cloudedice
Member
I know a lot of you on THR have guns for home and self defense. Did you also take out a self-defense insurance policy like the one the NRA offers to members?
If so, have you had to use it?
If so, have you had to use it?
Self-Defense Insurance?
- Thread starter cloudedice
- Start date
- Status
Joe Gunns
Member
I'm one of the "no's". Was not even aware of the self-defense insurance through nra, must have gotten too good at ignoring their junk-mail. 
Went to their website and checked it out. Is a bit more expensive for a minimally decent level of coverage ($250,000) than I expected, although not prohibitive. Gonna hafta think about this. Suppose its sorta like the cancer insurance that was offered at work: Odds are you were not gonna need it, but the one person I know that had the insurance and then got cancer thought it was worth it!
Went to their website and checked it out. Is a bit more expensive for a minimally decent level of coverage ($250,000) than I expected, although not prohibitive. Gonna hafta think about this. Suppose its sorta like the cancer insurance that was offered at work: Odds are you were not gonna need it, but the one person I know that had the insurance and then got cancer thought it was worth it!Clipper
Member
I live in what has recently become a Castle Doctorine state and am now immune to civil prosecution after a legal shoot. And if it were a bad shoot, I'm sure I'd have other problems that would pretty much make insurance unnecessary...
FortyFive70
Member
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2006
- Messages
- 26
I'm an adjuster for an insurance company. I investigate claims to determine liability, and then settle those claims to the extent of legal liability. In the many years I have been doing this job, I've never run across an injury or wrongful death claim resulting from a self-defense shooting.
Nevertheless, my professional opinion is thus...
there would probably be no coverage under most homeowner's liability policies for the actual amount of a judgement or verdict because such damages would be seen as resultant from an intentional act, or an act that a reasonable person would have known would cause injury.
HOWEVER, I believe most homeowner's insurance policies would provide a DEFENSE to such a claim since almost all such claims would would allege NEGLIGENCE on the part of the shooter. Attorneys want money so their lawsuits allege anything and everything. Damages resulting from negligence IS covered by liability policies and such an allegation in a lawsuit is usually enough to force the insurer to provide and pay for a defense.
In other words, the insurance company would probably pay for and provide the defense, but probably not pay the amount awarded for damages.
But I think such claims are few and far between. As many shootings as occur, the number of actual lawsuits must be very small. If the shooting truly was in self defense, and authorities have declined to press criminal charges, then I think the chances of a criminal succeeding in a lawsuit I very small. The defendant would have a very powerful case. Additionally, attorneys know this and probably wouldn't want to waste their time pursuing a claim that would not pay, and would not want to be part of what would probably be a high-profile case in its locality which would subject the attorney to bad press and the ire of the public.
Nevertheless, my professional opinion is thus...
there would probably be no coverage under most homeowner's liability policies for the actual amount of a judgement or verdict because such damages would be seen as resultant from an intentional act, or an act that a reasonable person would have known would cause injury.
HOWEVER, I believe most homeowner's insurance policies would provide a DEFENSE to such a claim since almost all such claims would would allege NEGLIGENCE on the part of the shooter. Attorneys want money so their lawsuits allege anything and everything. Damages resulting from negligence IS covered by liability policies and such an allegation in a lawsuit is usually enough to force the insurer to provide and pay for a defense.
In other words, the insurance company would probably pay for and provide the defense, but probably not pay the amount awarded for damages.
But I think such claims are few and far between. As many shootings as occur, the number of actual lawsuits must be very small. If the shooting truly was in self defense, and authorities have declined to press criminal charges, then I think the chances of a criminal succeeding in a lawsuit I very small. The defendant would have a very powerful case. Additionally, attorneys know this and probably wouldn't want to waste their time pursuing a claim that would not pay, and would not want to be part of what would probably be a high-profile case in its locality which would subject the attorney to bad press and the ire of the public.
p35
Member
There have been cases in this state where the courts basically say that if a shooting is an intentional act the exclusion applies regardless of whether it was justified. IOW if you shoot someone in self defense your homeowner's insurance won't cover it. My concern would be more with the attorney's fees to defend yourself than the potential judgment. FortyFive70 has a lot of good points about how hard it would be for a criminal to win such a case, but you could still spend a lot of money to get it tossed out.
I don't have it, though I did look into it. My end thoughts was 'too expensive for something I'm likely to never use'.
How about we start up a highroad defense pool? Everybody who wants coverage tosses $10/year into the pool. Then, if somebody has to fire in self defense, the pool can go to pay for a lawyer to prove it, whether simply from the prosecuter, to grand jury or lawsuit.
If it's not used competely, it goes into a mutual fund to keep growing.
How about we start up a highroad defense pool? Everybody who wants coverage tosses $10/year into the pool. Then, if somebody has to fire in self defense, the pool can go to pay for a lawyer to prove it, whether simply from the prosecuter, to grand jury or lawsuit.
If it's not used competely, it goes into a mutual fund to keep growing.
de
member
I checked yes. I have a gas operated shotgun over the bedroom door, and a 1911 by the bed. That's my self-defense insurance. I also have home-owners ins. that will replace the carpet. Sorry, I live in Texas, and that's the way I see it.
pythonguy
Member
I wonder, if it came down to it, how a jury would perceive a shooter as having taken out "self defense" insurance. Can anyone say premeditated???
kengrubb
Member
I've been hearing about what I consider to be bullsh*t claims that the NRA or some other organization offers a "self-defense insurance policy". Are we talking about an insurance policy that would pay for one's criminal defense if one shot an attacker in self defense?cloudedice said:
As FortyFive70 said, self defense is a deliberate action. Homeowners and umbrella policies cover accidents. If one were covered by the insurance, then one would have to claim something like, "Umm, officer, the gun went off by accident. I did not intend to shoot." One has just confessed to manslaughter if one's assailant dies.
The only insurance NRA offers is coverage on one's firearms in the event they are stolen.
If the NRA did offer such coverage to it's members, every career criminal would have an NRA Annual Membership. If they did a murder, they'd claim self defense, and they get a free lawyer. The insurance company would be bankrupt within a year.
MillCreek
Member
Having written extensively on the issue of the lack of coverage under a homeowner's policy, I largely agree with the statements of the claim adjuster above. With the exception that in many cases, the insurance company would likely seek a declaratory judgment ruling that they are under no obligation to provide a defense. If granted, the insurance company is then under no obligation to defend or indemnify you.
As I have said many times, depending on what state you live in, you very likely have no civil liability coverage under your homeowner's policy for a self-defense shooting, no matter how justified.
As I have said many times, depending on what state you live in, you very likely have no civil liability coverage under your homeowner's policy for a self-defense shooting, no matter how justified.
Condition Plaid
Member
The NRA does offer SD insurance policy. It's on their website under member services.
And not all insurance companies exclude self defense as an intentional act. I have it IN WRITING from mine that as long as an act of self defense is deemed justified (good shoot), they will cover it under both homeowners and personal umbrella. You will not find it written in most policies, so you have to get the opinion from their legal depertments.
And not all insurance companies exclude self defense as an intentional act. I have it IN WRITING from mine that as long as an act of self defense is deemed justified (good shoot), they will cover it under both homeowners and personal umbrella. You will not find it written in most policies, so you have to get the opinion from their legal depertments.
Car Knocker
Member
kengrubb,
From the NRA website:
The new Self-Defense coverage is a rider to the Excess Personal Liability coverage. It provides civil defense and liability and criminal defense reimbursement if you are involved in an act of self-defense.
What is Covered
Provides coverage up to the limit selected for bodily injury or property damage caused by an act of self-defense.
Cost of civil suit defense is provided in addition to the limit of liability for bodily injury and property damage.
Criminal Defense Reimbursement for alleged criminal actions involving self-defense when you are acquitted of such criminal charges or the charges are dropped.
Liability Limit Options
$100,000 Combined Single Limit with $50,000 criminal defense reimbursement sub-limit
$250,000 Combined Single Limit with $50,000 criminal defense reimbursement sub-limit
http://www.locktonrisk.com/nrains/selfdefense.asp
********************
From the NRA website:
The new Self-Defense coverage is a rider to the Excess Personal Liability coverage. It provides civil defense and liability and criminal defense reimbursement if you are involved in an act of self-defense.
What is Covered
Provides coverage up to the limit selected for bodily injury or property damage caused by an act of self-defense.
Cost of civil suit defense is provided in addition to the limit of liability for bodily injury and property damage.
Criminal Defense Reimbursement for alleged criminal actions involving self-defense when you are acquitted of such criminal charges or the charges are dropped.
Liability Limit Options
$100,000 Combined Single Limit with $50,000 criminal defense reimbursement sub-limit
$250,000 Combined Single Limit with $50,000 criminal defense reimbursement sub-limit
http://www.locktonrisk.com/nrains/selfdefense.asp
********************
MillCreek
Member
Condition Plaid, would you please be so kind as to post a transcript of the opinion provided by your insurance company? As an insurance expert, I would be most interested to read it.
MillCreek
Member
Hmm, some minor Googling shows this story: http://www.latimes.com/classified/r...ay21,0,3453098.story?coll=la-class-realestate
This article details a California court case, that went to the Federal Court of Appeals, in which coverage under a homeowners policy was denied for an intentional shooting due to the intentional act exclusion. The appellate court ruled that the insurance company did not have to provide coverage. This story is in May 2006.
With this in mind, I would be very surprised to to learn if Condition Plaid's insurer, covering a California insured, would agree to extend coverage for an intentional shooting, even in a justified self-defense situation. I await Mr. Plaid's opinion from his insurer with great interest.
This article details a California court case, that went to the Federal Court of Appeals, in which coverage under a homeowners policy was denied for an intentional shooting due to the intentional act exclusion. The appellate court ruled that the insurance company did not have to provide coverage. This story is in May 2006.
With this in mind, I would be very surprised to to learn if Condition Plaid's insurer, covering a California insured, would agree to extend coverage for an intentional shooting, even in a justified self-defense situation. I await Mr. Plaid's opinion from his insurer with great interest.
CraigJS
Member
Here is what the NRA sent me when I asked for specifics on their liability and self defence insurance.
Please take time to read these!
We buy home owners and car insurance, hopeing we never have to use it. Posting a legal defence could ruin us money wise as easily as either of the two above.
Be safe.
Please take time to read these!
We buy home owners and car insurance, hopeing we never have to use it. Posting a legal defence could ruin us money wise as easily as either of the two above.
Be safe.
Attachments
Condition Plaid
Member
Mill Creek, here is the relevant text from the e-mail.
"In general, if a homeowner injures an intruder in the act of self defense
or the defense of another person it is considered to have legal
justification and coverage for their defense will be triggered.
Presumption that insured's action which causes harm to victim was intended
to cause harm does not apply to language of “intentional acts” exclusion
clause in liability policy when insured acts in self-defense or with some
other justification; in such cases, question of intent must be resolved by
determination of basic purpose or desire underlying insured's conduct. Fire
Insurance Exchange v. Berray 694 P2d 191, AZ (1984) Act committed in
self-defense should not be considered “intentional act” within meaning of
exclusion from coverage under liability policy if insured “expected or
intended” bodily injury; disapproving Lockhart v. Allstate Insurance Co.,
119 Ariz. 150, 579 P.2d 1120 (1978).
If they are determined not to have acted in self defense or to have
escalated the incident, it will be considered to be without legal
justification or intentional and the exclusion will apply.
Insured's act of aiming and shooting gun at victim from a few feet away,
without legal justification, was inherently harmful and wrongful act, and,
thus, no separate proof of preconceived design to inflict injury was
required to determine whether act was “willful act” statutorily excluded
from coverage of homeowners' policy. West's Ann.Cal.Ins.Code § 533."
"In general, if a homeowner injures an intruder in the act of self defense
or the defense of another person it is considered to have legal
justification and coverage for their defense will be triggered.
Presumption that insured's action which causes harm to victim was intended
to cause harm does not apply to language of “intentional acts” exclusion
clause in liability policy when insured acts in self-defense or with some
other justification; in such cases, question of intent must be resolved by
determination of basic purpose or desire underlying insured's conduct. Fire
Insurance Exchange v. Berray 694 P2d 191, AZ (1984) Act committed in
self-defense should not be considered “intentional act” within meaning of
exclusion from coverage under liability policy if insured “expected or
intended” bodily injury; disapproving Lockhart v. Allstate Insurance Co.,
119 Ariz. 150, 579 P.2d 1120 (1978).
If they are determined not to have acted in self defense or to have
escalated the incident, it will be considered to be without legal
justification or intentional and the exclusion will apply.
Insured's act of aiming and shooting gun at victim from a few feet away,
without legal justification, was inherently harmful and wrongful act, and,
thus, no separate proof of preconceived design to inflict injury was
required to determine whether act was “willful act” statutorily excluded
from coverage of homeowners' policy. West's Ann.Cal.Ins.Code § 533."
RioShooter
Member
Following that logic, if you have fire insurance you're planning to burn your house; if you have collision insurance, you're planning to crash your car; if you have health insurance, you're planning to get sick; .......!
Condition Plaid
Member
Mill Creek, you might want to read the article you linked again. More carefully. It refers to an insurance company refusing to cover because of the CRIMINAL actions of the insured. The guy shot his ex and her boyfriend, and they sued his insurance company. That is NOT a self defense shooting.
MillCreek
Member
Yes, I did read the article and noted that. Generally speaking, the case law on this subject, which I am reasonably familiar with, usually does not distinguish the context of a deliberate shooting: self defense, criminal, or as occurred in this case, criminal while the shooter was psychologically impaired.
For purposes of insurance coverage, all that matters is that the shooting was not accidental, but deliberate to trigger the 'intentional acts' exclusion. A review of the many appellate case law decisions on this topic, that failed to find any insurance coverage, will show that many of the shootings were claimed to be in self-defense. I would emphasize, however, that some states, in the appellate law decisions, have found such civil liability coverage, if a shooting was in self-defense. What is unclear to me right now, is based upon Mr. Plaid's report, if California is one of those states. I am away from my office right now and my Lexis/Nexis account, so I can't do the necessary research.
For purposes of insurance coverage, all that matters is that the shooting was not accidental, but deliberate to trigger the 'intentional acts' exclusion. A review of the many appellate case law decisions on this topic, that failed to find any insurance coverage, will show that many of the shootings were claimed to be in self-defense. I would emphasize, however, that some states, in the appellate law decisions, have found such civil liability coverage, if a shooting was in self-defense. What is unclear to me right now, is based upon Mr. Plaid's report, if California is one of those states. I am away from my office right now and my Lexis/Nexis account, so I can't do the necessary research.
MillCreek
Member
Mr. Plaid, your profile says Orange County, but do you live in Arizona? I see that the material provided by your insurer refers to two decisions from the Arizona case law, and I am wondering if Arizona is one of the jurisdictions in which a homeowners' policy does provide some civil coverage for a self-defense shooting.
Is it legal to start a mutual insurance company like this?
If so, who is going to administer it?
$10 is not going to cut it. You would need a substantial pool of money, probably at least $100,000 just to be able to ensure you can fund a single defense, and even then the legal fees could well exceed that amount.
And just who decides its a legit SD case? And on what basis?
Condition Plaid
Member
Mill Creek,
Orange County, California. Just as it says under my name. As for Arizona, I have no idea. My carrier serves Arizona, among other states.
Orange County, California. Just as it says under my name. As for Arizona, I have no idea. My carrier serves Arizona, among other states.
- Status
