Insurance for Self Defense?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 112575
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Deleted member 112575

Guest
Hi all, I am fairly new on these forums although I have been lurking for a few weeks.

I was just wondering if anyone here knows anything about insurance policies that cover legal fees associated with using firearms for self defense? I've been wondering about the legal and financial consequences of using a firearm to stop an imminent threat. I understand that different states, and maybe even different municipalities may handle these issues in their own ways, and in some places the use of firearms in self defense may produce little or no financial or legal impact to a law-abiding gun owner. However, if my husband or I were to defend ourselves with a gun (either at our house or in a public place) we would not want to have to worry about being ruined financially for having to pay the legal fees for criminal and/or civil courts.

I see that there is a policy affiliated with the NRA (http://www.locktonrisk.com/nrains/defense.htm), but it seems to cap the legal fees @ $50k, which may or may not be enough to cover the cost of a lawyer.

Does anyone here have any experience or knowledge in regards to buying insurance to defray the legal costs of self-defense? Any advice would be much appreciated.

Thanks and God bless!
 
Most homeowner policies will cover you against lawsuits for bodily injury, etc. and will defend you in such lawsuits. This is this first time I've seen any policy that addresses the cost of criminal defense. I really have no idea what a typical defense costs. That policy limits coverage to $50K per incident, apparently. I presume that covers attorney fees and other costs (such as expert witnesses), all of which you get to pay up front and then the insurer reimburses you IF you are acquitted or the case is dismissed.

On the other hand, Lloyd's of London will insure just about anything.
 
Most homeowner's policies DO NOT cover Intentional actions. Therefore if you intentionally shot an intruder (shot him good, didn't I) you may be justified in the criminal sense, but not be justified in civil court. No matter how worthless the scumbag was, he's got a momma, common law wife, and half a dozen progeny from multiple egg donors. So somebody will sue (I'm sure of this, I'm a plaintiff's lawyer - and a shooter - strange combo, I know). Homeowners policies cover Negligent activity.

The NRA self defense policy is the best I have seen. And the cost of a defense is greatly dependent on where you live. $50,000 is more than enough where I live (and I used to be a civil defense lawyer).
 
kingpin -

Then I take it you do not regard

Lawyers

As an inevitable and insatiable civil liability?


isher
 
A lawyer doesn't sue unless they have a client wishing and able to do so.
Click to expand...

and either A) able to pay for it or B) has a compelling case that the lawyer can take on contingency.

Lawyers do pro-bono work of course; but I've yet to hear of a case where a lawyer offered to do pro-bono for the family of an attacker killed in self-defense.

And on the Lockton Risk policy, you need to understand that the $50,000 criminal defense cap is for reimbursement. Nobody offers insurance that covers the costs of criminal defense prior to acquittal. So regardless of what insurance you have, you will have to cover the costs yourself until you are acquitted/not charged.
 
Buy an Umbrella policy - This is a policy that covers about everything. (Not what is called a "follow form" excess liability policy. It is a completely different policy.) - Usually costs about $125 to $150.
If you think it is not covered, show me the exclusion in the policy. See your local Independant Insurance Agent.
 
Find 9 friends and you each pony up $1,000, or whatever amount you come with, to be held in trust as a retainer with a criminal defense attorney you have all selected to defend yourselves.

Work with the lawyer to specify exactly what triggers the money held in trust being used. (i.e. only for the defense of the person that paid in, and not their spouses; for representation at any police interrogation related to X,Y,Z offenses).

ALL the insurance policies I have looked at that purport to cover situations like this are a rip off. The fine print basically excludes everything, and you will not have any idea what is covered and what is not, until the insurance company sues you for a declaratory judgment that there is no coverage.

If you put up the money with your friends and an attorney at the beginning you have two huge advantages. (1) You have an attorney lined up to immediately step in and represent you. (2) You know precisely what actions are covered and what is not.

Number one is crucial. Legal Assistance after a shooting is second only to medical assistance, you need them both a soon as possible, not days later. You can dial 911 and be in front of a surgeon in minutes. Cops can call their PBA rep. I doubt you or most people have a relationship in place with an attorney where he will climb out of bed at 3am to meet you in the police interrogation room and support you before you make a statement you wish you had not. Having a retainer with a lawyer accomplishes this. You know exactly who to call after you hang up with 911. If you shut up and let your attorney handle the police questioning $10,000 is more than enough to cover a clean shoot. However, if you run your mouth like most people do, you may need $50-250k of legal representation to have the statements suppressed and a full trial.

Number two is almost as important. Some insurance policy you purchased from some gun mag might give you peace of mind now, but I doubt it will give you much solace in the crucial first couple of hours, as you try to figure out what you need to do to get your insurance company on board, and wonder if the ridiculously arcane contract they sent you actually covers your situation. You will probably decide that it is easier to just deal with the cops, and try to talk your way out of it, at which point you talk yourself into jail.

HAVE A RELATIONSHIP WITH A LAWYER BEFORE YOU NEED IT!!!!! Then you know that after a shoot you call your lawyer and **** since you know he will arrive shortly.

The added benefit of this system is that, if you never actually use it, which is most likely the case, you can get your money back.
 
HAVE A RELATIONSHIP WITH A LAWYER BEFORE YOU NEED IT!!!!!
Click to expand...

Quoted because it bears repeating.

Next question: how do you find one? Ask around, especially other attorneys. Ask them who they would want to represent them if they were in trouble. Hint - it typically isn't the firm listed on the back of the phone book.
 
Move to TX and enjoy our Rights to defend what is ours with no Civil Recourse if your cleared by the Grand Jury.
Click to expand...

We have the Castle Law here in Florida. I am not inviting anyone to move to Florida because we have high taxes, very poor drivers, screwed up politicians and hurricanes----Stay where you are.....
 
Having Castle Doctrine or a Stand Your Ground law changes nothing. You still need a lawyer, and not a cheap one. All it takes is a D.A. trying to make a name for himself and a judge who has been sleeping on the couch for a week and you will be sending your lawyer's kids to college, even if you are ultimately acquitted or no-billed. There are absolutely no absolutes when you go to court.
 
Having Castle Doctrine or a Stand Your Ground law changes nothing. You still need a lawyer, and not a cheap one. All it takes is a D.A. trying to make a name for himself and a judge who has been sleeping on the couch for a week and you will be sending your lawyer's kids to college, even if you are ultimately acquitted or no-billed. There are absolutely no absolutes when you go to court.
Click to expand...

Do you have experience with the Florida law or a case where a person required an attorney after he used force in protecting himself, his family or his property? I have not been able to find one case as you have mentioned since the law took effect.

The Florida "Castle Doctrine" law basically does three things:

One: It establishes, in law, the presumption that a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home or occupied vehicle is there to cause death or great bodily harm, therefore a person may use any manner of force, including deadly force, against that person.
Two: It removes the "duty to retreat" if you are attacked in any place you have a right to be. You no longer have to turn your back on a criminal and try to run when attacked. Instead, you may stand your ground and fight back, meeting force with force, including deadly force, if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or others. [This is an American right repeatedly recognized in Supreme Court gun cases.]
Three: It provides that persons using force authorized by law shall not be prosecuted for using such force.
It also prohibits criminals and their families from suing victims for injuring or killing the criminals who have attacked them.
In short, it gives rights back to law-abiding people and forces judges and prosecutors who are prone to coddling criminals to instead focus on protecting victims.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/sebok/20050502.html
 
The policy purports to cover both civil and criminal matters. Remember that even if the DA doesn't bring charges the family of the goblin may try to. Anyone can sue anyone for anything. Even if your jurisdiction has strong self defense laws, you need a lawyer to navigate those waters and get the suit dismissed properly.
 
Three: It provides that persons using force authorized by law shall not be prosecuted for using such force.
It also prohibits criminals and their families from suing victims for injuring or killing the criminals who have attacked them.
In short, it gives rights back to law-abiding people and forces judges and prosecutors who are prone to coddling criminals to instead focus on protecting victims.
Click to expand...

You must have not read the italicized portion of the above.
 
The law does not keep people from filing suit. I can sue you for abuse of boldface, file it and serve it. Your move is to have it dismissed. The clerks aren't in the business of refusing to accept lawsuits or determining the legal validity of the claims.

Only in rare circumstances are individuals forbidden from filing suit. I secured such an order to bar a rapist from suing his victim. He is under a permanent injunction requiring him to get approval of the local superior court before he's permitted to file against that person or her family. But such orders are very rare and limited in scope.
 
No, there aren't. ANYONE can file suit for ANYTHING. AGAIN, there are never any absolutes in a courtroom A judge's job is to APPLY the law. He has wide discretion to decide what is heard and why, and has immunity from all actions he takes from behind the bench. Just because you have a Castle Doctrine or a Stand Your Ground law on your side doesn't mean it won't be a long nasty process to make it work your way. You WILL see a jail. You MAY see the inside of a courtroom. You can't seriously think you will get through a shooting without talking to a lawyer at all. The only question is HOW MANY billable hours you are going to be stuck with.
 
mljdeckard wrote:

No, there aren't. ANYONE can file suit for ANYTHING
Click to expand...

Yeah, but...........................


In the United States, Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and similar state rules require that an attorney perform a due diligence investigation concerning the factual basis for any claim or defense. Jurisdictions differ on whether a claim or defense can be frivolous if the attorney acted in good faith. Because such a defense or claim wastes the court's and the other parties' time, resources and legal fees, sanctions may be imposed by a court upon the party or the lawyer who presents the frivolous defense or claim. The law firm may also be sanctioned, or even held in contempt
Click to expand...

One example:

Washington, an inmate from Georgia, was eventually prohibited from filing any future lawsuits or motions in any district court unless he first posted a contempt bond of $1,500. To be deemed frivolous, a litigant's arguments must truly strike beyond the pale.
Click to expand...
 
Ah, Rule 11. Good luck with that!

The basic idea here is that you can't rely in the court system to protect you from suits even if they are baseless. Whether or not self defense insurance is worth the premiums is another question, but even in good jurisdictions you can still get tied up in a quagmire. Without a lawyer what should have been an easy win can be lost. And my hat is off to any lawyer good enough to get Rule 11 sanctions on the family of some guy the defendant shot to death.
 
As a LEO in Florida and from NY almost 28 years, I can tell you the Castle Doctrine may have merit down a long litigous expensive road, but I have seen people using firearms for self defense at home, cleared of all charges by the PD, and civilsued by an attorney for the family. Each bullet shot we are told costs about 1 million.
 
I have been attempting to find a case where the victim was sued by the perpetrator or by the family of the perpetrator that committed a crime that is covered by the Castle Doctrine. I have found none but I will have a friend that works for the State Attorney point me in the right direction. Yes, the majority of the attorneys are as crooked as the crooks they represent as has been well documented in the local media of late.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
Self Defense Insurance
Replies
16
Views
1K
husbandofaromanian
H
N
  • Locked
CCW Insurance Is It Any Good ?
Replies
19
Views
2K
TexasRifleman
T
C
  • Locked
Insurance Policies and Self-Defense
Replies
3
Views
434
crebralfix
C
sturmruger
  • Locked
Prepaid legal services for criminal defense
Replies
13
Views
3K
El Tejon
E
W
  • Locked
Self-Defence Insurance Coverage
2
Replies
38
Views
3K
Micro
M
Back
Top