Carry insurance
- Thread starter richrd1
- Start date
Aguila Blanca
Staff
What are some of the different insurances that you think are out there? Pretty much everything I've seen is pre-paid legal services plans, not insurance that will pay any judgements that might be rendered against you if you lose in court.
I have never heard an actual story from a person who actually had to use one of these conceal carry legal teams to get them out of a bind. I would hate to hear of someone in that kind of mess, but I would also like to know if they are legit. I have friends that have US Law Shield. I honestly do not know one thing about this.
Ive been using CCW SAFE for a number of years now. They had a case recently, where they covered a member from start to finish, and I think somewhere around $200,000 in fees, and it didnt cost them a dime out of pocket, start to finish.
My understanding with most of the others is, youre limited in coverage, and you have to pay upfront, and seek reimbursement, or at least thats how it was when I was first looking into them.
My understanding with most of the others is, youre limited in coverage, and you have to pay upfront, and seek reimbursement, or at least thats how it was when I was first looking into them.
The thing I didn't like about CCW Safe when I started looking into this was there was no underwriter for an insurance policy. It seemed the only thing covering any legal fees was a promise with the notion being member dues would cover it. That seemed potentially problematic to me in the event of multiple claims. Given the relatively low likelihood of needing that coverage, that may well be fine anyway. For all I know they changed their policy.
Each company has its own advantages. A number have high profile proponents. A number also list examples of people using their policies, but for all I know those are made up (if I want to be a cynic). I do use one. I think the best option is to look for yourself, try to compare and choose what seems the best for you. There's also no reason you can't use more than one if you're really concerned.
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
Each company has its own advantages. A number have high profile proponents. A number also list examples of people using their policies, but for all I know those are made up (if I want to be a cynic). I do use one. I think the best option is to look for yourself, try to compare and choose what seems the best for you. There's also no reason you can't use more than one if you're really concerned.
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
I've had USCCA for two years now and thankfully haven't needed anything from it. Their online scenario-based training is very good, as is their monthly magazine. But no, I don't know of anyone who has had to use them, apart from their own published cases.
There's a certain amount of faith involved in using any of them, since none have the kind of established history of a typical insurance company, but it seems unthinkable to me to not have it (assuming it works!) because even the price of being found innocent can be staggering.
My favorite online trainer dude just made a video about why he finally picked up CCW insurance, and it was USCCA, and he's cool, so I guess that's good enough for me
https://warriorpoetsociety.us/uscca-review/
There's a certain amount of faith involved in using any of them, since none have the kind of established history of a typical insurance company, but it seems unthinkable to me to not have it (assuming it works!) because even the price of being found innocent can be staggering.
My favorite online trainer dude just made a video about why he finally picked up CCW insurance, and it was USCCA, and he's cool, so I guess that's good enough for me
https://warriorpoetsociety.us/uscca-review/
Mannlicher
New member
I have a good lawyer, one familiar with Florida law and local jurisdictions, on call. The likely hood of my being involved in a fire arms altercation is pretty remote. That's my insurance
scottycoyote
New member
i looked this all over last year and the uscca made the most sense used in conjunction with my umbrella policy, but luckily i have never had any experiences actually having to use it
I have the same thing..a friend who is an attorney, who also has CCWP, so he understands all of this..He would be my second phone call after I dialed 911...
I contest the notion that a self-defense incident will cost you ginormous amounts of money. That's what an insurance peddler wants you to believe. Along with anything else that involves "uncertainty" there is a risk you will incur great expenses. I certainly can't promise you it will be cheap. But the sales pitch is more compelling on the basis of the notion that it will certainly cost you everything you have.
If it is truly a clean shoot, you may not even be charged with anything. There is no certainty about some future event, but if it's clean you have a significant chance of it costing you nothing at all. I would speculate the chances of that are greater than it costing you an enormous fortune.
If it's a clean shoot, but a DA wants to play it tough for whatever reason, there's a good chance a defense attorney can persuade them otherwise without a trial and your expenses will be minimal.
If it's a clean shoot and the DA is a bulldog or if there's a minor issue with the shoot they want to take to trial, your attorney is going to have to work hard and nobody wants a "cheap" lawyer in those circumstances. The problem is the insurance salesman is going to try to convince you that your expenses will be directly proportional to your desire to stay out of prison.
Our justice system should not work such that if it was a dirty shoot, you can pay money to get out of it. The insurance salesmen is selling the proposition that, "if you're not rich, you can buy this insurance to be rich just when you need to get out of trouble."
When you spend more money on insurance against being a poor criminal instead of a rich one than you spend on training to avoid a criminal mistake, you're a dupe to the salesman.
Take the all the money you'd spend on poor criminal insurance and spend it on both weapon-handling training and also on legal use of force training. Your insurance makes insurers and attorneys wealthier while doing nothing to benefit the victims of the dirty shoot you're really hoping they cover for you. Training will help all the innocents and keep you on their side.
If it is truly a clean shoot, you may not even be charged with anything. There is no certainty about some future event, but if it's clean you have a significant chance of it costing you nothing at all. I would speculate the chances of that are greater than it costing you an enormous fortune.
If it's a clean shoot, but a DA wants to play it tough for whatever reason, there's a good chance a defense attorney can persuade them otherwise without a trial and your expenses will be minimal.
If it's a clean shoot and the DA is a bulldog or if there's a minor issue with the shoot they want to take to trial, your attorney is going to have to work hard and nobody wants a "cheap" lawyer in those circumstances. The problem is the insurance salesman is going to try to convince you that your expenses will be directly proportional to your desire to stay out of prison.
Our justice system should not work such that if it was a dirty shoot, you can pay money to get out of it. The insurance salesmen is selling the proposition that, "if you're not rich, you can buy this insurance to be rich just when you need to get out of trouble."
When you spend more money on insurance against being a poor criminal instead of a rich one than you spend on training to avoid a criminal mistake, you're a dupe to the salesman.
Take the all the money you'd spend on poor criminal insurance and spend it on both weapon-handling training and also on legal use of force training. Your insurance makes insurers and attorneys wealthier while doing nothing to benefit the victims of the dirty shoot you're really hoping they cover for you. Training will help all the innocents and keep you on their side.
Do you have any basis at all for that opinion?
How will anyone make that determination without looking into the evidence? Would you not want to have an attorney involved until that determination is made? Do you think that will not cost money?
What do you consider "minimal"?
Don't forget the civil plaintiff.
Do you have any idea what you may spend even pretrial, even if there is ultimately no trial, if you simply present a weapon and someone calls 911 with a story that differs from yours?
Do you have any idea what a trial costs, including the cost for expert witnesses? How about an appeal? How about another trial if you prevail in the appeal?
Consider the case of Larry Hickey. A very clean shoot, and no one died--but he multiple trials bankrupted him.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
In following this discussion, it appears to me that there is still no clarity as to the distinction between legal fees and insurance against civil judgements. It is virtually axiomatic today that any shooting, even if you are exonerated of criminal charges, is likely to be followed by a civil lawsuit by your attacker or his family. The burden of proof is lower in civil cases and the possibility exists that you could get a judgement against you even if you were found innocent of crimnal charges. (Look at the O.J. Simpson trials, for example.)
A program that pays (or reimburses) your legal fees is of scant value if you have legal bills of, say, $100,000 but you get hit with a civil judgement of $1 million -- and your "insurance" only pays the legal fees.
That's why I asked how many of the programs y'all are discussing (most of which still remain unnamed) are actually insurance programs, as opposed to just pre- (or post-) paid legal fee programs.
A program that pays (or reimburses) your legal fees is of scant value if you have legal bills of, say, $100,000 but you get hit with a civil judgement of $1 million -- and your "insurance" only pays the legal fees.
That's why I asked how many of the programs y'all are discussing (most of which still remain unnamed) are actually insurance programs, as opposed to just pre- (or post-) paid legal fee programs.
I went with "Armed Citizen's Legal Defense Network, Inc". A little over a year ago it was the highest rated by "Gun News" newspaper. ..doubt you could ever cover all the "what ifs" but it seemed like a bargain if for nothing else the peace-of-mind. ..can't guarantee I'll never need it but what I can guarantee is I'll try like hel_ to avoid ever having to need to use it. Wish us all luck.
This summer a case was settled in Illinois in which a car crash occurred on the rural road in front of a farmer's home. As a good Samaritan the farmer went out to investigate. Two 20-something--it seems they were under the influence of at least alcohol & maybe drugs--had crashed their vehicle. Both had criminal records. An altercation ensued. The farmer shot one of the thugs in the leg. The victim bled to death. Every police agency investigating the shooting including the Illinois State Police considered it justifiable recommending no charges be filed. The ASA involved thought otherwise putting the farmer through a trial. The farmer was acquitted. ..not to sound cold but the lesson for me in this case is to NOT investigate incidents like this, but rather call 911. ..sad it has to be that way but.. I'd much rather have my Armed Citizen's Legal Defense Network behind me than not. They've some of the top experts in the world ready to testify should the need arise. ..sounds good to me.
I just have 2 concerns about the insurance, and frankly don't know the answers:
1)"they'll refer you to an attorney"..... o.k., great. NOW what process do they go through to confirm that the attorney truly has good CCW issue/Firearms-self-defense issue experience. In my experience some such services rotate through a list of attorneys who have paid a referral fee... but there is no quality control on who is on the "panel".
2) "they pay your legal fees up to xxx". Great. Do they pay based on what the attorney's actual billed rate is, or do they "negotiate" a rate reduction? If the later, as do some insurance carriers, they get those attorneys willing to discount their rates significantly. And I wonder: if they're really good at this work, why would they agree to or need to "discount" the fees.
So as I look more into this, I want to read the actual policy before I purchase it, and I want to determine if my State Insurance Commission has any guidelines.
1)"they'll refer you to an attorney"..... o.k., great. NOW what process do they go through to confirm that the attorney truly has good CCW issue/Firearms-self-defense issue experience. In my experience some such services rotate through a list of attorneys who have paid a referral fee... but there is no quality control on who is on the "panel".
2) "they pay your legal fees up to xxx". Great. Do they pay based on what the attorney's actual billed rate is, or do they "negotiate" a rate reduction? If the later, as do some insurance carriers, they get those attorneys willing to discount their rates significantly. And I wonder: if they're really good at this work, why would they agree to or need to "discount" the fees.
So as I look more into this, I want to read the actual policy before I purchase it, and I want to determine if my State Insurance Commission has any guidelines.