Self-Defense Insurance?

[CraigJS]

If I recall properly the 50,000 legal reembursment comes out of the 100,000 or 250,000. I don't think that its over and above the 100 or 250K. Still though, for either the lower or the higher protection, with todays sue,sue,sue, mentality, I don't believe that I can afford NOT to have this coverage..
Be safe.

 

[FortyFive70]

$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.

Defense costs are probably the most over-estimated aspect of any civil suit. Many people think that defending a case costs multiple tens of thousands of dollars. High profile cases may cost that much. But in my opinion, a run-of the-mill citizen would not incur such costs. It wouldn't be cheap, by any means, but nowhere near that expensive. One thing I've learned is that most attorneys are good folk that really aren't trying to make a fortune off someone who can't pay a fortune.

A defense attorney will probably charge a retainer fee which will be probably billed comensurate with your ability to pay. $5,000 would be on the very high end. The attorney would deduct from this his billable hours. If there is anything left, it would be refunded to you. If the attorney has an investigator, and most do, that investigator would also likely charge a retainer fee, but much less than the attorney. The investigator will gather the facts surrounding the case and present them to the attorney who will build a defense. The attorney will perform the attorney work, like depositions and actual trial.

The good part about a self defense case would be that the the criminal investigation will contain much of your defense. There would be a minimal number of defense experts that would be needed - much fewer than if you were being sued by someone you injured with your car.

In short, it will be expensive to defend a self-defense shooting, but no good attorney will try and break you. Another good thing is that it isn't cheap to prosecute a suit, either. The plaintiff attorney has to hire his own experts and they tend to charge high fees that the plaintiff personally has to pay.

 

[MillCreek]

Orange County, California. Just as it says under my name. As for Arizona, I have no idea. My carrier serves Arizona, among other states.

Hmm. Then how very odd that they quote Arizona case law to you as establishing coverage under a homeowners' policy in California. Arizona case law has no force and effect outside of Arizona, so I find it remarkable that an insurer would quote those cases on questions of interpreting a California policy. A given insurance company may write the exact same policy language in several states, and they usually do, using standard forms, but the interpretation of that same language can vary from state to state depending on how the state Insurance Department or appellate courts interpret it.

The other interesting thing is that if there was case law in California establishing coverage for a self-defense shooting, then every other homeowners policy written in the state by any company would extend the same coverage. Unless the company wrote a specific exclusion for it. Are there other California residents in this forum, and if so, have you asked your homeowners insurer about this?

It is not unusual in the insurance world that when an appellate court finds coverage where the insurance company did not intend coverage and did not collect any money for that coverage, the company subsequently writes a very specific exclusion that eliminates the coverage. A good example is a few years ago, lawyers' malpractice insurance was interpreted to provide coverage if the lawyer had sexual contact with his/her client. Now, just about every professional liability policy that I am aware of has a specific exclusion that denies coverage in this scenario.

You may be asking how an insurance company can write an exclusion to eliminate coverage that a court found existed. This is because most, if not almost all, of those coverage extensions are found due to ambiguity in the policy language. Policy language ambiguity is construed strictly in favor of the insured, not the insurance company. So if a clause can be interpreted in more than one way, it will usually be interpreted in a way that benefits the insured. So as ambiguous policy language and coverage extensions are identified, the insurance company rewrites the policy language and adds exclusions to make their intent more clear.

PS: And on the New York case cited above, I read that opinion. The court remarked that this was the first time such a case had been heard in New York state, and that when the court reviewed similar cases in other states, about 70% or so found no coverage, and the other 30% either found coverage or had no case law on the subject. It would be an interesting research project for some advocacy group to look at this issue across the country. The sticky wicket with that is that since case law and insurance policy language changes all the time, the group would have to keep current on all the jurisdictions and policy forms. A very big job.

 

[MillCreek]

Defense costs are probably the most over-estimated aspect of any civil suit. Many people think that defending a case costs multiple tens of thousands of dollars. High profile cases may cost that much.

My cases cost that much and then some. But then again, all my cases are defense of medical malpractice claims. If I take a relatively simple case to trial, and trial lasts two weeks, my total expense costs (legal fees, expert witnesses, depositions, copying, travel, independent medical exams and the like) are probably up around $ 200,000 or so. Major cases can approach $ 500,000 and more. But those costs are paid by the insurance company, not the insured.

Off topic, I know, but I thought some may find it interesting.

 

[Green Lantern]

Bob - I'm an NRA member with their Self-Defense insurance. Like you pointed put, it's hard to turn down just based on the cost! Also note that I do NOT live in a Castle Doctrine state. Only if I DID would I consider it "spending money on something I won't ever need."

 

[rtroha]

While my basic homeowner's policy doesn't cover self defense, my personal umbrella policy does specifically cover it. It says something like,"We don't cover deliberate acts that kill or injure someone unless in defense of person or property."

 

[Condition Plaid]

Mill Creek,

Don't know why, but it must mean something to them to quote it. And it is from their legal counsel, not some mid level manager. And this reponse did not come without work. I had to present the situation (self defense with a firearm) and push it up the chain. It took several weeks. I consider their response and policy in this matter adequate, am glad I have it in writing, and hope I never need to avail myself of it.

 

[Lupinus]

I've never heard of self defense insurence.

Personal liability and such and I figured if you say shot a home intruder it might be covered under some sort of policy but I never heard of a self defense insurence policy. Most interesting idea though and if it was something I could aford it would be something I would go for.

I may not plan on shooting anyone but I also don't plan on a flod sweeping my house away or it burning down, insurence is always good to have.

Bout my only worry would be is the nasty habbit of insurence companies have of paying off people who sue without a real case if the ammount they will settle for is less then the ammount of going to court for the company.

 

[Pat McCoy]

Some company's Personal Umbrella liability policies cover acts of self defense. Check with your agent and get a "specimen policy" to review. In the case of my primary company the exclusion for intentional acts includes wording to the effect that the exclusion does not include acts of defense of self or others. Unfortunately the definition of "Occurrence" is stil "an accident".

In light of ambiguities being resolved in the favor of the insured, this would probably mean there is coverage. I just hate to have to sell a policy based on an ambiguity.

In the case of the NRA policy, it protects ONLY the NRA member (not spouse or family members, as an Umbrella would), and only for defense of him/her self (not defense of others).

 

[Erebus]

Last year Massachusetts tried to pass a law that would require a $100K policy per gun. Luckily it never got traction and died.

My father told me probably 15 years ago that the antis will eliminate gun ownership not by blanket bans but by making it prohibitively expensive. I'm sure that he is likely right and wrong. They will ban what they can and make owning anything legel as difficult and expensive as possible.

 

[cloudedice]

In the case of the NRA policy, it protects ONLY the NRA member (not spouse or family members, as an Umbrella would), and only for defense of him/her self (not defense of others).

Thanks for making that point clear. I'm not out on my own yet, still got another year and a half for that, but I like to plan for the future. As such, I've been looking into self-defense insurance for the reasons mentioned by others.

I wasn't targeting the NRA's program with the poll, but hoping to focus on anyone who's bought insurance to cover themselves in the event of a lawsuit arising from a self-defense action. Many people may not have purchased an umbrella policy for that reason, but if it's covered, I'm sure it's nice to know you're safer.

Thanks to everyone who participated.

 

[MillCreek]

Mill Creek,

Don't know why, but it must mean something to them to quote it. And it is from their legal counsel, not some mid level manager. And this reponse did not come without work. I had to present the situation (self defense with a firearm) and push it up the chain. It took several weeks. I consider their response and policy in this matter adequate, am glad I have it in writing, and hope I never need to avail myself of it.

Mr. Plaid, you have done exactly what I would have in your situation. On complex questions of insurance policy interpretation, you simply cannot rely on the opinions of the agent or broker who sold you the policy. Since it is the legal or underwriting department that decides on coverage issues, an insured is advised to seek a written opinion from the department that is the decision maker on coverage matters. Case law and policy language does change from time to time, but you certainly have an opinion that applies for the current time.