Self defense and your insurance

Status
Not open for further replies.

DBR

Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2002
Messages
1,071
Location
Vermont
I thought I was protected by my homeowners insurance and umbrella policy if I was forced to injure or kill someone in a legal act of self defense and subsequently sued civilly.

Not so according to my insurance company and two others I consulted including Allstate, The Hartford and Travelers.

The catch 22 they all cited (two checked with their legal depts) is while legal, an act of self defense is a "willful act". They say "willful acts" that result in injury or death even though legal are not covered by their liability policies and there is no rider available.

Do you folks know this?

Is it generally true?

Anyone know of a reliable insurance company that sells homeowners insurance that would affirm coverage for self defense?
 
Are you talking about liability insurance or property damage to the home from fired shots and the various fluids and such that'll come out of a shot person?

I'll pop the question by my wife in the morning. She's a rather adept claims adjuster for a large insurance company that does a lot of home owners insurance.
 
I am primarily concerned with insurance coverage for a civil law suit judgment against me brought by an attacker who I injure (or his/her relatives if killed) in my home during my legal act of self defense.

I thought my home owner's liability + umbrella would cover this situation (and so do many others I have spoken with) - not so say the insurance companies I have talked with.
 
I will protect myself and family first. Then worry about insurance later. One must be alive to be sued. Besides Missouri has a very good "Castle Doctrine"...
 
While "Castle" laws do provide you with more latitude in CRIMINAL cases, I wonder what protection they provide in CIVIL cases.

Just as an example, the OJ case, Innocent in CRIMINAL court, yet GUILTY in CIVIL court. Standards of proof are different in the two courts.
 
In Missouri if the you are judged to have fired in your or your family's defense they can not go after you in a civil case either...
 
It's possible there would be at least some level of coverage, but don't count on it unless you're paying for a special policy.
 
This is an interesting conversation. I'd like to know what kind of policy WOULD cover your civil liabilities in a self defense shooting ?
When I took my CCW class, one of the recommendations was to get an insurance policy. The instructor cited the average court costs involved, naming locally relevant/noteworthy attorneys and their rates just for looking at a case etc. He said he personally had a policy to cover himself.

I looked at that as a reasonable, but not urgent idea. Haven't tried to price anything or set anything up myself.
 
You will seldom be sued for an act of self defense where you where not charged criminally or where found innocent. Remember that "self defense" is an abusolute civil case justification as well as a criminal justification to assault and battery. Its downright impossible for someone to sue you for negligence for a willbull act. Malicious or nuisance suits open the person filling the suit as well as their attorney to counter suit. Law suits without merrit are dismissed out of hand by the courts. Small claims suits, limited in monetary damages usually don't allow lawyers to participate.

However, if you want protection against the cost of a lawyer in a law suit you should purchase leagal insurance t0 help cover the cost.
 
Move to Texas and you don't have to worry about it. As long as you are defending yourself, your property, or other people, they cannot sue you and neither can their family.
 
Move to Texas and you don't have to worry about it. As long as you are defending yourself, your property, or other people, they cannot sue you and neither can their family.


Even if that were true, and you're not in your house or car, you're looking at probably $50,000 in order to prove to the government that it wasn't murder.
 
Guess you all have different news down there or something. They're always showing stories on the local news up here where an incident happened and a person took care of it; no charges will be filed.
Please name one incident (after the Castle Doctrine) where a person in Texas had to pay $50K to the gov't in order for them to determine it wasn't murder.
 
One loophole, I think, could be that in many states, you cannot be sued if it is found that you were exercising your right to self-defense; however, that legal determination may take some time, during which you could conceivably be subject to a frivolous lawsuit. I would hope that any reasonably competent lawyer would recognize the inevitable loss of that case and refuse to press a civil suit, but you never know.
 
If you're going to risk that much based on the "local news" that's fine by me.

What bothers me is that you're telling someone that they should do it too.

First off, Castle doctrine does not apply to the mall, the beach, or any of the public places where most normal people spend a good deal of time.

Second, I'm not talking about castle doctrine.


Third, I'm not talking about paying $50,000 to the government. I'm talking about paying a defense attorney $50,000 when you're charged with murder.


I think you have some reading to do:

http://www.rc123.com/texas_castle_doctrine.html
 
chance favors the the BG"S are out on early release, probation or have warrants issued for their arrest on other charges.
i would like to sue the police for not doing their job and picking them up on the outstanding warrants.
and the parolee board for releasing them early. or the prosecutor for cutting them a deal.
i wold sue the BG's also for the mental anguish their illegal actions have/are causing me and my family. and for lost wages.
them sue me--NFW ( in a rational society)

my attorney friend contends that a righteous shoot in CT will be about $35,000
and up till the dust settles. some costs may be offset by the Victims Rights Fund.

really, really the last thing you want to do is shot some one no matter ow justified it will be found to be.
though seeking all alternatives, it may be what is necessary.
 
Last edited:
New York Rules on Wrongful Death and Self-Defense

The most recent case addressing this issue is Automobile Insurance Company of Hartford v. Alfred S. Cook, 21 A.D. 3d 1155, 801 N.Y.S. 2d 837 (September 15, 2005), from the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department. The New York court was faced with the legal question of whether the homeowners insurance policy covered the insured in a lawsuit for wrongful death when the insured killed a person in self-defense. Alfred Cook, the insured, shot and killed Richard Barber after a disagreement over a business arrangement. Barber entered Cook's home without permission and, during their discussions, Cook retrieved his shotgun. Barber refused to leave Cook's home, attacked and injured Cook, and then the fatal confrontation occurred.

Cook was acquitted of multiple indictments, including murder in the second degree, based on self-defense. Thereafter, the administrator of Barber's estate brought a wrongful death action against Cook, and Cook sought coverage under his homeowners insurance policy issued by AIC.

The New York appellate court first held that the act of shooting another person, even when done in self-defense, is not a covered "occurrence" because the act could not be characterized as accidental, even in the face of allegations of negligence. Though unnecessary for the ruling, the court next examined whether Cook's acts fell within the policy's exclusion for bodily injury which is "expected or intended." The court reasoned that the intentional injury exclusion is designed to reinforce the liability policy's coverage clause by reiterating that the bodily injury or property damage must flow from an accident and not be the expected result of intentional conduct. Id. at 840. In that regard, evidence that Cook intended to injure, but not necessarily kill Barber, was enough to trigger application of the intentional injury exclusion.

Many other cases located here:

http://www.irmi.com/expert/articles/2006/cooper01.aspx
 
DAVIDSDIVAD is right.

Regardless of your states' laws, or how likely you are to be no-billed and/or immune from a civil suit, it doesn't mean the D.A. and the dead guy's family won't TRY. When this happens, you can go with the public defender in criminal court and TRY to represent yourself in civil court, but neither of these things is a good idea. You WILL need a lawyer, and this is not something you want to buy at Costco. Remember this. There are no absolutes in the legal world. Even if no one has yet been the test case for your state's NEW stand your ground law, it doesn't mean it won't be you. All it takes is a DA that doesn't believe you and a judge who has been sleeping on the couch for a few nights, and you will be sending your lawyer's mistress' kids to college, even if you do eventually squeeze out of it.
 
As much as I agree with some aspects of the Castle Doctrine in Texas, I've noticed that since it passed, I've been hearing more and more "HURR DURR if someone threatens you you can shot them and nothing happens DERP DERP."

Thanks for the back up, mldeckard
 
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) (exclusion in family liability provisions of homeowners insurance policy, excluding damage for bodily injury or property damage resulting from any willful act or omission that is a crime unless such act or omission was for the preservation of life or property, applied to preclude coverage for shooting of innocent bystander by homeowners' child who fired gun in attempt to apprehend individuals who had assaulted him while trying to steal his vehicle).
Anyone know of a reliable insurance company that sells homeowners insurance that would affirm coverage for self defense?

Apparently Allstate was not always that way.
 
First off, Castle doctrine does not apply to the mall, the beach, or any of the public places where most normal people spend a good deal of time.

In Florida the castle Doctrine was recently extended to include any place you have a legal right to be. No duty to retreat. Don't know if it's been tested in court, yet.
 
13-413. No civil liability for justified conduct

No person in this state shall be subject to civil liability for engaging in conduct otherwise justified pursuant to the provisions of this chapter.
AZ state law, works. We also have the Castle Doctrine, untested as yet, IIRC.
 
If you're going to risk that much based on the "local news" that's fine by me.

What bothers me is that you're telling someone that they should do it too.

First off, Castle doctrine does not apply to the mall, the beach, or any of the public places where most normal people spend a good deal of time.

Second, I'm not talking about castle doctrine.


Third, I'm not talking about paying $50,000 to the government. I'm talking about paying a defense attorney $50,000 when you're charged with murder.


I think you have some reading to do:

http://www.rc123.com/texas_castle_doctrine.html
Funny you would post that link because it clearly states that the person defending themselves in a place they are legally entitled to be can do so. I personally am legally allowed at the beatch, mall, and every other public place. Also, I did not tell someone to do anything. I simply stated that in Texas you are not the victim like you are in communist state like california.
I do not want to get in a pissing match, but also do not appreciate someone calling me out with erroneus information and also placing words in my mouth.
BTW, yes I did say "move to Texas", but that was not me actually telling a person they need to move to Texas. Hopefully only a small number of people on this board would actually do anything a stranger on the Internet told them to do...
BTW2, if you are immune from something, it cannot be brought up against you. You can try to file any suit you want, but it does not have to be accepted and when it violates state law, it will never be introduced in the first place. knowledge FTW
Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY [AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE]. A [It is an affirmative defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death that the] defendant who uses force or[, at the time the cause of action arose, was justified in using] deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9 [Section 9.32], Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant’s [against a person who at the time of the] use of force or deadly force, as applicable [was committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the defendant].
 
I don't know how to explain it any differently to you.

It's called castle doctrine because it was originally meant to apply to the home.

You do not have castle doctrine protection any "place they are legally entitled to be"




The lack of a duty to retreat is not the same as having castle doctrine

Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY [AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE]. A [It is an affirmative defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death that the] defendant who uses force or[, at the time the cause of action arose, was justified in using] deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9 [Section 9.32], Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant’s [against a person who at the time of the] use of force or deadly force, as applicable [was committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the defendant].

^ this applies to 9.32

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor [he] would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

(2) [if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated; and

[(3)] when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor [himself] against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(b) The actor’s belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection
(a)(2)(B);

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used [requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the actor].

See the lower case(c)?
(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.


http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/analysis/html/HB00284H.htm



Texas law provides a defense to prosecution for conduct justified under Sections 9.31, 9.32, or 9.33 of the Penal Code. Texas law also provides an affirmative defense to a civil action brought by an attacker for damages for personal injury or death resulting from the use of force or deadly force, but only for cases involving home invasions. As a result, a person who justifiably uses force or deadly force outside the home and is not guilty of any crime may still be open to a civil action filed by the criminal or the criminal’s family

To address these issues, C.S.H.B. 284 establishes the presumption that a criminal who unlawfully and forcefully enters or intrudes into a home, vehicle, place of business, or place of employment is there to cause death or great bodily harm, and a person may therefore use any manner of force, including deadly force, against that criminal. Said use of force is presumed to be both reasonable and necessary in these cases.



C.S.H.B. 284 explicitly states in law that a person has no duty to retreat if the person is attacked in a place where he has a right to be present, if he has not provoked the attacker, and if the person using force is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used.



Finally, C.S.H.B. 284 creates a civil immunity to a civil action brought by an injured or killed criminal attacker or his family to apply to any force or deadly force conduct justified by any portion of Chapter 9 of the Penal Code.



Fifteen states have currently adopted some or all of the provisions outlined in C.S.H.B. 284 and another dozen states are currently considering similar legislation.


See the red? That's tens of thousands of dollars in your defense attorney's pocket.


Now that I re-read it though, it seems as though you're right about the civil immunity portion, though.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top