






jimbeaux82
September 11, 2011, 04:21 PM
On another forum I regularly visit, someone asked if any member had drawn their CCW in real life. Thankfully I have never had to but will not hesitate if the situation ever arises. For anyone who owns firearms for self defense, especially someone who practices concealed carry, I highly recommend joining an organization called Concealed Carry Association. The main reason for joining is that you can buy into group insurance to pay legal costs if you ever have to use your weapon for legal self defensive purposes. It is a very unique type of insurance and is new, first being offered in June 2011. While this may not sound necessary, most people who have used a weapon in self defense, even when they are entirely in the right and no criminal charges pressed, end up getting sued in civil court and spending thousands in legal defense costs, many times bankrupting a totally innocent person. This insurance is intended to cover any legal costs associated with a legal self defense situation involving firearms, and in my mind, is well worth the cost.

This insurance is called Self defense Shield, and members of this site should certainly give it some consideration.

If you enjoyed reading about "Self Defense Insurance" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Sebastian the Ibis
September 12, 2011, 12:09 AM
Do you have an actual contract that you can post?

IHME this stuff is complete garbage. There is almost guaranteed to be an exclusion of illegality. Then if you are ever actually involved in a shooting the insurance company will refuse to defend you, claiming your actions were "illegal." That's how insurance companies make money, they deny everything.

Your description, which sounds like it came off a flyer, says "any legal costs associated with a legal self defense situation involving firearms." To me that guarantees you are going to be very disappointed if you ever have to make a claim.

Also, if you were involved in a justified shooting are you really going to rely upon the cheapest $1,000.00 flat fee attorney the insurance company can find to defend you??? No, you would be crazy to do so, and from what you have described that is all you get. You get a half decent attorney with your car insurance since the insurance company is on the hook for $100k or so of liability and they don't want to pay. You have no such protection here.

I think I'll pass on this and all other "self-defense insurance." I bought a lucky rabbit's foot which provides just as much peace of mind at a fraction of the cost.

Hoppe
September 12, 2011, 01:34 AM
I agree if you read the fine print the usally say something like, you will get paid IF you where justified. IMO you be better off to due the pre paid lawyer if your that worried.

Owen Sparks
September 12, 2011, 01:48 AM
This is the tip of a very dangerous wedge. If this type of insurance becomes manditory most people will simply be priced out of carrying a weapon. There are so many ways this can be used against us. Nothing good can come from it.

ants
September 12, 2011, 01:54 AM
Most people who have used a weapon in self defense, even when they are entirely in the right and no criminal charges pressed, end up getting sued in civil court... Oh, really? MOST people?
Sorry, I do not believe that.
Sorry.



Statements like that look more like a scare tactic to get me to buy insurance.

jimbeaux82
September 12, 2011, 07:06 AM
First off , I am not an insurance salesman nor an officer or official of USCCA. I am only a simple member, a relatively new one at that. I merely posted this to answer a question on another site and thought I would repost it here as food for thought on this great site. If you dont like the idea of insurance, fantastic, to each his own.

The words I used in the previous posting were entirely my own and I may have misspoken a bit. "Most" should have more accurately been "Many".

However, in the society we live in, were lawyers rule the roost, and law suits are filed for many frivolous issues, I prefer to have some chance to be covered.

On this particular plan, you choose your own attorney. They suggest that you actually start up a relationship with that attorney ahead of time and come to an agreement on what to do if that event ever happens. Sounded like solid advice to me and I am now looking for a knowledgable attorney in this area of expertise.

I only posted it to get members to give this issue some thought before it happens, hopefully it never happens. It is better, IMHO, to at least think thru the situation and have a plan.

But to each his own.

This is not the only insurance plan of its type. There are others.

Have a nice day.

Owen Sparks
September 12, 2011, 12:23 PM
Just having self-defense insurance will make you a target for a lawsuit as they will try to milk you for all you are worth. Case in point, my buddy got in a wreck that damaged his new car a while back. The guy that hit him had no insurance, no job and lived in public housing. He was driving an old wreck that wasn't worth more than a few hundred dollars brfore the wreck. Long story short, my buddy tried to sue the guy but could not get a lawyer to take the case because they could not get anything out of the other driver even though it was his fault.

What do you think would happen if the man who caused the accident was found to have a million dollar insurance policy? The lawyers would be lining up to get a piece of the action, thats what. The same thing will happen to you even if you are not found guilty in criminal court.

Hoppe
September 12, 2011, 12:35 PM
I for one thank you for bringing this topic up yes it is good food for thought. I like others think there are better way to handle it. Thankfully I live in a more reasonable state the others as well.

Kingcreek
September 12, 2011, 01:10 PM
not entirely relevant but here's my story for thought:
I was subpoened to appear as a state's witness against 2 characters that tried a daytime burglary(robbery?) while I happened to be home. I pulled a gun when one of them approached me in a threatening manner. I did NOT shoot either of them but it was touch and go for a couple minutes. The defense counsel tried to paint me as reckless gun-toting maniac endangering these 2 hardworking fellas. I wasn't on trial but it felt like it. Fortunately for me, the judge was a hardass former marine and after he asked me a few questions, he seemed to enjoy verbally slapping down the defense. The experience was not fun and I hope to never find myself in a similar situation but having an insurance policy would not have made me feel any less vulnerable and I still would not consider having an SD policy now.

Frank Ettin
September 12, 2011, 01:22 PM
Just having self-defense insurance will make you a target for a lawsuit ...my buddy got in a wreck that damaged his new car a while back. The guy that hit him had no insurance, no job and lived in public housing. He was driving an old wreck that wasn't worth more than a few hundred dollars brfore the wreck. Long story short, my buddy tried to sue the guy but could not get a lawyer to take the case because they could not get anything out of the other driver even though it was his fault....On the other hand, some of us here don't live in public housing and don't drive an old wreck that's not worth anything.

Some of us have our own homes, own other property, have investments, have incomes and/or have other assets. The purpose of insurance for folks like us is to protect what we have.

Owen Sparks
September 12, 2011, 04:52 PM
Even if you are wealthy a jury may hesitate to award a large amount of cash to a would be criminal. If insurance is paying for it they might be a lot more generous.

My states Castle Doctrine includes civil immunity (you can’t be sued) if you are forced to defend yourself in accordance with the law. That is the way to handle this, not through insurance.

Just look at what medical malpractice insurance has done to the cost of going to the doctor. Self-defense insurance would do the same and could soon become a manditory condition for getting a permit and most people would simply be priced out of a concealed carry permit.

Kleanbore
September 12, 2011, 05:24 PM
Posted by Owen Sparks: My states Castle Doctrine includes civil immunity (you canít be sued) if you are forced to defend yourself in accordance with the law.Careful.

Civil protection statutes are relatively new and are often misunderstood.

Usually, if the actor is either sued or charged with a crime, he or she will present a case to a judge contending that he or she is entitled to protection against criminal prosecution and/or civil liability under the law. If a preponderance of the evidence indicates that the use of force was justified, the criminal proceedings and, depending upon the jurisdiction, the civil proceedings, will be stopped.

Otherwise, no.

If criminal charges are filed, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. Failure of the state to do so does not protect the defendant against a civil suit, where the burden on the plaintiff is a preponderance of the evidence.

Some states have provision that if the plaintiff fails to prevail in a civil suit he or she must pay for the costs of the suit.

Castle doctrines per se apply to homes and sometimes to automobiles and places of employment.

Other parts of the use of force laws apply elsewhere.

Nicky Santoro
September 12, 2011, 06:45 PM
Some people are of the opinion that if you are not there when the popo arrive you are not involved.
FWIW
YMMV

Kleanbore
September 12, 2011, 06:49 PM
Some people are of the opinion that if you are not there when the popo arrive you are not involved.Not sure who. The law holds that your departure is an indication of guilt.

Micro
September 12, 2011, 07:57 PM
Here is what I posted on this forum a few months ago on the subject, and again on the OP other forum.
--

I am an insurance adjuster for the last 20 years. I handle claims in Virginia, Delaware, Maryland, DC, and West Virginia. I am licensed to adjust claims in Texas and North Carolina, as well. I have handled several claims involving shootings. Here's what I know (and it is not intended as legal advice):

Coverage for a shooting will extend from a homeowner's or renter's policy. Those types of policies provide Personal Liability coverage that covers bodily injury or property damage that results from an act of NEGLIGENCE. They cover civil claims, not criminal prosecution, that may arise from a shooting.

Homeowners and renters liability policies cover damages or injuries resulting from negligence. Negligence is accidental. Policies will EXCLUDE coverage for damages or injuries resulting from an intentional act. Some policies will contain EXCEPTIONs to the Exclusions. All policies will exclude coverage for intentional acts. Some insurers will write policies that make a self-defense shooting an EXCEPTION to that exclusion. U S A A is one of them, and I know there are others.

Read your policy. Go to the liability section. Read the Exclusions section. Read it all, because there are exceptions to exclusions in the exclusions section, and self defense acts may be one of them.

The reason insurers are covering self defense acts is less altruistic than it appears. There is a danger for insurers not covering self defense. I can explain it best with a scenerio:

Back in the day, a man shoots an "intruder" that broke into his house and attempted to attack his girlfriend. The intruder was seriously injured. The intruder disputed the facts of the altercation. Authorities ended up charging the homeowner with intentional wounding (or some such charge). Ultimately, the homeowner was cleared. But while he was clearing himself in court, the intruder filed a civil lawsuit claiming that the homeowner injured him through an act of negligence. (Now remember, NEGLIGENCE is covered.) The insurer said that despite the CONTENTION by the intruder that the act of shooting him was an act of negligence, the insurer asserted it was actually an INTENTIONAL act which is NOT covered by the policy. The insurer denied coverage and refused to defend or indemnify the homeowner. Left with the prospect of having to defend himself at the cost of many thousands of dollars, and with the prospect of having to pay a verdict out of pocket, the homeowner made a deal with the attorney for the intruder wherein the homeowner would ADMIT that his shooting was an act of negligence. The admission had the effect of forcing the insurer back into the picture, providing a defense, and payment of a verdict, which was assured since the homeowner admitted his act was negligent.

What insurers began to realize from cases like this is that the attorney for the intruder is not interested in getting money out of the homeowner (since he knows he has none), but rather getting money out of the insurer, which has tons. So attorneys generally write lawsuits and allege negligence - which generally triggers coverage for a loss. The insurer now knows that merely denying coverage forces the homeowner to admit to negligence, bringing them right back into the case, and forcing them to pay a verdict that will be rendered. If the insurer wants to challenge that the act was one of intentional act instead of negligence, they would have to go through the lengthy process of filing a Declaratory Judgment Action to get the judge to decide if the facts prove intentional act or negligence. In the face of an insured admitting to negligence, it is an uphill battle for the insurance company to prove the admitted negligence was actually an intentional act. So, insurers have begun to cover self defense. They know that they will probably have to cover the loss anyway, and if the insurer admits negligence, they will have to pay a verdict. By covering self defense, the insured now does not have to admit negligence and the insurer has a good fighting chance of proving the act was true self defense which would NOT result in a verdict against the insurer. In other words, it's ultimately cheaper to cover self defense than not cover it.

Frank Ettin
September 12, 2011, 09:01 PM
Even if you are wealthy a jury may hesitate to award a large amount of cash to a would be criminal. If insurance is paying for it they might be a lot more generous....[1] Do you have any evidence to support this notion or is it just something you pulled out of the air?

[2] In any case, it would be rare for a jury to know for a fact (they might make assumptions) whether or not there's insurance to cover any judgment. Evidence of the presence or absence of insurance is generally not admissible in court.

[3] In any case, a primary issue is the cost of defense. One carries liability insurance in large part to finance one's defense if sued. The cost of defending a civil claim through the point of a jury verdict can run anywhere from $50,000 to $200,000, or even more, depending on how complex the case is. Without insurance, the defendant will have to cover that cost out of his own pocket even it he wins.

...My states Castle Doctrine includes civil immunity (you canít be sued) if you are forced to defend yourself in accordance with the law. That is the way to handle this, not through insurance... Kleanbore addressed this fallacy pretty well in post 12. I might add that all Castle Doctrine and civil immunity laws have a number of conditions that need to be satisfied for the protection of those laws to attach. So one can find himself in court to resolve disputes about whether those conditions were satisfied.

In addition, even if your State has a civil immunity law, don't you ever travel? And even if you don't, some people do; and someone might find himself having to defend himself in a State without a civil immunity law.

...Just look at what medical malpractice insurance has done to the cost of going to the doctor...Except --

[1] Liability for professional negligence goes back a long time, is well settled base on Common Law principles, and exists even without insurance.

[2] So without medical malpractice insurance, physicians would be personally liable for the cost of any judgment. The risk of financial ruin might discourage people from pursuing a career in medicine (and at times when malpractice insurance became extremely difficult to get, or too expensive, many doctors left the practice). And of course, doctors would be personally responsible for the possibly staggering costs of defending against a malpractice claim. Reducing the supply of doctors also drives up the cost of medical care.

[3] And professional negligence does exist. Without malpractice insurance, someone injured by the negligence of a doctor might not be able to be properly compensated.

Some people are of the opinion that if you are not there when the popo arrive you are not involved....And why taking a powder is in general a truly lousy idea has been discussed at some length here (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=606218) and here (http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=390985).

husbandofaromanian
September 13, 2011, 12:07 AM
I have pulled my weapon twice and eluded to it another 2 times. All completely justified and no lawsuits yet.

If you enjoyed reading about "Self Defense Insurance" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!