98bluewave
Member
I've had my LTC permit a little over a year. I am wondering if insurance is needed and would appreciate any recommendations.
The logical organization to spearhead such an effort would be the NRA, acting like the AAA did in the early days of cars when they helped motorists get insurance for their "gas buggies" when no one else would. But I doubt the NRA would want to do that; they defend the right to bear arms, but have always been a bit skittish about where that leads.
Jim
In addition to the lack of reliable insurers, one concern I have is that having gone out and bought insurance to pay for your defense might be framed as a disposition to use the available tools in situations with marginal or inadequate justification.
This may or may not be real. But it stands to reason that those who think they need insurance may be higher risk to insure than those who do not.
In general, a defendant having insurance coverage is not admissible as evidence of wrongful conduct. For example, see Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 411:In addition to the lack of reliable insurers, one concern I have is that having gone out and bought insurance to pay for your defense might be framed as a disposition to use the available tools in situations with marginal or inadequate justification.....
Evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is not admissible to prove whether the person acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully. But the court may admit this evidence for another purpose, such as proving a witness’s bias or prejudice or proving agency, ownership, or control.
I don't think the NRA could sell insurance since they're theoretically a non-profit organization.
In general, a defendant having insurance coverage is not admissible as evidence of wrongful conduct. For example, see Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 411:
Help me out. Are the Federal Rules of evidence binding in state criminal courts? State civil courts?
In general, a defendant having insurance coverage is not admissible as evidence of wrongful conduct. For example, see Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 411:
When did I ever say or imply otherwise?....someone considering liability insurance should check their state laws to be sure of the situation in their state.
In general, a defendant having insurance coverage is not admissible as evidence of wrongful conduct. For example, see Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 411:....
The courts have with substantial unanimity rejected evidence of liability insurance for the purpose of proving fault, and absence of liability insurance as proof of lack of fault. At best the inference of fault from the fact of insurance coverage is a tenuous one, as is its converse. More important, no doubt, has been the feeling that knowledge of the presence or absence of liability insurance would induce juries to decide cases on improper grounds. McCormick §168; Annot., 4 A.L.R.2d 761. The rule is drafted in broad terms so as to include contributory negligence or other fault of a plaintiff as well as fault of a defendant.
...
For similar rules see Uniform Rule 54; California Evidence Code §1155; Kansas Code of Civil Procedure §60–454; New Jersey Evidence Rule 54.
Frank let this slide, but I find I cannot.defendant was proven Innocent.
Actually, AARP was started by Colonial Penn Insurance as a way to sell age-specific products.AARP is a non profit
sebastian the ibis said:Also your attorney needs to be your second call after 911
Never thought about insurance like that. The only reason I have auto, boat, health, and home, insurance is to protect my assets for me and my family.
I don't think the NRA could sell insurance since they're theoretically a non-profit organization.
Well, they have come out with this: https://www.nracarryguard.com/I don't think the NRA could sell insurance since they're theoretically a non-profit organization.