Anticipating Civil Liability

[federali]

I think we can all agree that any use of a firearm against another is likely to result in a civil lawsuit, not to mention the potential criminal aspects. Use-of-force is currently one of the most litigious elements in our legal system.

For those of you who CCW or who also work in armed security, does anyone try to minimize financial risk or exposure by not having assets in his name? I'm not a lawyer but I believe that once a lawsuit is filed against you, it's probably too late to attempt to move assets beyond reach.

[Cal44]

I do have liability insurance, but that's it.

I suppose one could move to Florida and put all his money into a house. As I understand it in FL you can't lose your house in a BK. This is what OJ did.

[Doug M.]

It would be too late to move assets and also likely be treated as a fraud on the court.

That said, people get wrapped around the axle about civil liability without studying the context, history, or issues. The legal climate where the events occurs makes a huge difference. Some states preclude such lawsuits under various theories. Some locales will result in a jury laughing a plaintiff out of court, if the defendant does not prevail on summary judgment.

The climate nationwide has evolved a lot since the 70s/80s, in large part due to the fruit of the efforts of Ayoob and a few others. Know the law (not the folklore of it, the actual law), be able to articulate the perceptions that explain your actions, avoid stupid places and stupid people, and the risk is minimal. Fear of liability and other consequences has been shown to be very dangerous to cops in such situations, and I suspect it will be with civilians, too.

Lawyers: you should know, up front, what lawyer you want. This is a VERY ARCANE area, and the number of lawyers qualified to work in it is small. I doubt there are 10 in this state (and that is probably too high) and I suspect the total nationwide is between 1000 - 1500, probably closer to the lower number. Be discreet in your inquiries - some would argue (incorrectly, and it should not be admissible) that prior research is indicative of a bad mindset.

[bhayles]

The chances of having to shoot someone, or even draw, are slim, but if I do:

1. I will be able to articulate how I am the victim and the shot person is the perp.
2. I will be able to point out evidence at the scene before it disappears.
3. I will be able to point out witnesses before they disappear.
4. I will then shut up until I have talked to my lawyer. When a cop shoots someone they get 24 to as much as 72 hours before investigators interview them, in order for the adrenaline dump and other psyco/physical effects to9 calm down, and they talk to their (union provided) lawyer. I will politely ask for the same treatment.
5. I am a member of the Armed Citizen Legal Defense Network, so legal bills are covered.
6. As backup for the ACLDN I have $1M liability on my homeowners insurance, which also covers off property incidents, like a self defense shooting, and it pays legal fees AND civil judgements.
7. Finally, I have a $2M personal umbrella policy that picks up when the homeowners runs out OR something weird happens that the homeowners insurance doesn't cover.

Altogether, I figure it will take expenses/judgements exceeding $3.5 to 4M to get past my protection and into my personal pocket.

[ankona]

Being a member of the "Armed Citizen Legal Defense" does not necessarily mean that your legal defenses will be paid. Directly from their website: "Grants of further funding for legal defense expenses after justifiable self defense if criminally charged or sued in civil court". What exactly does this mean? So if you are wrongfully charged (AKA not a self defense scenario) they have no obligation to assist you? I am a little leary of these types of companies.

[hoosierone]

Years ago, under my lawyers advice, I got a $1million liability umbrella policy. Very reasonable, about $140 a year.

[NEURON]

Does anyone know what the "normal" payout is in these scenarios? It seems to me they are multi-millon dollar judgements usually. I would think they would look at your assets and go after them PLUS the insurance. Still a good idea for only $140.00 year.

[gunnails]

Originally Posted by federali

I think we can all agree that any use of a firearm against another is likely to result in a civil lawsuit, not to mention the potential criminal aspects. Use-of-force is currently one of the most litigious elements in our legal system.

For those of you who CCW or who also work in armed security, does anyone try to minimize financial risk or exposure by not having assets in his name? I'm not a lawyer but I believe that once a lawsuit is filed against you, it's probably too late to attempt to move assets beyond reach.

============================

Interesting thought, maybe some sort of trust?

[Old cop]

I don't know where it comes from that a cop has 24 to 48 hours after shooting someone before they have to give a statement. I was involved in more than one shooting, plus worked the other side of the desk as an IA investigator in officer involved shooting cases. In all instances the involved officer was required to give a written statement that same day, usually w/I just a couple of hours of the event.

[Doug M.]

Modern research about memory; the post - Garrity evolution of legal knowledge, and the corrected paradigm that includes the realization that the cop is almost always the victim of the crime that results in the use of force. Typically now, in a correctly done OIS investigation, the only immediate statement required of an officer is in the nature of a tactical debrief to assist other responding officers in addressing the needs of others on scene, looking for other offenders, etc.

[Muss Muggins]

Originally Posted by federali

I think we can all agree that any use of a firearm against another is likely to result in a civil lawsuit, not to mention the potential criminal aspects. Use-of-force is currently one of the most litigious elements in our legal system.

I don't agree. Point to one recently that doesn't have Zimmerman in the title . . .

[cololab]

Definitely get some type of professional or private liability insurance that would cover your use of a weapon. These policies are much more commonplace nowadays and may not so automatically convey the impression that you were anticipating shooting someone. I think it is a missed opportunity to protect your assets if you don't avail yourself of this type of coverage.

[CALREB]

Well when states ( if you can still call it that) like California make it profitable to be a crook. And out of work (as in toooo many) lawyers make a living off of good peoples misfortune.Recently a crook in LA plead guilty to 17 burglaries and got 6 months. Theres justice.
Now if a poor citizen had shot him, he would have got 5 years and the crook a couple million because now he cant become a microbiologist, ,who would have cured cancer and fathered a future president, then been granted sainthood. Im telling you we are getting close to being in real trouble.
We really need a law where if you lose the lawsuit you pay all the legal cost, then these suits wouldnt come up near as often.
We have insurance and all that but its insane to allow person who brings it on themselves to profit from something that happens to them while commiting criminal activity..
If their are "abuses" by the police or citizens, fine, fire them, fine them or whatever, but the criminal shouldnt get anything. MY .02. Bob

[federali]

There have been several high-profile use-of-force incidents recently, all of which made headlines and civil suits have already begun or have been threatened in some instances. However, specific mention of these cases is likely to result in the thread being locked so I say no more.

Some individuals are lucky in that their local laws preclude a civil suit where a grand jury returns a no-true-bill. Not so where I live.

I too have an umbrella policy but to my knowledge, such policies do not cover liability resulting from what is later determined to be a criminal act despite your good-faith efforts to comply with the law as it applies to you. Also, a personal umbrella policy would not cover liability incident to your employment.

People may face significant liability following a serious automobile accident. But, the umbrella policy would normally kick in once you've exhausted you automobile insurance coverage. I simply do not know the intricacies of the various policies. If you are relying on a personal umbrella policy to protect you following the use of force, perhaps you may want to re-read your policy or at least check with your insurance broker.

Frankly, I didn't anticipate many of the intelligent comments and points of view expressed in this thread and I do appreciate them and I've also learned from them.

[Cal44]

Before signing up for a policy I checked with my home owner's insurance company. They said a self defense action would not be covered because the policy excludes liability for deliberate acts. So, if you shoot (or hit with a baseball bat) a burglar, since you deliberately hit him, you are not covered.

Not sure about my umbrella since it's from a different company.

[Derosa]

I am curious - has any research been done to document how many lawsuits have occurred as a result of using a firearm in a self defence situation? I tend to believe it has been done, but, am not aware of where it might be located. Opinions?

[REM 3200]

Originally Posted by bhayles

The chances of having to shoot someone, or even draw, are slim, but if I do:

1. I will be able to articulate how I am the victim and the shot person is the perp.
2. I will be able to point out evidence at the scene before it disappears.
3. I will be able to point out witnesses before they disappear.
4. I will then shut up until I have talked to my lawyer. When a cop shoots someone they get 24 to as much as 72 hours before investigators interview them, in order for the adrenaline dump and other psyco/physical effects to9 calm down, and they talk to their (union provided) lawyer. I will politely ask for the same treatment.
5. I am a member of the Armed Citizen Legal Defense Network, so legal bills are covered.
6. As backup for the ACLDN I have $1M liability on my homeowners insurance, which also covers off property incidents, like a self defense shooting, and it pays legal fees AND civil judgements.
7. Finally, I have a $2M personal umbrella policy that picks up when the homeowners runs out OR something weird happens that the homeowners insurance doesn't cover.

Altogether, I figure it will take expenses/judgements exceeding $3.5 to 4M to get past my protection and into my personal pocket.

Probably not a good idea to tell the world the limits of your liability insurance.

[scott1970]

Three co-workers of mine have shot and killed folks at work and didn't get sued. A non police buddy of mine shot the mess out of his girlfriend's ex as he broke into their love shack, and he didn't get sued. And a friend of my brother shot and killed a man who broke into his house without getting sued. So, shooting folks and/or killing them doesn't automatically mean a lawsuit is coming down the pike. Of course it does happen, but I'm not inclined to believe it is the sure thing I read about so much online.

[Yorkie Man]

As a former police officer who was involved in several shootings my advice would be to learn your local laws and avoid conflict if at all possible. I was sued in Federal court for a civil forfiture which drug on for 3 years. The shootings went without any litigation probably due to the fact that they were all a last resort where I had exhausted all of the other means available to me at the time. I avoid conflict because I don't want to go through that experience again. I am not afraid just have more to lose now.

[Florida J Frame]

Remember that any legal advice you get on an internet site is worth exactly what you pay for it. Contact an attorney before you need to.

[Gamecock]

The chances of the average person having to shoot someone are astronomical. Say 1 in a hundred thousand. Unless you are in a dangerous environment, the cost of the insurance is greater than the risk.

[LoboGunLeather]

Originally Posted by CALREB

Well when states ( if you can still call it that) like California make it profitable to be a crook. And out of work (as in toooo many) lawyers make a living off of good peoples misfortune.Recently a crook in LA plead guilty to 17 burglaries and got 6 months. Theres justice.
Now if a poor citizen had shot him, he would have got 5 years and the crook a couple million because now he cant become a microbiologist, ,who would have cured cancer and fathered a future president, then been granted sainthood. Im telling you we are getting close to being in real trouble.
We really need a law where if you lose the lawsuit you pay all the legal cost, then these suits wouldnt come up near as often.
We have insurance and all that but its insane to allow person who brings it on themselves to profit from something that happens to them while commiting criminal activity..
If their are "abuses" by the police or citizens, fine, fire them, fine them or whatever, but the criminal shouldnt get anything. MY .02. Bob

No, we need a statute that requires that the low-life scum-sucking bottom-feeding lawyer who files a lawsuit and loses at the courthouse must pay all costs of litigation and defense. This nonsense of contingency fee litigation must stop, and the only way to make that happen is to attack the wallets of those who profit from it.

Rant over.

[Florida J Frame]

Originally Posted by LoboGunLeather

No, we need a statute that requires that the low-life scum-sucking bottom-feeding lawyer who files a lawsuit and loses at the courthouse must pay all costs of litigation and defense. This nonsense of contingency fee litigation must stop, and the only way to make that happen is to attack the wallets of those who profit from it.

Rant over.

Take a look at Florida law.

[Golphin]

Originally Posted by Cal44

Before signing up for a policy I checked with my home owner's insurance company. They said a self defense action would not be covered because the policy excludes liability for deliberate acts. So, if you shoot (or hit with a baseball bat) a burglar, since you deliberately hit him, you are not covered.

Not sure about my umbrella since it's from a different company.

This is correct. I am a insurance agent in Florida and have been for 32 years. Coverage will vary from state to state but not much when it comes to your home and auto policy. The umbrella policy would most times treat the situation the same as the homeowner insurer. Also your umbrella does not kick in until you have reach 300K and some are 500K. That said they still may be obligated to defend depending on how it happened. For a criminal charge no way insurance will help and if you lose that you can forget any help from your liability insurance when the civil case starts. Anyone with a lot of assets should talk to an estate attorney for advice on things like a trust or other protections. That could be needed for a bad car accident or pool drowning not just a shooting incident. In Florida they can not take your retirement or your house. I think you can get a judgement against your home that would pay them if you ever sold the home. Filing bankruptcy you don't give up your home in Florida.

[Muss Muggins]

Originally Posted by Derosa

I am curious - has any research been done to document how many lawsuits have occurred as a result of using a firearm in a self defence situation? I tend to believe it has been done, but, am not aware of where it might be located. Opinions?

There can't be that many, because if there were, the links and cites would be all over this forum . . . There is, however, a ton of undocumented anecdotal made up thinking that permeates the zeitgeist and is dispelled like the Gospel without a micron of actual truth.

[Florida J Frame]

Florida statute.

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use or threatened use of force.—
(1) A person who uses or threatens to use force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in such conduct and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use or threatened use of such force by the person, personal representative, or heirs of the person against whom the force was used or threatened, unless the person against whom force was used or threatened is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using or threatening to use force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

[walkin' trails]

Originally Posted by LoboGunLeather

No, we need a statute that requires that the low-life scum-sucking bottom-feeding lawyer who files a lawsuit and loses at the courthouse must pay all costs of litigation and defense. This nonsense of contingency fee litigation must stop, and the only way to make that happen is to attack the wallets of those who profit from it.

Rant over.

Personally, I think we need a law that says that if you're committing a crime that involves invading someone else's personal space causing g them to reasonably believe that they are in danger of death or serious bodily injury including sexual assault, or against an innocent third party, then neither you nor your survivors have any right at all to even file.

[Comrad]

Originally Posted by hoosierone

Years ago, under my lawyers advice, I got a $1million liability umbrella policy. Very reasonable, about $140 a year.

I did too but for other reasons but sadly today, a million ain't what it used to be.

[ClayCow]

Originally Posted by REM 3200

Probably not a good idea to tell the world the limits of your liability insurance.

Because why? Lawyers can request the limits when you get sued and theyll get it one way or another. So why is it bad?

Originally Posted by CALREB

Well when states ( if you can still call it that) like California make it profitable to be a crook. And out of work (as in toooo many) lawyers make a living off of good peoples misfortune.Recently a crook in LA plead guilty to 17 burglaries and got 6 months. Theres justice.
Now if a poor citizen had shot him, he would have got 5 years and the crook a couple million because now he cant become a microbiologist, ,who would have cured cancer and fathered a future president, then been granted sainthood. Im telling you we are getting close to being in real trouble.
We really need a law where if you lose the lawsuit you pay all the legal cost, then these suits wouldnt come up near as often.
We have insurance and all that but its insane to allow person who brings it on themselves to profit from something that happens to them while commiting criminal activity..
If their are "abuses" by the police or citizens, fine, fire them, fine them or whatever, but the criminal shouldnt get anything. MY .02. Bob

Unfortunately if loser pays the fees the legal system would become favorably with the big pockets. No one could afford to sue Ford ir any big corporations even with legitimate cause. It sucks but its checks and balances. Imagine if you had a legitimate lawsuit against someone and lost.(which isnt uncommon)

[federali]

With most members of Congress being lawyers and with the politically powerful American Trial Lawyers Association breathing down their collective collar, tort reform is a common campaign pledge but never happens. And so, remain a government of the people, by and for the lawyers.

[SMSgt]

If you shoot the guy while he's robbing you with a gun, the jury is not going to sympathetic toward his loving family if it even makes it that far.

[southcoast]

Originally Posted by federali

With most members of Congress being lawyers and with the politically powerful American Trial Lawyers Association breathing down their collective collar, tort reform is a common campaign pledge but never happens. And so, remain a government of the people, by and for the lawyers.

Some measures of tort reform were passed on a federal level years ago, and some states including Mississippi passed similar measures significantly limiting the large payouts that use to be common. Damages were capped and getting class action certification of became very difficult.

[RSanch111]

I think we can all agree that any use of a firearm against another is likely to result in a civil lawsuit,

That's simply 2+2=5 wrong.... They just tell you that at CPL classes so you don't go around shooting everyone you're justified in shooting. Like any cop will tell you, if they shot everyone they were legally justified in shooting, they would all have been either medically retired or taken off the street. Especially these days.

[Muss Muggins]

Originally Posted by walkin' trails

Personally, I think we need a law that says that if you're committing a crime that involves invading someone else's personal space causing g them to reasonably believe that they are in danger of death or serious bodily injury including sexual assault, or against an innocent third party, then neither you nor your survivors have any right at all to even file.

Even if you don't get convicted?

[ClayCow]

Originally Posted by federali

I think we can all agree that any use of a firearm against another is likely to result in a civil lawsuit, not to mention the potential criminal aspects. Use-of-force is currently one of the most litigious elements in our legal system.

For those of you who CCW or who also work in armed security, does anyone try to minimize financial risk or exposure by not having assets in his name? I'm not a lawyer but I believe that once a lawsuit is filed against you, it's probably too late to attempt to move assets beyond reach.

We can agree. But i doubt anyone has looked at the numbers or the rates. It doesnt help that not all SD cases are the same.