Would concealed carry insurance sell?

[Uglyoldpoorman]

Just tossing it out with no figures or anything just a thought.

Since the number of people that actually use their license is so small would it be feaseable for an in insurance company to charge say 100.00 per year and then give them X-amount in legal help if it was needed?

And because the payouts would be so few it should make a profit for them?

Remember, I am not that bright so don't beat me up to bad.

 

[XDKingslayer]

I would say it would be less of a risk to insure a CCW'er than an automobile driver or a homeowner in Florida.

 

[Jamie C.]

I don't know...

When CCW permits first became "shall-issue" here in TN, a person was required to carry a $50,000 bond to get one. Fortunately that requirement was later deemed unnecessary, and dropped, along with the requirement for one particular gun to be listed on the permit.


J.C.

 

[GreenFurniture]

I know that around here a lot of instructors have one of the "pre-paid legal" types come in and give their pitch to the class.

 

[leadcounsel]

Possibly covered under your existing homeowners' or umbrella policy for your negligent acts in public. Theft, for instance, of your personal goods off premesis is covered under most insurance. Read your policy or ask your agent.

 

[hecate]

The NRA offers "Self Defense" insurance.

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

Don't know anyone who's bought it, though.

 

[Thernlund]

On a similar note, maybe some discounts on life insurance if you carry. Just like how theft deterrents get you discounts on car and home insurance.


-T.

 

[Rugerlvr]

I'm quite sure the actuarial tables would be extremely favorable to the insurance companies on this one. The incidence of needing legal representation for CCW is extremely low compared to the number of potential policyholders.

I'm surprised no companies have made such an offering.

 

[jakemccoy]

Unfortunately, insurance designed specifically for usage of a concealed carry weapon would be useful ammunition for the prosecution. Imagine if you took out a policy the day before you used your CCW in a questionable shooting. We make mistakes. I'd rather pay my attorney by refinancing my house than have that issue in front of a jury.

 

[esq_stu]

Possibly covered under your existing homeowners' or umbrella policy for your negligent acts in public.

Usually excluded from coverage are "intentional" acts, which would presumably include intentionally pulling the trigger.

Thinking out loud here (I have represented clients in lawsuits against insurance companies that refused to pay):

It would be necessary to get an insurer to quote a price, defining what acts are covered, what are not covered, what is specifically excluded, and what the policy actually pays for, and what the coverage limits are.

I think an insurer would look at far more than likelihood of the covered person getting mugged. It would also look at the likely costs of a covered event - legal fees, medical, pain and suffering, wrongful death action by family of the person shot, etc.

I suspect such coverage exists, and that it is expensive.

And I doubt you could get coverage for criminal prosecution.

I also would expect that the insurer would find any way possible of avoiding covering an incident. That is based on personal experience.

IMO, you are better off doing other things to avoid liability:
Avoidance;
Escape;
Training in legal aspects of lethal force; and
Gun skills.

 

[kingpin008]

Personally, I'd rather spend the money keeping a good lawyer who's familiar with cases where CCW holders were forced to use their firearm to defend themselves on retainer.

Not to say that the OP's idea is a bad one - just my thoughts on the situation.

 

[doobie]

The NRA offers "Self Defense" insurance.

A bit more than the $100/annum the OP said.

 

[kevindsingleton]

Why not make it like AFLAC, where they pay you cash if you have to use your weapon? As long as you submit a police report saying you discharged your weapon in defense of yourself or another, you get, say, $15k towards expenses.

I think most insurance companies are going to back away from writing this policy just because they don't want to be the "vigilante insurance company" in the newspaper headlines. More's the pity.

 

[WDGF]

My guess is your homeowner's would only cover the cost of a civil judgement, at most, but not the legal costs of defending the case.

 

[Hokkmike]

I am insured "to death" for house, car, life, job, etc., and etc. For your idea to sell it would have to be cheap, cheap, cheap, premiums.

 

[RPCVYemen]

On a similar note, maybe some discounts on life insurance if you carry.

I doubt that there is any actuarial benefit to CCW - certainly not enough to cause a decrease in the rates.

Mike

 

[Thernlund]

I doubt that there is any actuarial benefit to CCW - certainly not enough to cause a decrease in the rates.

Shows the insurance company that I am actively prepared to defend their investment, eh? Anything that lessens the likelihood of my death lessens the likelihood they have to pay sooner rather then later, or at all in the case of term life.


-T.

 

[Sebastian the Ibis]

I think it's like a lot of other insurance. People buy it, but it is such a pain in the neck it doesn't really do them any good. It's like buying the extended warranty on your computer. Then being told it will take 60 days for them to repair it, so you wind up going somewhere else to get it fixed anyway.

If you need a lawyer b/c of your concealed carry. You need a lawyer immediately. You have to have the lawyer there when you initially talk to the police because (1) Nobody except hardened criminals can keep their mouths shut and (2) even if you are in the clear you have to say EXACTLY the right things. Here is an example from an old bar exam I just looked at this morning:

Crook approached newsstand, with a knife drawn, in an attempt to rob the attendant. The attendant gave her all the money in his possession. As Crook turned away, the attendant grabbed a gun and fired several times. He intended only to wound Crook but instead killed her.

If the attendant cannot be prosecuted for manslaughter, it will be because:

A. He only intended to wound Crook
B. The Robbery constituted provocation.
C. The Attendant was trying to get his $20 back.
D. He was apprehending a fleeing wrongdoer.

- If you get the above answer wrong you could be going to jail for a long time. I don't see how self-defense insurance can get a good lawyer to you in a matter of minutes to help you answer these questions. Who cares if they send a lawyer to handle your plea bargain? Some of the policies I looked at don't even cover a criminal case- just any civil ones.

 

[Uglyoldpoorman]

Some good thoughts.

 

[Siderite]

Not quite the same thing, but this group The Armed Citizen’ Legal Defense Network (http://www.armedcitizensnetwork.org/) was started recently, with similar aims. It has an impressive list of backers - Massad Ayoob, John Farnam, Tom Givens, Jim Cirillo, Jr., among others. It doesn't automatically cover legal fees as an insurance would, but it does put you in contact with good attorneys and experts.

 

[jakemccoy]

............................

 

[jakemccoy]

Crook approached newsstand, with a knife drawn, in an attempt to rob the attendant. The attendant gave her all the money in his possession. As Crook turned away, the attendant grabbed a gun and fired several times. He intended only to wound Crook but instead killed her.

If the attendant cannot be prosecuted for manslaughter, it will be because:

A. He only intended to wound Crook
B. The Robbery constituted provocation.
C. The Attendant was trying to get his $20 back.
D. He was apprehending a fleeing wrongdoer.

D.

It would be best to (1) shut up and (2) wait for your attorney to show you were trying to prevent escape of a felon who's a threat to human life.

That's a tricky question though. I can imagine how a non-attorney under stress would blurt out one of choices A, B or C.

Heck, I'm an attorney, and I would stay quiet. I'd ask immediately for an attorney.

 

[leadcounsel]

My guess is your homeowner's would only cover the cost of a civil judgement, at most, but not the legal costs of defending the case.

It would stand to reason that if an insurer were subject to paying a judgement (a significant amount of money), that insurer darn well has a vested interest in providing the best legal team for the defense.

Also, homeowers insurance often covers intentional negligence; say you punch somebody during a party at your house and are sued. You are typically covered. Same would apply to a self defense shooting.

Anybody look at Lloyds of London? Supposedly they insure anything.

 

[uneasy_rider]

I think having a fat insurance policy would attract the attention of plaintiff's attorneys.

Medical malpractice lawsuits didnt become goldmines for plaintiffs until doctors started carrying multi million dollar malpractice insurance policies.

 

[RH822]

Why would you need insurance? If done correctly, the police will only hear one side of the story anyway.