CCW Insurance: Good or Bad?

[Blackbeard]

Interesting concept about having insurance against financial loss resulting from a self-defense trial. Would it pay only if you are acquitted? If so, they don't have much incentive to defend you that vigorously. If not, how do you stop murderers from making a claim on their policy in order to get their lawyer paid for?

 

[Cosmoline]

Getting CCW insurance, whatever that would mean, would, not could, but would be used to say you knew you were doing something inherently risky, but you did it anyway.

The existence of liability insurance is specifically barred from use as evidence of fault or negligence in the rules of most states. I see no reason that wouldn't apply to firearm liability insurance. See Fed. R. Ev. 411 and state equivalents. There are other applicable rules as well. The only risk is that having a pool of coverage may make you a more likely target for suit, so you need to be sure to have enough but not too much coverage.

 

[jack44]

THIS IS BAD for many reason!

 

[vaupet]

I would say it is something an organisation like the nra could provide, just like most of the sports insurances around here: when you are a member of a sports organisation, you are insured, not only for liability but also for your own injuries.

I bet a big organisation like nra could bargain for good prices at the insurance companies and also provide legal cover.

just my 2cents

 

[BullfrogKen]

The existence of liability insurance is specifically barred from use as evidence of fault or negligence in the rules of most states.

Exactly.

Obtaining an insurance policy or liability coverage is not evidence of fault or any pre-meditated intention of the insured to commit the covered act.

Otherwise any life insurance policy is evidence someone's thinking about suicide or intentionally engaging in risky behavior. Or auto coverage is evidence of reckless driving. Or health insurance is evidence of a known illness. Or a disability policy showing an intention to become disabled.

Sure, those things do happen. And when someone goes out and buys an insurance policy knowing the act has already occurred, or he intends to intentionally commit an act covered by the policy, that's insurance fraud.

But it's not evidence of someone's state of mind that, simply by the act of buying a policy, that he intends to go commit an act covered by the liability policy.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

As I remember, when Tennessee first went shall-issue right-to-carry handgun carry permit system administered by the state, to replace the old system at the discretion of the county sheriff, there was a requirement for liability insurance. It was dropped based on experience (during the first five years of THCP there were no wrongful deaths).

 

[CharlieDeltaJuliet]

I would never agree to someone having to have insurance by a law, but it can cost a lot to defend your innocence.

 

[Reloadron]

I would never agree to someone having to have insurance by a law, but it can cost a lot to defend your innocence.

So I may assume you do not have any auto insurance which is mandatory in NC?

To meet the required coverage, you must have at least the following amount of insurance protection:

$30,000 of coverage for injuries or death involving one person in a single accident.

$60,000 of coverage for injuries or deaths involving two or more people in a single accident.

$25,000 of property damage coverage.

So what to do if the State of North Carolina decides that all CCW holders like all driver's license holders need a minimum of liability insurance?

Ron

 

[USAF_Vet]

Auto insurance is not mandatory anywhere in the US. It is only required if certain conditions are met. Such as owning a car, and driving it on public roads. Also, since driving is not a constitution right, it can be taxed and regulated as much as any government entity thinks they can get away with.

I'll also call shenanigans on the Beware of Dog signs. Just because a few lawyers have managed to successfully litigate the ridiculous outcome of placing liability on the owner of said dog, does not make it a universally poor idea. I'd wager most jurisdictions would never buy the argument that posting a sign essentially places all liability on the home owner. Does a security system sign in the yard preclude a burglary, and place liability on the home owner? Of course not.


As for CCW insurance... Nuts!

 

[SFsc616171]

Bad! Very BAD!!!

Why?

In the light of all the "data mining-acquisition-pigeon holing", that this present administration has performed upon the unknowing American populace, do you really think that an - any insurance company would not be cajoled, prodded, DOJ-injunctioned, into releasing all the folks that buy into this "CCW Insurance", er, (stuff)???

Do you think that the minute that something happens that we are praying to NOT happen, that this business entity would actually do something in OUR favor?

I remind you: "Was it really 'Hurricane Damage', or, ''Water Damage'?

Have you entertained the idea, that as insurance companies have a history of doing, that particular business entity would drop you, or make your next set of premiums so much more costly, because that entire industry is anti-gun, anyway?

This whole business proposition stinks, and the clod who is out there representing him/herself as a CCW participant, just might be a low-paid bit part actor.

 

[CharlieDeltaJuliet]

Reloadron, I mean firearm insurance. Yes I carry auto insurance, probably more than I ever will need but better safe than sorry. I am just saying that even a self defense case can cost more than most know. If a company offered insurance to help with litigation or cost, it is something to consider.

I just do not think that is person should HAVE to carry insurance because they are a firearm owner or CCW permit holder.

 

[Reloadron]

Reloadron, I mean firearm insurance. Yes I carry auto insurance, probably more than I ever will need but better safe than sorry. I am just saying that even a self defense case can cost more than most know. If a company offered insurance to help with litigation or cost, it is something to consider.

I just do not think that is person should HAVE to carry insurance because they are a firearm owner or CCW permit holder.

I agree. I never said it should be compulsory I simply said if it were made available at a reasonable cost I would likely buy into it. I figure it this way, my wife and I have worked long and hard for a comfortable retirement. I would hate to lose it all tomorrow over a liability law suit.

Ron

 

[orionengnr]

Let's see...the Supreme Court found that the .fed can force us to buy Health Care Insurance. Why would they find anything different on CCW insurance?
[/conspiracy]

On a serious note:

As I see it, the trick is in finding one who isn't just a scammer. Any Fish-Oil salesman can claim to be "CHL insurance". Do any of them have an actual documented record of success?
So far, I haven't seen it.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Ohhhhh....manditory CCW insurance!

Then the government can step in and provide THAT for us as well as health care insurance!

Then, with all this "manditory CCW insurance", they can price gouge us all right our of our RKBA!

What a GREAT idea! I don't see why we're not all storming the palace demanding our right to CCW insurance even now!

 

[CharlieDeltaJuliet]

Reloadron, I know brother, I didn't mean to come off as defensive. I am currently going through litigation over having an estranged (and drunken) family member shoved me down and pulled my CCW (which was exposed when I fell) on me and I twisted his arm to retain control. I broke my back almost four years ago and he shoved me and saw the opertunity to grab my Sig. Luckily I forced him to release it. The sad part is he was charged with assault inflicting serious injury(causing my back to torque and inflame) I spent a night in the hospital. A few weeks of Prednisone and cortisol injections and I am almost back to my previous shape. My local magistrate allowed him to take a cross warrant for simply assault against me (for twisting his arm and elbow to regain control over my firearm. I am now forced to pay a defense attorney to basically tell my side. Luckily there were three other witnesses who are testifying against him. I will just have to go throught the process of having my record expunged to remove it (if I win). Just a big mess.... I wish there were an insurance that would have helped.

Please take no offense to the way I worded it. I cannot really say anything else about it until court. It is sad our legal system gives a criminal the rights that they do. I can just say I never pointed or even had the weapon in his direction. I removed myself from the property where he was and waited on the police. It just seems owning a firearm is almost a stigma in this society now.

I just ask for you to hope the system works the way it should. The laws in NC, it is a misdermeanor to do what he did. The officers said the only way it would be a felony would be if he fired at me. It just disgusts me that it will result in a "smack on the hand to him" most likely.

Sorry about the hijack of the thread, I just felt like I might have offended you and did not mean to. Our nation sure has changed.... Sorry again if I sounded rude, I didn't mean to.