Insurance for self defense shooting

[wellthought1]

Do any of you have insurance for the legal ramifications of using a firearm in self defense? I have heard that with just about any self defense shooting incident that a person may be arrested and heavily questioned by the police and that lawsuits or jail time could follow.

[Puller]

Previous thread with some good info on the topic.

Self-defense Insurance?

[murphydog]

There have been many discussions about this here. One from a few years back:

Concealed Carry Insurance

Look in the subforum where the above post resides and you'll find many more argum...uh, discussions.

[URIT]

Like too many things in the USA, once the insurance industry gets enough people on board we'll all need insurance to get a carry permit, buy ammo, or maybe even shoot a gun.

I'm not going to contribute.

I'll only use my handgun for self defense or against deadly force to another person. I'll file a civil suit against the person I was forced to use my weapon on ASAP.

[Echo40]

Not me. There are already far too many mandatory insurance policies for things which will most likely never happen that one has to pay for, so I cannot see voluntarily spending more money on yet another form of insurance that I'll most likely never have to make use of, may not even survive long enough to use, and if I do, then I'll have bigger problems to worry about.

If folks have the money to afford such insurance and see it as a good investment, then more power to them, but I can't afford to be paying for something that I may not ever need, and if I should, then I'd rather cross that bridge when I come to it, or at least wait until I foresee a higher probability of needing it.

[djohns6]

Yes . My wife and I both have CHP's and we are insured by USCCA . Most threads about this topic usually turn kind of nasty . Seems to be a very polarizing topic for some reason .

[SMSgt]

Originally Posted by wellthought1

Do any of you have insurance for the legal ramifications of using a firearm in self defense? I have heard that with just about any self defense shooting incident that a person may be arrested and heavily questioned by the police and that lawsuits or jail time could follow.

In order:
You've heard. Marketing is a terrible thing to waste. I have yet to hear a bunch of persons who defended themselves pleading for all gun owners to get insurance. It's always someone with an agenda or insurance connection. Decide based on your personal needs and desires.

You just shot someone. Of course you "may" get arrested. If your self-defense actions are under questionable circumstances, naturally LE is going to take a much closer look into it than an obvious robbery attempt in a parking lot or home invasion.

Clearly LE is going to ask questions. That's part of their job.

Again--you just shot someone. Lawsuits and jail time "could" follow. Contrary to the "Buy" group, it often does not. Again, shady circumstances can make matters worse for you. I'd be willing to venture and say most self-defense shooting result in neither kail time nor lawsuits. Some do. Do you feel lucky or do you think you need to stack the financial aspects on your side.

[djohns6]

Even a " good shoot " can result in a civil suit . SOME states shield you from civil liability , some do not . Mine doesn't . Remember , even a good shoot can cost you legal fees , lost wages , etc. And that's before the possible civil suit that may follow . Know your own risk .

[haywood]

I went with CCW- SAFE

[Donn]

Like any other type of insurance, you don't need it,,, till you need it. I have USCCA, fervently hoping I never have to find out if my money's well spent. That said, should the worst ever happen, I don't want to walk thru that legal minefield alone.

[blues7]

Originally Posted by haywood

I went with CCW- SAFE

I switched to them a few years back. (HR 218 Plan)

[85V65Sabre]

Originally Posted by URIT

Like too many things in the USA, once the insurance industry gets enough people on board we'll all need insurance to get a carry permit, buy ammo, or maybe even shoot a gun.

I'm not going to contribute.

I'll only use my handgun for self defense or against deadly force to another person. I'll file a civil suit against the person I was forced to use my weapon on ASAP.

It’s true…..
San Jose passes first U.S. law requiring gun owners to get liability insurance and pay annual fee - CBS News

[Breakaway500]

I have a well running backhoe..

[SMSgt]

Originally Posted by Breakaway500

I have a well running backhoe..

Walmart might not take kindly to you digging holes in its parking lot.

[Philbert4]

Very satisfied and confident with Armed Citizens' Legal Defense Network.

[SMSgt]

It's not insurance; it's a lawyer retainer fee.

[ISCS Yoda]

Originally Posted by 85V65Sabre

It’s true…..
San Jose passes first U.S. law requiring gun owners to get liability insurance and pay annual fee - CBS News

Yet another reason to stay out of California.

It's dopey, anyway - suppose you're from Los Angeles and driving through San Jose for some reason - does the law affect you?

It's also dopey for these reasons:


1. Full employment for lawyers - I guess I should support that:

The San Jose City Council overwhelmingly approved the measure despite opposition from gun owners who said it would violate their Second Amendment rights and promised to sue.

2. Good for sales, etc.:

Having liability insurance would encourage people in the 55,000 households in San Jose who legally own at least one registered gun to have gun safes, install trigger locks and take gun safety classes, Mayor Sam Liccardo said.

3. A breach of common law that is unsustainable:

The liability insurance would cover losses or damages resulting from any accidental use of the firearm, including death, injury, or property damage, according to the ordinance. If a gun is stolen or lost, the owner of the firearm would be considered liable until the theft or loss is reported to authorities.

4. A loophole for the good guys:

However, gun owners who don't have insurance won't lose their guns or face any criminal charges, the mayor said.

How stupid can these people get? Just curious.........

But to answer the OP's actual question, there are really no strong reasons against joining one of these pro-gun companies and getting the insurance they offer, it is like having a lawyer on retainer, so it's just a choice you get to make. I think about doing it all the time but have not yet done so. And I sleep well....

[9mmPatriot]

USCCA, been with them for years.

[jeffrefrig]

Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
I just don't need the added expense, seeing how I'm retired and on a fixed income. This is a large forum. Except for on duty LEOs and military personnel, how many people have actually had to defend themselves by shooting someone?

[djohns6]

Originally Posted by SMSgt

It's not insurance; it's a lawyer retainer fee.

USCCA is a lot more than that .

[sotexas]

USCCA. This for me is legal fees, bail, and civil suits. As with all insurance you must decide if you want to pay in the small chance it might be needed.

[Charlie Foxtrott]

Is that the attorneys that they generally have on retainer are not generally all that great. They are the ones that need the work. Good attorneys are never hurting for work. And they will never work on a retainer basis for an insurance outfit.

If one chooses to look further into this. If considering using a service like this ask them for the names of the Attorneys that might represent you. And then look them up on Martindale.com to see how they are rated. Look at the peer ratings as the customer ratings are cherry picked and as such are meaningless. Just sayin.

A five star rating being the best. Check it out.

[flagaman1950]

I do wish I could remember the carrier but old age wins out. Anyway, I read a year ago or so about a situation where the insurance carrier refused to pay because they, the insurance carrier, decided that the shoot was not justifiable. so they did not stand behind the "client" because, in their opinion, it was not justified. So much for innocent until proven guilty I guess.

[stansdds]

Insurance companies will try to find a way out of paying any claims, it's how they make money.

[BE Mike]

Unfortunately the only way to find out if your insurance is any good, is to file a claim. The bottom priced companies are usually the worst for backing clients.

[9mmPatriot]

As with all insurance you hate to pay for something you hope you'll never need, but you'll be in worse shape if you need it but don't have any.


It's a purchase decision only you can make.

[blues7]

Just for argument's sake, say you paid $400 per year for coverage, (civil as well as criminal), for 20 years.

That's $8,000.00

How far do you think $8,000.00 would get you if you faced a criminal proceeding this year? Or a civil litigation?

To me, it's money well spent to protect the money I have invested over a lifetime to secure a good life for my wife and myself.

There may be no perfect answer for everyone, but for me, CCW Safe is the right answer. (A few years ago, I had policies with other organizations, including one that is specifically tailored to federal law enforcement officers, both active and retired.)

YMMV.

[Execpro]

Spent almost a year researching all the legal groups that cover a self defense shooting, both criminal and civil coverage. It was CCW Safe hands
down for me!

[Charlie Foxtrott]

On the installment plan. Then by all means go for it.

[blues7]

Originally Posted by Charlie Foxtrott

On the installment plan. Then by all means go for it.

Perhaps you should provide evidence to back up your assertion. Simply saying so doesn't make it true...

...and to accept it on face value alone would be inferior (second rate) due diligence, imho.

From what I've gleaned, CCW Safe provided attorneys have prevailed at (at least) one murder trial, and other matters in which they have represented their members.

I've worked with many attorneys over the course of a career in law enforcement...not every one is, or can be the top in their field, but there are many competent attorneys nonetheless. (And a few that stink it up on both sides of the courtroom, defense as well as prosecution.)

[KennyM!]

Im not to sure which would be the best cause I am new at all the firearm stuff but when I got my CCP I signed up with Texas lawshield cause the man who signed me up was actually local and I may never need it and like some I see the points about being insurance d to death but hope I never have to use it but its just a little comfort.

[Charlie Foxtrott]

Originally Posted by blues7

Perhaps you should provide evidence to back up your assertion. Simply saying so doesn't make it true...

...and to accept it on face value alone would be inferior (second rate) due diligence, imho.

From what I've gleaned, CCW Safe provided attorneys have prevailed at (at least) one murder trial, and other matters in which they have represented their members.

I've worked with many attorneys over the course of a career in law enforcement...not every one is, or can be the top in their field, but there are many competent attorneys nonetheless. (And a few that stink it up on both sides of the courtroom, defense as well as prosecution.)

Now that is pretty impressive! By all means if one wishes to go in this direction, they certainly should.
But the fact is that attorneys are like everyone else. There are good ones and not very good ones. And you really do not want a lousy attorney representing you in a court of law. Or some kid fresh out of law school that just got his or her license. Especially for something like a shooting. A traffic offense maybe, but not something where you could potentially be sent away for a while.
Or pay out a bundle in damages.
I would just counsel anyone thinking of doing this to do their research. Just ask the service that you are considering to provide you with some names of attorneys that would be called upon to represent you. And then go on and check their peer ratings on Martindale.com.
There is no way that I would want an attorney to represent me in something like this that has less than a four star rating. Five stars even better.
If they have less than a four star rating they may not even be rated at all. In which case good luck with that. And be advised that customer ratings are meaningless as they can be cherry picked. Peer rating are the only ones that mean anything.

[Charlie Foxtrott]

Originally Posted by blues7

Perhaps you should provide evidence to back up your assertion. Simply saying so doesn't make it true...

...and to accept it on face value alone would be inferior (second rate) due diligence, imho.

From what I've gleaned, CCW Safe provided attorneys have prevailed at (at least) one murder trial, and other matters in which they have represented their members.

I've worked with many attorneys over the course of a career in law enforcement...not every one is, or can be the top in their field, but there are many competent attorneys nonetheless. (And a few that stink it up on both sides of the courtroom, defense as well as prosecution.)

All you have to do is check out the attorneys at Martindale.com and see how they are rated.

[BE Mike]

Originally Posted by Charlie Foxtrott

All you have to do is check out the attorneys at Martindale.com and see how they are rated.

Don't check with the local bar. It is basically a lawyer union and, in my experience, they recommend attorneys who need the money the most.

[djohns6]

Originally Posted by BE Mike

Don't check with the local bar. It is basically a lawyer union and, in my experience, they recommend attorneys who need the money the most.

Not true where I live . They come down hard on Attorneys that get caught doing things that are harmful to the profession .

[Charlie Foxtrott]

That a lot of lawyers are just plain bad performers of their profession. A lot of them come out of law school owing lots of money on student loans and are hungry for work.
These are the kind that get taken on by these shooting insurance outfits. That is why you will never see any of these insurance outfits advertise the credentials of their attorneys, just what they will supposedly provide you with.

[BE Mike]

Originally Posted by djohns6

Not true where I live . They come down hard on Attorneys that get caught doing things that are harmful to the profession .

Glad to hear it. I was just expressing my disappointment with my experiences I have had with lawyers. So far, they bat about 25% in my my view. I find many of them greedy, aloof, lazy and incompetent. The good ones are gems. I've been fortunate not to need any legal advice very often.

[1canvas]

Originally Posted by Philbert4

Very satisfied and confident with Armed Citizens' Legal Defense Network.

That’s what I have had for many years but starting to think of a better policy that would cover bond. ACLDN doesn’t seem very definitive on their coverages and dispersal of funds.
Coming from a family of LEOs I have a better idea of what’s involved in the event of a shooting.

[NCBeagle]

Originally Posted by Charlie Foxtrott

Is that the attorneys that they generally have on retainer are not generally all that great. They are the ones that need the work. Good attorneys are never hurting for work. And they will never work on a retainer basis for an insurance outfit.

If one chooses to look further into this. If considering using a service like this ask them for the names of the Attorneys that might represent you. And then look them up on Martindale.com to see how they are rated. Look at the peer ratings as the customer ratings are cherry picked and as such are meaningless. Just sayin.

A five star rating being the best. Check it out.

CCW Safe for me, a defense attorney who represents business and industry, including insurance companies and the their insureds in different matters.

Your post suggests, perhaps, that you do not appreciate how much litigation is backed by insurance coverage. Might not be the case, but it reads that way. In fact, most companies with sufficient assets and awareness have insurance policies to cover employment practices liability, officers and directors liability, different types of professional negligence, general liability, workers compensation, etc. These companies are not coming out of pocket, beyond a self-insured retention or deductible, very often.

I regularly represent huge multinational corporations, professional sports teams, constuction companies, casinos, different types of manufacturers, hospitals, banks and the like, my firm having been retained by their insurance company pursuant to a policy. A lot of small and medium sized businesses too. Most of these folks think that that I am pretty good.

What do you mean when you say, "and they will never work on a retainer basis for an insurance company"? Do you know how a retainer works? Basically, it is a deposit against which the attorney will bill his fees and costs. So, let's say that you walk into my office and say, "Hi, I've been accused of "XXXX" and I need a lawyer." If we have no history together, I might ask you to deposit $25,000 - $50,000 against which (retainer) against which the firm bills its hourly rate, expenses, etc. The fee agreement would typically have you replenishing the retainer if exhausted, or after mediation, or before trial, etc. This is so we do not have to chase our money. It's a fairly typical arrangement. The funny thing, is that most of the insurance companies do not pay a retainer. We (the firm) are panel counsel and do a lot of work for them. We have little concern about a massive insurance company paying its bill. Now, to be sure, it will try to cut the bill here and there and pay a lower rate than those paying "out of pocket". Insurance companies have the bargaining power to negotiate a lower rate. No doubt.

Your comment about good lawyers not working for/with insurance companies just misses the mark. You've excluded most firms and certainly every major law firm in the United States. Think about this, how many criminal defendants can actually pay a lawyer's bill? I can tell you, there are plenty of GREAT criminal defense attorneys who would appreciate the opportunity to defend a case with insurance company backing.

That said, I chose the liability coverage option that CCW Safe offers because, to me, it makes sense that the insurance company should have some "skin in the game." Oh, and Martindale is basically irrelevant. Your post is probably the first time that I've heard anything about Martindale in 10+ years.

[Charlie Foxtrott]

But that is all well and fine. But I have better things to do than point them all out. If someone wants to buy insurance coverage for any reason, they should do so by all means.
All I would advise them to do is check the credentials of the attorneys that might represent them prior to doing so. They might be surprised.

As for Martindale being obsolete. Why do you not run a check on Brian Panish. The guy that has been hired by the family of the late Halyna Hutchins to represent them. Kind of interesting that an outfit that nobody pays attention to anymore gives him a five star rating.

Let me guess, you are probably working for or part owner of one off these shooting insurance outfits.

Assuming that you actually do what you say you do. This is not the kind of service that is typically offered by these shooting insurance outfits.


Your post suggests, perhaps, that you do not appreciate how much litigation is backed by insurance coverage. Might not be the case, but it reads that way. In fact, most companies with sufficient assets and awareness have insurance policies to cover employment practices liability, officers and directors liability, different types of professional negligence, general liability, workers compensation, etc. These companies are not coming out of pocket, beyond a self-insured retention or deductible, very often.

"I regularly represent huge multinational corporations, professional sports teams, constuction companies, casinos, different types of manufacturers, hospitals, banks and the like, my firm having been retained by their insurance company pursuant to a policy. A lot of small and medium sized businesses too. Most of these folks think that that I am pretty good" .

[Charlie Foxtrott]

Originally Posted by NCBeagle

CCW Safe for me, a defense attorney who represents business and industry, including insurance companies and the their insureds in different matters.

Your post suggests, perhaps, that you do not appreciate how much litigation is backed by insurance coverage. Might not be the case, but it reads that way. In fact, most companies with sufficient assets and awareness have insurance policies to cover employment practices liability, officers and directors liability, different types of professional negligence, general liability, workers compensation, etc. These companies are not coming out of pocket, beyond a self-insured retention or deductible, very often.

I regularly represent huge multinational corporations, professional sports teams, constuction companies, casinos, different types of manufacturers, hospitals, banks and the like, my firm having been retained by their insurance company pursuant to a policy. A lot of small and medium sized businesses too. Most of these folks think that that I am pretty good.

What do you mean when you say, "and they will never work on a retainer basis for an insurance company"? Do you know how a retainer works? Basically, it is a deposit against which the attorney will bill his fees and costs. So, let's say that you walk into my office and say, "Hi, I've been accused of "XXXX" and I need a lawyer." If we have no history together, I might ask you to deposit $25,000 - $50,000 against which (retainer) against which the firm bills its hourly rate, expenses, etc. The fee agreement would typically have you replenishing the retainer if exhausted, or after mediation, or before trial, etc. This is so we do not have to chase our money. It's a fairly typical arrangement. The funny thing, is that most of the insurance companies do not pay a retainer. We (the firm) are panel counsel and do a lot of work for them. We have little concern about a massive insurance company paying its bill. Now, to be sure, it will try to cut the bill here and there and pay a lower rate than those paying "out of pocket". Insurance companies have the bargaining power to negotiate a lower rate. No doubt.

Your comment about good lawyers not working for/with insurance companies just misses the mark. You've excluded most firms and certainly every major law firm in the United States. Think about this, how many criminal defendants can actually pay a lawyer's bill? I can tell you, there are plenty of GREAT criminal defense attorneys who would appreciate the opportunity to defend a case with insurance company backing.

That said, I chose the liability coverage option that CCW Safe offers because, to me, it makes sense that the insurance company should have some "skin in the game." Oh, and Martindale is basically irrelevant. Your post is probably the first time that I've heard anything about Martindale in 10+ years.

Got a name?

[Charlie Foxtrott]

"I regularly represent huge multinational corporations, professional sports teams, constuction companies, casinos, different types of manufacturers, hospitals, banks and the like, my firm having been retained by their insurance company pursuant to a policy. A lot of small and medium sized businesses too. Most of these folks think that that I am pretty good."

That is pretty interesting in and of itself as most really good attorneys usually do.

[csurp34]

I will be switching from USCCA to CCW Safe in a few months when my USCCA policy expires for several reasons.

One is that USCCA has changed its terms and now they have the option to charge back if you are found guilty. I assume that also means if taking a plea becomes a sensible option.


The second reason is that noted self defense attorney, Andrew Branca, has come to the same conclusion

[NCBeagle]

Originally Posted by Charlie Foxtrott

Got a name?

I'll send it to you via private message.

I am well known to many of the folks on here. Join the S&WCA and come over to the "private side" and my name will be right there for you. PM inbound.

[NCBeagle]

Originally Posted by Charlie Foxtrott

"I regularly represent huge multinational corporations, professional sports teams, constuction companies, casinos, different types of manufacturers, hospitals, banks and the like, my firm having been retained by their insurance company pursuant to a policy. A lot of small and medium sized businesses too. Most of these folks think that that I am pretty good."

That is pretty interesting in and of itself as most really good attorneys usually do.

You asked, "Do you specialize in anything?" My practice is 100% litigation. Employment law, product liability, professional negligence, other civil liability matters. It's not a transactional practice. My clients have been sued, or are likely going to be sued.

[giants1]

Originally Posted by NCBeagle

You asked, "Do you specialize in anything?" My practice is 100% litigation. Employment law, product liability, professional negligence, other civil liability matters. It's not a transactional practice. My clients have been sued, or are likely going to be sued.

Thanks for your post and service to our country.

CCW Safe is on my short list. Would you tell us your reasons for selecting CCW Safe?

Also, is there any benefit of having an umbrella policy, my being a homeowner, or do those typically exclude self-defense incidents?

[NCBeagle]

Originally Posted by giants1

Thanks for your post and service to our country.

CCW Safe is on my short list. Would you tell us your reasons for selecting CCW Safe?

Also, is there any benefit of having an umbrella policy, my being a homeowner, or do those typically exclude self-defense incidents?

One reason, I liked CCW Safe's "unlimited" (everything is limited in some way) defense plus $1,000,000.00 liablity coverage. It's not a wasting policy, where the defense cost eats away at the amount available to pay a judgement. Also, on the civil side, I think it is important for the insurance company paying for your defense to share the financial risk.

As for homeowner and umbrella policies, I cannot comment on your specific policy. Often, homeowners policies and related umbrella policies exclude intentional acts or have other exclusions which, arguably, exclude self-defense coverage. The coverage issue can be a subject of litigation. Courts have gone both ways depending upon the policy language, precedent, etc. Best answer, review the policy yourself and/or with an an attorney to determine to what extent, if any, it might cover self-defense incidents.

FYI, I am far from an expert in self-defense insurance coverage. I signed up for CCW Safe recently. Feel like like it is the best choice for me. Something else might work better for you. It might be just as good not to buy any insurance. In my profession, see insurance pay for A LOT of litigation. Insurance is cheap. Litigation is expensive. My personal choice, this is a risk for which I want to be insured.

[blues7]

The beagle has a dog in this fight. (I couldn't help myself.)

Seems he and I are on the same side. Yet another attorney to throw on my good guy list. What's next? Free beer?

So far, so good with CCW Safe.

(I've had private communications with a few of their folks from Stan Campbell, to Steve Moses and Rob High...and all have impressed me with their replies. This is not evidence of anything, but offered as "for what it's worth". That said, I trust my inner radar. It's rarely let me down, professionally or personally.)

[giants1]

Thanks, NCBeagle and Blues7.

Blues7, suffice it to say that NCBeagle is NOT barking up the wrong tree, LOL.

Is there a sort of moral hazard in having the liability insurance portion, in that the personal injury attorneys are more likely to litigate, going after the policy limits?

[blues7]

Originally Posted by giants1

Thanks, NCBeagle and Blues7.

Blues7, suffice it to say that NCBeagle is NOT barking up the wrong tree, LOL.

Is there a sort of moral hazard in having the liability insurance portion, in that the personal injury attorneys are more likely to litigate, going after the policy limits?

I don't know if we can generalize, and some states indemnify individuals who have been found to be within the parameters of the law in defending themselves.

That said, I wouldn't put anything past opposing counsel based upon my experiences in court while working as an LEO.

So the answer, to my mind, is to be prepared for anything.

In any case, having the financial backing, (civil and criminal), is something I value in the event I ever find myself in need of legal services for defending myself or loved ones.