• Update – 12:30 PM EST
    Attachments are now working, and all members can once again upload files.
    We are currently testing URL redirects and other miscellaneous features across the site.
    Thank you for your continued patience and support during this migration.

    Prefer a darker look? You can switch between light and dark modes in your account settings:
    smith-wessonforum.com/account/preferences

Question about CCW Safe self defense "insurance"

lrrifleman said:
Sadly, I have been the victim of the good hands people. One of their insured crossed the line, hit me head on, nearly killed me. I died twice on the medivac. Because their policy holder had a stroke at some time after the accident, they tried to deny my claim by stating that the accident was the result of an act of God.
Click to expand...
Good hands people....I agree I had them years ago. Their hands are in your pockets and they are a horrible company..
 
Waste of money. If you ever really NEED it, you're not going to want the kind of attorney they provide with your "coverage".
 
After doing more research I will not use CCWSafe. I have corresponded by email with them more than once and they won't simply tell me if they have a lawyer in my city, which would allow for a quick response if the situation should arise.
 
Collects said:
In every state of the USA, it is against public policy (meaning, illegal) for insurance companies to pay for most* intentional acts that cause damages (ie, crimes), because we, the people, do not want criminals to do their dirty work, then make an insurance company pay for the damages the criminals cause.

*Most. Many homeowners policies cover defamation (libel and slander), which are intentional torts (civil wrongs).

Thus, before an insurer may legally pay a claim on a self-defense policy, it must be determined that the insurer acted in legitimate self defense, and did not commit a crime.

Ohio has statute to the effect that, if one shoots an assailant in justified self defense, and it is so determined by the authorities at any of the times when it could be so determined, then the legitimate defender is statutorily immune from having to pay any damages to the attacker whom the defender was forced to shoot in self defense.
Click to expand...
Since when??? Ohio the attackers family can sue out the wazoo
 
lrrifleman said:
Sadly, I have been the victim of the good hands people. One of their insured crossed the line, hit me head on, nearly killed me. I died twice on the medivac. Because their policy holder had a stroke at some time after the accident, they tried to deny my claim by stating that the accident was the result of an act of God.
Click to expand...

Been down the same road with the same people, only not as painful as yours. In the 70's, they paid off the guy who did the same thing to me. He sued me, hoping to scare me off and attach some liability on my part. Rather than go to court, they gave him money and then refused to replace my car, offering a cash settlement of less than half the replacement cost. While that fight was ongoing, they dropped me for "non-payment of premium". I told them I was going out of the country, kept just the comprehensive, put my new car on jack stands in a garage while I was out of the country, and they mailed the premium notice to someone with my name but a different address. When I came home, no insurance. They refused to reinstate and had dinged my credit report. Welcome home from the good hands people.
I'm so sorry for what happened to you; it's a really bad deal.

BTW, thanks for bring up the issue of the insurance. It's been on and off the stove for me for a while now. The recent shooting of that poor Virginia State Trooper brought it back to the front burner. I've been in that bus terminal, in the coffee shop many times to pick up someone.
 
I checked into a few legal defense options and USCCA from what I read was IMO a poor choice. I went with Texas Law Shield which now is in many other states.
I pay around $140 a year and I pay nothing more for legal defense should I have a problem arise concerning my use of a gun. This legal team of lawyers specializes in gun law defense. This is not merely a legal retainer it is full legal representation should I need it.
Read what a plan covers and what it doesn't cover. People don't realize the minimum for legal defense could easily start at $25,000. If a person ends up in jail for arraignment they don't want to be wondering what law firm to call and how to come up with thousands of dollars they often don't have laying around. I make a phone call and an attorney specialized in gun law is by my side. I don't pay a dime more for him representing me.
 
home owners insurance, renters insurance, car, no fault, uninsured motorist, motorcycle passenger insurance ( not needed in ME but still sold), health, donut hole, catastrophic health, perscription, death, burial,veterinary (im not making that one up)........

insurance co. and their pals in the gov. will take every $.01 it can steal and then refuse to cover you any way they can, or in case of a disaster area have the tax payers pay so the insurance co. dont get hurt. just get prescribed a med thats not on the "covered" list. they have worked for years making us believe that we need to be insured in case of...LIFE.

you shoot someone and your done. stick a fork in ya. thankfully most of us will never have to find out.
 
The major differences between Insurance Companies and "Legal Defense Funds" is that insurance companies are regulated and reviewed by the State, must maintain sufficient financial reserves to pay their claims, and have their policies and premiums approved.

To the best of my knowledge Legal Defense Funds have no such requirements and I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of the $ they receive winds up in the pockets of the "owners".
 
Yeah, but a persistent offender gets to have a lot of hearings, at your expense, to determine that the statute described below applies, before somebody enters a summary judgment . . .

Collects said:
Since 2008, when the statute, quoted below, was last amended.

In Ohio, justified self-defense shooters are statutorily immune from paying civil damages to the attacker.

Yes, a shooter shooting in justified self defense can be sued. But as soon as the shooter calls to the Court's attention that it was a justified self defense shooting (in a filing called a Motion For Summary Judgment), the Court should dismiss the attacker's claims, with prejudice (meaning, once and for all). The defender should win the civil litigation early on, due to this great statute.

"Ohio Statutes Title 23. COURTS - COMMON PLEAS Chapter 2307. CIVIL ACTIONS Current with legislation signed by the Governor and effective as of 2/14/2016 § 2307.60. Civil action for damages for criminal act

(A) (1) Anyone injured in person or property by a criminal act has, and may recover full damages in, a civil action unless specifically excepted by law, may recover the costs of maintaining the civil action and attorney's fees if authorized by any provision of the Rules of Civil Procedure or another section of the Revised Code or under the common law of this state, and may recover punitive or exemplary damages if authorized by section 2315.21 or another section of the Revised Code.

(2) A final judgment of a trial court that has not been reversed on appeal or otherwise set aside, nullified, or vacated, entered after a trial or upon a plea of guilty, but not upon a plea of no contest or the equivalent plea from another jurisdiction, that adjudges an offender guilty of an offense of violence punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year, when entered as evidence in any subsequent civil proceeding based on the criminal act, shall preclude the offender from denying in the subsequent civil proceeding any fact essential to sustaining that judgment, unless the offender can demonstrate that extraordinary circumstances prevented the offender from having a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the criminal proceeding or other extraordinary circumstances justify affording the offender an opportunity to relitigate the issue. The offender may introduce evidence of the offender's pending appeal of the final judgment of the trial court, if applicable, and the court may consider that evidence in determining the liability of the offender.

(B) (1) As used in division (B) of this section: (a) "Tort action" means a civil action for damages for injury, death, or loss to person or property other than a civil action for damages for a breach of contract or another agreement between persons. "Tort action" includes, but is not limited to, a product liability claim, as defined in section 2307.71 of the Revised Code, and an asbestos claim, as defined in section 2307.91 of the Revised Code, an action for wrongful death under Chapter 2125. of the Revised Code, and an action based on derivative claims for relief. (b) "Residence" has the same meaning as in section 2901.05 of the Revised Code.

(2) Recovery on a claim for relief in a tort action is barred to any person or the person's legal representative if any of the following apply: (a) The person has been convicted of or has pleaded guilty to a felony, or to a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence, arising out of criminal conduct that was a proximate cause of the injury or loss for which relief is claimed in the tort action. (b) The person engaged in conduct that, if prosecuted, would constitute a felony, a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence, an attempt to commit a felony, or an attempt to commit a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence and that conduct was a proximate cause of the injury or loss for which relief is claimed in the tort action, regardless of whether the person has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to or has been charged with committing the felony, the misdemeanor, or the attempt to commit the felony or misdemeanor. (c) The person suffered the injury or loss for which relief is claimed in the tort action as a proximate result of the victim of conduct that, if prosecuted, would constitute a felony, a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence, an attempt to commit a felony, or an attempt to commit a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence acting against the person in self-defense, defense of another, or defense of the victim's residence, regardless of whether the person has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to or has been charged with committing the felony, the misdemeanor, or the attempt to commit the felony or misdemeanor. Division (B)(2)(c) of this section does not apply if the person who suffered the injury or loss, at the time of the victim's act of self-defense, defense of another, or defense of residence, was an innocent bystander who had no connection with the underlying conduct that prompted the victim's exercise of self-defense, defense of another, or defense of residence.

(3) Recovery against a victim of conduct that, if prosecuted, would constitute a felony, a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence, an attempt to commit a felony, or an attempt to commit a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence, on a claim for relief in a tort action is barred to any person or the person's legal representative if conduct the person engaged in against that victim was a proximate cause of the injury or loss for which relief is claimed in the tort action and that conduct, if prosecuted, would constitute a felony, a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence, an attempt to commit a felony, or an attempt to commit a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence, regardless of whether the person has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to or has been charged with committing the felony, the misdemeanor, or the attempt to commit the felony or misdemeanor.

(4) Divisions (B)(1) to (3) of this section do not apply to civil claims based upon alleged intentionally tortious conduct, alleged violations of the United States Constitution, or alleged violations of statutes of the United States pertaining to civil rights. For purposes of division (B)(4) of this section, a person's act of self-defense, defense of another, or defense of the person's residence does not constitute intentionally tortious conduct.

Cite as R.C. § 2307.60 History. Effective Date: 06-28-2002; 04-07-2005; 2006 SB117 10-31-2007; 2008 SB184 09-09-2008"
Click to expand...
 
Collects said:
Since 2008, when the statute, quoted below, was last amended.

In Ohio, justified self-defense shooters are statutorily immune from paying civil damages to the attacker.

Yes, a shooter shooting in justified self defense can be sued. But as soon as the shooter calls to the Court's attention that it was a justified self defense shooting (in a filing called a Motion For Summary Judgment), the Court should dismiss the attacker's claims, with prejudice (meaning, once and for all). The defender should win the civil litigation early on, due to this great statute.

"Ohio Statutes Title 23. COURTS - COMMON PLEAS Chapter 2307. CIVIL ACTIONS Current with legislation signed by the Governor and effective as of 2/14/2016 § 2307.60. Civil action for damages for criminal act

(A) (1) Anyone injured in person or property by a criminal act has, and may recover full damages in, a civil action unless specifically excepted by law, may recover the costs of maintaining the civil action and attorney's fees if authorized by any provision of the Rules of Civil Procedure or another section of the Revised Code or under the common law of this state, and may recover punitive or exemplary damages if authorized by section 2315.21 or another section of the Revised Code.

(2) A final judgment of a trial court that has not been reversed on appeal or otherwise set aside, nullified, or vacated, entered after a trial or upon a plea of guilty, but not upon a plea of no contest or the equivalent plea from another jurisdiction, that adjudges an offender guilty of an offense of violence punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year, when entered as evidence in any subsequent civil proceeding based on the criminal act, shall preclude the offender from denying in the subsequent civil proceeding any fact essential to sustaining that judgment, unless the offender can demonstrate that extraordinary circumstances prevented the offender from having a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the criminal proceeding or other extraordinary circumstances justify affording the offender an opportunity to relitigate the issue. The offender may introduce evidence of the offender's pending appeal of the final judgment of the trial court, if applicable, and the court may consider that evidence in determining the liability of the offender.

(B) (1) As used in division (B) of this section: (a) "Tort action" means a civil action for damages for injury, death, or loss to person or property other than a civil action for damages for a breach of contract or another agreement between persons. "Tort action" includes, but is not limited to, a product liability claim, as defined in section 2307.71 of the Revised Code, and an asbestos claim, as defined in section 2307.91 of the Revised Code, an action for wrongful death under Chapter 2125. of the Revised Code, and an action based on derivative claims for relief. (b) "Residence" has the same meaning as in section 2901.05 of the Revised Code.

(2) Recovery on a claim for relief in a tort action is barred to any person or the person's legal representative if any of the following apply: (a) The person has been convicted of or has pleaded guilty to a felony, or to a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence, arising out of criminal conduct that was a proximate cause of the injury or loss for which relief is claimed in the tort action. (b) The person engaged in conduct that, if prosecuted, would constitute a felony, a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence, an attempt to commit a felony, or an attempt to commit a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence and that conduct was a proximate cause of the injury or loss for which relief is claimed in the tort action, regardless of whether the person has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to or has been charged with committing the felony, the misdemeanor, or the attempt to commit the felony or misdemeanor. (c) The person suffered the injury or loss for which relief is claimed in the tort action as a proximate result of the victim of conduct that, if prosecuted, would constitute a felony, a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence, an attempt to commit a felony, or an attempt to commit a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence acting against the person in self-defense, defense of another, or defense of the victim's residence, regardless of whether the person has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to or has been charged with committing the felony, the misdemeanor, or the attempt to commit the felony or misdemeanor. Division (B)(2)(c) of this section does not apply if the person who suffered the injury or loss, at the time of the victim's act of self-defense, defense of another, or defense of residence, was an innocent bystander who had no connection with the underlying conduct that prompted the victim's exercise of self-defense, defense of another, or defense of residence.

(3) Recovery against a victim of conduct that, if prosecuted, would constitute a felony, a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence, an attempt to commit a felony, or an attempt to commit a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence, on a claim for relief in a tort action is barred to any person or the person's legal representative if conduct the person engaged in against that victim was a proximate cause of the injury or loss for which relief is claimed in the tort action and that conduct, if prosecuted, would constitute a felony, a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence, an attempt to commit a felony, or an attempt to commit a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence, regardless of whether the person has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to or has been charged with committing the felony, the misdemeanor, or the attempt to commit the felony or misdemeanor.

(4) Divisions (B)(1) to (3) of this section do not apply to civil claims based upon alleged intentionally tortious conduct, alleged violations of the United States Constitution, or alleged violations of statutes of the United States pertaining to civil rights. For purposes of division (B)(4) of this section, a person's act of self-defense, defense of another, or defense of the person's residence does not constitute intentionally tortious conduct.

Cite as R.C. § 2307.60 History. Effective Date: 06-28-2002; 04-07-2005; 2006 SB117 10-31-2007; 2008 SB184 09-09-2008"
Click to expand...

What about the situation where the DA decides to not file charges? Isn't this a kind of limbo where there is no actual statement the shooting was justified?

Doesn't this leave the vicitim open for a civil suit then?
 
Last edited:
Muss Muggins said:
Yeah, but a persistent offender gets to have a lot of hearings, at your expense, to determine that the statute described below applies, before somebody enters a summary judgment . . .
Click to expand...

Untrue. Don't know where you got that idea/information.
 
alwslate said:
Ok you asked for opinions and I will give mine and if you don't like it
please don't take offense, just ignore it. I can relate to some extent
as I am 70 with some real health issues. Being in this phase of my
life is new territory for me, as with everybody, and in general I have
learned that seniors are basically looked at as an easily tapped source
of income for many providers of various "needs". To be brief here I
think that "self defense insurance" belongs near the top of the list of
legal scams that have been thought up by those hungry to tap into
a financial resource.
Click to expand...

I have to say that I agree with this member in most ways. First, insurance companies are profit making enterprises and they reap tons of money. Their aim is to collect your money for premiums and limit the amount they pay out by denying claims. One company a lot of us have dealt with is CUNA. Anyone who has a credit union account and has any insurance on it has been insured by CUNA - Credit Union National Alliance. I have had to fight with them for my disability insurance that was on my house and my loan when I was forced to take a disability retirement. They are the worst company I've ever had to deal with outside of the worlds biggest insurance scammer which is "workman's comp". However they are pretty much like most other insurance companies.

We all have some kind of insurance. Automobile insurance is required in virtually all states and now proof of same is required to be carried and presented when contacted by police or renewing plates etc. Most of us have some sort of life insurance and now under the Federal Government, we all are required to have health insurance to meet certain minimums and it must be declared on your annual tax filing or a penalty paid.

I dislike insurance as it always seems to me to be beting against yourself. I am also 70. As a retired professional LEO and firearms instructor, armorer and shooter, I have never considered CCW or shooting insurance. I know enough about the judicial system that by the time the criminal case is resolved in my favor, assuming there is one, and the family of John Q. Criminal gets an attorney and begins to file a lawsuit, it will be years down the road to resolution. When all the appeals and court work are over, I'll be in my 80's. Then they will eventually find out that I own nothing. My spouse and my children own everything. They can't get blood out of a stone. With the prevailing attitude concerning CCW's and self defense changing in this country, it is highly likely the civil action wouldn't succeed anyway. I am not going to spend any money on another insurance policy.
 
RSanch111 said:
Waste of money. If you ever really NEED it, you're not going to want the kind of attorney they provide with your "coverage".
Click to expand...

Untrue. YOU select your attorney, preferably BEFORE anything happens so in your time of need it's just a phone call. I have already done this.
 
I read the fine print on one of the CCW insurance policies, and from what I could gather from all the legalese, the only thing they were going to do if you shot someone, was provide legal assistance to get your CCW back.

Their advertising talked it up that they would cover your legal expenses, but there was no mention in the actual contract terms of criminal or civil legal assistance beyond getting your CCW, CCP, or CPL back.

I wouldn't sign on to any of those plans without first having a real lawyer review the contract.
 
And now, it's anecdote time. (Sorry, as a mil retiree I get to bore you with war stories)

#1 Way back in the mid 80s VCRs were new and cool. A storefront opened up in Fairfield down the road from Travis AFB, and they would rent beta or VHS tapes of movies and such. Back then there wasn't free memberships, but you had to pay to become a 'member' first, and then you could rent videos. Several people I knew in the barracks paid $125 each for the coveted lifetime member status (as did hundreds of others) and then pay to rent their videos. BTW, there was only a lifetime membership. The only problem was everyone forgot to ask; "for whose lifetime" the membership was going to last. After six months or so the video store packed up their stuff in the middle of the night and moved out of the storefront. In all likelihood they opened back up in another town with another name and started the process all over again.

#2 We all know about those extended warranties they offer you whenever you buy an electronics product or appliance. The BX on base was no different; some company contracted with AAFES to sell their extended warranty in the BXs, and I bought one for a Sony CD player I had bought. The extended warranty for which I paid extended the factory warranty by two years, and the Sony ES series (high end) had a three year warranty. Four years into ownership it needed service. I tried calling the company but there was no working number. I went to the BX and the cards with the warranty details were still hanging in the electronics department near the stereos and TVs, but upon closer examination I realized the company name was different. The advertising card looked pretty much the same; same styling, font, and coloring, but the company was different. Great scam right? Sell a bunch of warranties over a few years, fold, reap the benefits of free money, and reopen under a new name and start all over again.

I don't mean to sound cynical, but after you've paid your money for one of these plans, how do you know they will still be there when you need them? Is it a household name company, like Allstate or The Hartford, or is it some no-name company that will collect the cash for a year or two, maybe pay out here and there even, but suddenly POOF they're gone, taking your cash with them?
 
Last edited:
I belong to the citizens legal defense fund. It was I think 125.00 to join and 80 a year it renew. All they do is provide money up to I think 125000. You get your attorney andKilary they pay the bills including expert witnesses and private investigators . I have never used it and hope I never will but for that kind of money I will take a chance with it! It is recommended by some well known gun writers who admittedly could be doing it just for the money but the do have a reputation to keep. The BRA also recommends this plan.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
So, the arguments against are you will probably never need it so why buy it.

Isn't that the same argument against carrying a concealed firearm? In all likelihood you won't need it so why carry at all?

If you have made the choice to carry which costs considerably more than any of these policies, perhaps the extra money is a good investment.

Just my two cents. I likely wouldn't have an opinion at all except the leading FL self defense attorney specializing in gun law recommends you have one of these policies if not a couple of them to cover the gaps.

I hope to never need this type of insurance but if I am going to carry a gun, and I am, I am going to have it.
 
Anybody on the federal side of the house have any knowledge or experience with FEDS?

The price doesn't seem unreasonable for what they offer in terms of indemnity and criminal representation but the wording stops short of your defending anyone who isn't yourself, a spouse or legal dependent. (So if you were to decide to intervene in defense of someone else you're on your own. At least that's how I read it.)

Coverage

The FEDS LEOSA/CCW Personal Liability Insurance policy pays for legal defense and indemnification for civil suits resulting from a lawful act under LEOSA. The policy also provides criminal defense costs resulting from a criminal action involving a self-defense related incident and criminal defense against state charges of unlawful carriage of a firearm or federally legal ammunition when lawfully carrying under LEOSA or CCW.

FEDS offers:

Options of $100,000 and $250,000 limits of civil liability coverage for bodily injury or property damage caused by a lawful act under the LEOSA or CCW laws or an act of self-defense, including the defense of spouse and legal dependents.

$50,000 for criminal defense costs resulting from an alleged criminal action involving a self-defense (or spouse/legal dependent defense) related incident.

$25,000 for criminal defense against state charges of unlawful carriage of a firearm or federally legal ammunition when lawfully carrying under LEOSA or a CCW.

Limits of Liability & Annual Premium

$250,000/$50,000/$25,000 for $400 + SL tax
$100,000/$50,000/$25,000 for $300 + SL tax
Click to expand...

They appear to have a relationship and endorsement from FLEOA, a federal law enforcement association which I belonged to throughout my career until I retired.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

F
Young Brothers Massacre, A tactical expert opinion.
Replies
13
Views
1K
tops
tops
ISCS Yoda
My day at the NRA Convention - details galore
Replies
6
Views
754
ISCS Yoda
ISCS Yoda
R
NYPD - M&P #S812894 - How I Research The NYPD Guns
Replies
17
Views
1K
RM Vivas
R
Echo40
Personal Defense Against Cryptids -- Take 2: This Time it's Serious!
2
Replies
22
Views
2K
snowman1967
snowman1967
TXBryan
A perfect day
Replies
5
Views
625
robvious
robvious

Latest posts

Back
Top