You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Insurance
- Thread starter snubbies
- Start date
- Status
-
Not open for further replies.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
Coverage for what?
Liability if you shoot a bystander or legal fees for a defense? Umbrellas only cover what your underlying policy covers once it's exhausted, and may have different exclusions than the underlying policy.
Liability if you shoot a bystander or legal fees for a defense? Umbrellas only cover what your underlying policy covers once it's exhausted, and may have different exclusions than the underlying policy.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
I dont believe you can insure for intentional acts. Shooting someone is intentional, whatever the reason.
If my house is on fire and I break a window to get out, they will fix the window too. If I destroy my kitchen by hosing it down with water to put out a trash fire, my homeowners policy will fix the water damage.
So intentional acts are clearly covered in some cases.
But you are probably right regarding self defense shootings. I see specialty policies for gun owners advertised here and there that do cover this sort of thing.
ETA: Appears to be very dependent on the policy wording of course, found this just now Googling this out of curiosity:
As with all coverage disputes, the determination of whether the intentional injury exclusion applies to injuries caused by acts of self-defense depends on the exact wording of the exclusion and the policy as a whole. Some liability policies include an exception to the intentional injury exclusion for "bodily injury resulting from the use of reasonable force to protect persons or property." If the exclusion includes this exception, or one similar, the intentional injury exclusion will not apply to circumstances where the insured uses reasonable force in defending himself, others, or property. See Glover v. Allstate Ins. Co., 229 Ga. App. 235, 493 S.E.2d 612 (1997)
More here, and as usual there are court cases cited falling on both sides of the fence. So as is most often true with legal questions, things mean only what a jury says they mean.
http://www.irmi.com/expert/articles/2006/cooper01.aspx
Mike1234567
member
Interesting discussion... lurking.
Shadow 7D
Member
Liability... KINDA
I forget the guys name, but he was tried 3 times for shooting two neighbors,
his wife and them were in a cussing fight and they came over, started a fight with his wife, and then the boyfriend sucker punched him from behind.
Between the 2nd and 3rd trial, the sued him, and his home insurance settled, the made the required legal depositions... contradicting the majority of what they had sworn at the first two trials...
like that the shooting had took place in the street, as his policy would only cover acts on his property.
Any who, the home insurance will settle, in part, to protect your house, so the person suing you agrees to exclude your house (or settle the claim) for a set amount of money. It's not you, but rather your house that is protected. You can also have higher riders on your house or other insurance, if you are a contractor or someone who may face personal liability do to your work. That is mostly to protect your home owners.
I forget the guys name, but he was tried 3 times for shooting two neighbors,
his wife and them were in a cussing fight and they came over, started a fight with his wife, and then the boyfriend sucker punched him from behind.
Between the 2nd and 3rd trial, the sued him, and his home insurance settled, the made the required legal depositions... contradicting the majority of what they had sworn at the first two trials...
like that the shooting had took place in the street, as his policy would only cover acts on his property.
Any who, the home insurance will settle, in part, to protect your house, so the person suing you agrees to exclude your house (or settle the claim) for a set amount of money. It's not you, but rather your house that is protected. You can also have higher riders on your house or other insurance, if you are a contractor or someone who may face personal liability do to your work. That is mostly to protect your home owners.
Mike1234567
member
Liability... KINDA
I forget the guys name, but he was tried 3 times for shooting two neighbors,
his wife and them were in a cussing fight and they came over, started a fight with his wife, and then the boyfriend sucker punched him from behind.
Between the 2nd and 3rd trial, the sued him, and his home insurance settled, the made the required legal depositions... contradicting the majority of what they had sworn at the first two trials...
like that the shooting had took place in the street, as his policy would only cover acts on his property.
Any who, the home insurance will settle, in part, to protect your house, so the person suing you agrees to exclude your house (or settle the claim) for a set amount of money. It's not you, but rather your house that is protected. You can also have higher riders on your house or other insurance, if you are a contractor or someone who may face personal liability do to your work. That is mostly to protect your home owners.
All three lawsuits were under the same identical charge?
The examples you quoted are all in response to the fire.If my house is on fire and I break a window to get out, they will fix the window too. If I destroy my kitchen by hosing it down with water to put out a trash fire, my homeowners policy will fix the water damage.
So intentional acts are clearly covered in some cases.
But you are probably right regarding self defense shootings. I see specialty policies for gun owners advertised here and there that do cover this sort of thing.
If you set a fire in your house you probably cannot collect the insurance. In fact you'd probably go to jail for arson.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
The examples you quoted are all in response to the fire.
If you set a fire in your house you probably cannot collect the insurance. In fact you'd probably go to jail for arson.
Right, and if your read the court cases on the webpage I put up the same argument has been made (sometimes successfully sometimes not) that self defense shootings are a response, not an initiated act. I agree with you that intentional acts are not always covered, but in the case of self defense coverage the court cases have been pretty fuzzy.
The page I put up has cases going both ways, so it's up to a jury most likely. Personally I would assume there is no coverage, but it might be argued successfully in court it seems.
Shadow 7D
Member
mike, no
the DA brought charges against the guy, he was a FA instructor etc. and he got a HUNG jury 3 times, since it was 3 'unarmed' assailants against a guy in his own garage...
between the 2nd and 3rd suit they sued him for the shooting, and his legal team advised him to agree with his insurance to settle, for the deposition. And that was why after a disastrous 3 trial the DA decided not to pursue another trial.
the DA brought charges against the guy, he was a FA instructor etc. and he got a HUNG jury 3 times, since it was 3 'unarmed' assailants against a guy in his own garage...
between the 2nd and 3rd suit they sued him for the shooting, and his legal team advised him to agree with his insurance to settle, for the deposition. And that was why after a disastrous 3 trial the DA decided not to pursue another trial.
Micro
Member
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.
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.
+1 Micro!
Self defense, by any means, is an intentional act. Unless the shooter is extremely wealthy, plaintiffs' attorneys know there's no money in bringing a lawsuit for an intentional tort. That's why they always allege negligence as well in a lawsuit - it invokes insurance coverage, and brings in the insurance company, which obviously HAS the filthy lucre they're after in the first place.
Keep that umbrella policy - it's relatively inexpensive compared to what you risk losing. Look at the exclusions and the exceptions to the exclusions, and if you don't like what's excluded, shop around.
Self defense, by any means, is an intentional act. Unless the shooter is extremely wealthy, plaintiffs' attorneys know there's no money in bringing a lawsuit for an intentional tort. That's why they always allege negligence as well in a lawsuit - it invokes insurance coverage, and brings in the insurance company, which obviously HAS the filthy lucre they're after in the first place.
Keep that umbrella policy - it's relatively inexpensive compared to what you risk losing. Look at the exclusions and the exceptions to the exclusions, and if you don't like what's excluded, shop around.
Shadow 7D
Member
thanks micro, that makes sense
USAF_Vet
Member
the homeowner made a deal with the attorney for the intruder wherein the homeowner would ADMIT that his shooting was an act of negligence.
Micro, was this person under oath? Sounds like perjury and fraud if he was. Maybe only fraud if he wasn't. If I shoot someone in my home attacking my wife, you better believe it will be intentional. why again would the homeowner make a deal with the intruder to get him money? If it's to save his bacon from the intruder coming after him... I guess I kind of understand that. Still seems like a slippery slope.
Mike1234567
member
USA Vet... interesting question but what about other "plea bargains" in which others admit to guilt when they're not? If proven innocent later would those individuals be guilty of purgery too? Interesting how our "legal system" works.
USAF_Vet
Member
It's only purjury if it's under oath. Which is why I aksed. If it's just some back room dealing, it could still be seen as fraud, but it would be hard to prove.
Micro
Member
Quote:
the homeowner made a deal with the attorney for the intruder wherein the homeowner would ADMIT that his shooting was an act of negligence.
Micro, was this person under oath? Sounds like perjury and fraud if he was. Maybe only fraud if he wasn't. If I shoot someone in my home attacking my wife, you better believe it will be intentional. why again would the homeowner make a deal with the intruder to get him money? If it's to save his bacon from the intruder coming after him... I guess I kind of understand that. Still seems like a slippery slope.
It is a "deal" to save his own financial butt. The homeowner can scarcely afford to pay thousands of dollars to defend himself, then the possibility of having to pay tens, or maybe hundreds, of thousands more to satisfy a verdict.
The insured will agree with the plaintiff's attorney to admit to negligence in return for the plaintiff attorney not pursuing him personally to satisfy a portion of the judgement in excess of the policy limits.
It's not fraud. It's just the way things work. In cases where the insurer has denied coverage for intentional act then stands on that denial in the face of an admission of negligence, it is the insurer that may be guilty of bad faith, which is a serious problem for an insurance company. Better that the insurer stay in the case and defend it. If they prove the act was self defense, the insurer is out the defense costs, that's all. If the plaintiff proves negligence, then the insurer pays the award, too. But if the insurer does nothing, they may have to indemnify the insured for defense costs, pay a verdict, and an additional punitive sum for bad faith. Most courts are not kind to insurers who deny coverage for shaky reasons.
These cases are very complex and no two are alike. An insurer denying on intentional act better be damn sure of their facts and probably ought to get the court to back up their denial of coverage by winning a declaratory judgement action.
Sam Cade
Member
Larry Hickey is his name.Liability... KINDA
I forget the guys name, but he was tried 3 times for shooting two neighbors,
Guillermo
member
FYI
While not directly related, here in Texas we have a company, Texas Law Shield, that will defend you if you are involved in a justifiable shooting.
If they do their job, the umbrella policy will not be needed.
Not sure what states have this coverage.
FYI...I have TLS and an umbrella policy
While not directly related, here in Texas we have a company, Texas Law Shield, that will defend you if you are involved in a justifiable shooting.
If they do their job, the umbrella policy will not be needed.
Not sure what states have this coverage.
FYI...I have TLS and an umbrella policy
IBEWBULL
Member
Not directly related but a insurance issue.
My in-laws had a house fire about 3 years ago. Be sure to read your policy and keep a copy somewhere away from home.
Verbal "don't worry you are covered. " will not pass the test. Get it in writing!
Also the NRA $1000 policy was really helpful. The folks made the job of dealing with gun loss less unpleasant. They did a fine job.
The guns were mostly smoke and water damaged. Fumes from a fire raise hell with blued guns and wood. Scopes were all trashed.
I hope you never have to go through a fire.
The folks got out with the dog. The cat did not.
Survivors are doing well and in a new home.
My in-laws had a house fire about 3 years ago. Be sure to read your policy and keep a copy somewhere away from home.
Verbal "don't worry you are covered. " will not pass the test. Get it in writing!
Also the NRA $1000 policy was really helpful. The folks made the job of dealing with gun loss less unpleasant. They did a fine job.
The guns were mostly smoke and water damaged. Fumes from a fire raise hell with blued guns and wood. Scopes were all trashed.
I hope you never have to go through a fire.
The folks got out with the dog. The cat did not.
Survivors are doing well and in a new home.
- Status
-
Not open for further replies.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 2
- Views
- 559
