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.
Insurance for self defense shooting
- Thread starter wellthought1
- Start date
Charlie Foxtrott
Member
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2009
- Messages
- 1,260
- Reaction score
- 2,112
The biggest problem with this kind of insurance.
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.
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.
Last edited:
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.
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
Member
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.
It's a purchase decision only you can make.
blues7
Member
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.
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.
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!
down for me!
Charlie Foxtrott
Member
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2009
- Messages
- 1,260
- Reaction score
- 2,112
Well if you are looking to prepay for second string legal counsel.
On the installment plan. Then by all means go for it.
On the installment plan. Then by all means go for it.
blues7
Member
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!
Member
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
Member
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2009
- Messages
- 1,260
- Reaction score
- 2,112
Prevailed in at least one murder trial!
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.
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
Member
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2009
- Messages
- 1,260
- Reaction score
- 2,112
My assertion stands for itself in it's own right.
All you have to do is check out the attorneys at Martindale.com and see how they are rated.
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.
Not true where I live . They come down hard on Attorneys that get caught doing things that are harmful to the profession .
Charlie Foxtrott
Member
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2009
- Messages
- 1,260
- Reaction score
- 2,112
That is the thing that a lot of people do not realize.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
Charlie Foxtrott
Member
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2009
- Messages
- 1,260
- Reaction score
- 2,112
There are a lot of holes in what you are stating.
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" .
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" .
Last edited:
