Self-Defence Insurance Coverage

Status
Not open for further replies.
W

wyofool

Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
66
Location
Laramie
I used the above title even though the organizations involved are not insurance companies. I am thinking about joining one of the organizations offering legal help and funds for my defense if I'm involved in a self-defense shooting.
The organizations I have looked at so far are: CHLPP, USCCA, TX Law Shield,
NRA, and Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network.
Any THR members with opinions or knowledge about any of these organizations, (or any I left out) I would like your input.
Thank you
 
Acldn

As a member of the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network, I will tell you that I renewed my membership this past summer most willingly. The combination of advice, training, and support in the case of a self-defense gun incident are all outstanding. The three initial training DVDs you get on joining are outstanding, and the follow-on DVDs with subsequent renewal years are frosting on the cake.

I investigated USCCA, signing up for one of their free online training videos. The organization proceeded to spam me at a rate of near daily annoying marketing e-mails, no matter what I attempted to stop the marketing flood. THis so annoyed me, that I refuse to join them. Others may be able to tell you whether a paid up member gets moneysworth in terms of information and services.
 
Here it comes. Before long you probably will have to be bonded and carry insurance to get a permit. That should price most people out. This is a great tool for the anti-gun politicians.
 
My aviation insurance company insures me for low level aerobatics for specific shows and fly-ins.

Ain't cheap, but it does insure me for a purposeful and somewhat dangerous act.

If you have the money, I'll bet that there is an insurance company that will write the policy. Lloyd's of London perhaps???
 
This is an exceedingly bad idea because it has the potential to become manditory and price most people out of a permit. When it becomes common for armed citizens to carry large insurance policies. they will become low hanging fruit for the trial lawyers. A few multi-million dollar law suits will drive prices up into the relm of medical malpractice insurance and very few will be able to afford it.
 
Carrying medical malpractice insurance gave me great peace of mind that I had some protection in the event that a legal shark convinced a jury that my professional actions may have not met the standard of my peers. These things can be made to seem very subjective no matter what the letter of the law is.

Whether or not you have this insurance, you can be sued for your actions. So, the first question is, what do you have to lose? If you don’t own a home, a nest egg for retirement and emergencies, college funds for you kids, vehicles, boats, etcetera and there is nothing to take from you then having this type of insurance would be inconsequential. For me and my family it would add a measure of protection.

The second question would be the affordability. Considering that there are millions of gun owners and the rarity of this occurrence in proportion to them I would think the cost would be low and I would seriously consider it because I am armed wherever my CCW permit and its reciprocity let me go.
 
Last edited:
I posed the question to my insurance agent whom I've know for many years. Right now we have both homes, both cars, various power sports toys with same top-tier insurer, as a result we also have a $1m umbrella policy.

According to the response back from the insurer, I think we'd have some coverage in the event we had to use deadly force to defend ourselves.

Below are the quotes directly from the insurer illustrating the coverage, the first is the Homeowner's policy, the second is the Umbrella.

WA Homeowners policy HOM 7030 EP 1/09 says:

LIABILITY LOSSES WE DO NOT COVER
1. Coverage E—Personal Liability and Coverage F—Medical Payments to Others do not apply to bodily
injury or property damage:
a. which is expected or intended by any insured or which is the foreseeable result of an act or omission
intended by any insured;
This exclusion applies even if:
(1) such bodily injury or property damage is of a different kind or degree than expected or intended;
or
(2) such bodily injury or property damage is sustained by a different person, or persons, than
expected or intended.
This exclusion does not apply to bodily injury resulting from the use of reasonable force by any
insured to protect persons or property.

WA Umbrella policy form P-967 WAEP 4/10 reads:

This policy does not apply to any:
3. bodily injury or property damage arising
out of any act or damage which is expected
or intended by any insured, or which is the
foreseeable result of an act or omission intended
by any insured, which causes bodily
injury or property damage.
This exclusion applies even if:
a. such bodily injury or property damage
is of a different kind or degree than expected
or intended;
b. such bodily injury or property damage
is sustained by a different person, persons
or property than expected or intended
This exclusion does not apply to bodily injury
resulting from a reasonable action by
any insured in preventing or eliminating
danger in the operation of vehicles or aircraft
or protecting persons or property.
Click to expand...

This of course pertains to WA, YMMV.

A distilled opinion from my agent:
Shooting someone stealing an apple from your tree…probably would not count as reasonable. But shooting someone who was coming at you with a gun or knife…that would be reasonable. And while I framed the situation to be on premise…..the language XYZ-Insurance uses includes off premise…
Click to expand...

I don't imagine there would be much if any coverage were our actions considered criminal in nature.
 
Your homeowner's insurance normally covers you against personal liability (such as a wrongful death lawsuit). I doubt you'll be able to find insurance to cover the cost of a criminal defense. Although, Lloyd's of London will insure just about anything for the right price.
 
some states make you immune to civil law suits if the shooting is ruled justified criminally.
as in they (the court) wont even entertain a plaintif's suit.

is there a list of states that have this law?

Tenneesee, Texas, Arizona are three that i know of.
 
Blackbeard said:
Your homeowner's insurance normally covers you against personal liability (such as a wrongful death lawsuit). I doubt you'll be able to find insurance to cover the cost of a criminal defense. Although, Lloyd's of London will insure just about anything for the right price.
Click to expand...
WA is unique among States in that if a defendant is found not guilty of using unjustified deadly force, the State gets to pay for that person's criminal defense. There is a legislative movement under foot to try and repeal this law, ostensibly because the State is broke.
 
I too listened to the USCCA webinar. Are there other THR members that are paying for this membership as well?
 
I have to wonder if coverage like this could be construed to mean premeditation on the part of the victim (in a non castle doctrine state)? Such as "Mr. Jones was so sure he'd get the opportunity to kill my poor client he bought insurance for it"
 
I can see it now,
the cops show up at the range and demand to see your "proof of insurance" card.
 
some states make you immune to civil law suits if the shooting is ruled justified criminally.
as in they (the court) wont even entertain a plaintif's suit.
Click to expand...

Better read those laws more carefully.

Most if them make the complainant liable for the defendants legal fees in a civil suite if the defendant prevails.

Not the same as immunity, and not a prohibition on filing suite.

What it does is make the suite very risky for the plaintiff, and attorneys are not about to have their money on the line.
 
In my state if a defensive shooting is determined to be justified the shooter is immune from civil suits.
 
Recently we had a local business owner and his family assaulted by two criminals...... after being beaten, the store owner shot and killed the two perps. [I'd have fired long before being beaten] District Atty ruled it a justified shooting. Both victims families have filed wrongful death suits against the store owner. He'll have to spend money to defend himself, even if he wins.
 
If I lived in a state where self-defense left my open to civil suits I would think long and hard about involving the police after something like this. My state protects me from this sort of nonsense if I have to shoot an intruder.
 
I'm a member of the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network. It doesn't provide "insurance". What it does do is provide you with a local attorney (you foot the bill) who is part of their network who can quickly come to your leagal aid should you need an attorney. Also, the network attorney's are likely to be helpful on other related legal gun matters should you need one. I enjoy their monthly magazine and that in itself makes it worth it. Every time I have sent them an email, they have responded very quickly.
 
This is a summary of what they provide if you are involved in a shooting. You also receive assitance locating an attorney, and the previously mentioned DVDs and monthly newsletters.

http://armedcitizensnetwork.org/


• A fee deposit paid by the Network to the member's attorney if the member has been involved in a self-defense incident. The deposit gets the legal defense immediately underway, with representation during questioning, and arranging for an independent investigation of the incident.

• Network members are eligible for additional grants of financial assistance from the Network's Legal Defense Fund if they face unmeritorious prosecution or civil action after a self-defense incident occurring during their period of membership.
 
In my state if a defensive shooting is determined to be justified the shooter is immune from civil suits.
Click to expand...

No one can judge if this is correct without knowing the state.
 
This exclusion does not apply to bodily injury resulting from the use of reasonable force by any insured to protect persons or property.
Click to expand...

My umbrella policy has the exact same wording. It's almost not necessary since, in Ohio, criminals cannot sue their victims.

(2) Recovery on a claim for relief in a tort action is barred to any person or the person’s legal representative if any of the following apply:

(a) The person has been convicted of or has pleaded guilty to a felony, or to a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence, arising out of criminal conduct that was a proximate cause of the injury or loss for which relief is claimed in the tort action.

(b) The person engaged in conduct that, if prosecuted, would constitute a felony, a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence, an attempt to commit a felony, or an attempt to commit a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence and that conduct was a proximate cause of the injury or loss for which relief is claimed in the tort action, regardless of whether the person has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to or has been charged with committing the felony, the misdemeanor, or the attempt to commit the felony or misdemeanor.
Click to expand...

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2307.60
 
My aviation insurance company insures me for low level aerobatics for specific shows and fly-ins.

Ain't cheap, but it does insure me for a purposeful and somewhat dangerous act.
Click to expand...

They are still insuring you for accidents during the show, not for flying the plane into someones house on purpose.

A crash would be an unintended event.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
Self Defense Insurance
Replies
16
Views
1K
husbandofaromanian
H
Craig_AR
  • Locked
Legal Defense Network
Replies
1
Views
335
Yo Mama
Yo Mama
U
  • Locked
Update on Iowa insurance issue
Replies
4
Views
790
Frank Ettin
Frank Ettin
G
  • Locked
Insurance for Concealed Carriers
Replies
24
Views
1K
AirForceShooter
AirForceShooter
BP Hunter
  • Locked
self defense insurance coverage
Replies
3
Views
433
Bubbles
B
Back
Top