CCW Insurance

So, if I'm reading this right, your policy REIMBURSES expenses only, meaning the insured would have to pay all costs until they are actually acquitted?
 
The policy reimburses criminal defense ... if charges are dismissed or if you are found not guilty.
...
Many lawyers will consider your defense costs as insured and accordingly will charge a minimal retainer for your defense.
Click to expand...

If the policy does not advance the costs of defense and pays only upon dismissal or acquittal, most lawyers would not consider that a reliable source of payment and would require payment in advance as they would in the ordinary case. "I'll pay you if I win and owe you from prison if I lose" does not appeal to most lawyers.

Please clarify whether the policy will advance the costs of defense.
 
As noted above, many attorneys will consider legal expenses as insured in a righteous shooting and will defer to the insurance company for payment.
 
wthopkins said:
many attorneys will consider legal expenses as insured in a righteous shooting and will defer to the insurance company for payment.
Click to expand...

Now that's interesting and some lawyers on here should respond. Seems like in the case of criminal charges the lawyer defering their fees are "betting on the come" that they will win. Pretty risky. With personal liability the lawyer WILL get paid paid either way as the insured has subrogated to the insurance company. Not so with the criminal claim. Do you have lawyers on retainer as do other insurance companies with liability claims? Do you tell the insured who to hire to defend them when they are charged criminallyor will you pay anyone? Do the insured get reimbursed if they plead out to a misdemeanor? Can you have the attorney plead out for the client? Are your defense costs unlimited and concurrent with the coverage limits?
 
As noted above, many attorneys will consider legal expenses as insured in a righteous shooting and will defer to the insurance company for payment.
Click to expand...

And good-looking young women will want to have my babies if I wink at them.

Maybe. I haven't put either theory to the test.

While you are correct that no one can indemnify another for a criminal act or even an intentionally wrongful act, that does not necessarily apply to advancing expenses for the costs of defense, particularly if the party being advanced the expenses agrees to repay the advance if found guilty. The insurance company quite reasonably does not want to extend credit on that basis. If you think criminal defense attorneys do, you don't know many of them.

The problem with defending a "righteous shooting" is that the typical criminal defendant has a not-very-surprising tendency to omit unfavorable facts in his retelling of the events. Criminal defense attorneys tend to be skeptical of how innocent the client claims to be.

My brother-in-law just retired after about 30 years of being a public defender, and he learned that it was a waste of time to tell defendants "Tell me what really happened so I can defend you better." He would start the interview with "Tell me what the police will say happened."

In reality, it doesn't matter what happened. What matters is what the prosecution can prove what happened. And there is no way an attorney can figure out that it was a "righteous shooting" in a conference with a new client. He has to read the police report, talk to the prosecution and find out their evidence, talk to witnesses, and possibly even hire experts (like Mas Ayoob).

Criminal defense attorneys don't want to take on a case without money up front. There's something about a criminal conviction and incarceration that saps the will of the client to pay.

So go back to your insurance company and find out if the policy will advance the costs of defense. It's possible you have misunderstood the terms of the policy. If not, the policy is of little benefit in this area.
 
We have lead lawyers in all states, but we do not dictate the attorney to use - it's up to the insured. We will reimburse those expenses.
Misdemeanor is still a criminal conviction and coverage would not apply.
Reimbursement is to the policy limit.

It's better to have a couple of thousand in reimbursement than nothing at all.
 
What sort of price range are we talking about, say $50,000 coverage.

I'm not asking for "It will be $32.86 per month."

I'm asking is it in the realm of $10 or $50 or $100?
 
It's better to have a couple of thousand in reimbursement than nothing at all.
Click to expand...

What are the policy limits for reimbursement? The costs of defense would be $25,000 to $50,000 I would imagine. More if it's a murder case. A couple of thousand is a DUI case.
 
I answered my own question from the website WTHopkins posted:

$100,000 (Colorado, New Mexico ‐ $360.50, Arizona ‐ $361.22)
$250,000 (Colorado, New Mexico ‐ $442.90, Arizona ‐ $443.79)

These are adequate policy limits.
 
$100,000 (Colorado, New Mexico ‐ $360.50, Arizona ‐ $361.22)
$250,000 (Colorado, New Mexico ‐ $442.90, Arizona ‐ $443.79)

These are adequate policy limits.
Click to expand...

Ah, I see, it's in the application. So this is an annual premium I assume?


Also, on the application:

"I acknowledge that I am only eligible for this insurance because I am, and while I remain, a holder of a valid Carry Concealed Weapons permit issued by the State of _____________ . I also acknowledge that the insurance applied for herein will become null, void and no longer in effect immediately upon the expiration, suspension, cancellation, voluntary relinquishment or any other termination of the Carry Concealed Weapons permit identified above on this Application."


What if the insured has their permit revoked as a consequence of the self defense action, previous to being convicted or even before trial?
 
The tough thing here is, there really-and-truly are not a lot of options for financing a self defense case.

  • You can pay for it yourself, out of pocket -- if you're independently wealthy.

  • You can plan to take out a second mortgage on your home to pay the lawyers -- if you haven't already encumbered your home with other debts, and if you did not need to give that second mortgage to the bail bondsman. Not to mention the inherent difficulty of making that second payment while you're sitting in jail & unable to work.

  • You can choose some less than perfect insurance option, assuming one is even available in your state. A lot of these types of policies cover costs only until trial (when the legal fees just begin to really accumulate!). None that I am aware of provide coverage for any fees not leading to a jury trial and a not-guilty verdict. Not to mention the whole "pay up front, get reimbursed" thing, which has its own set of drawbacks.

  • You can join the ACLDN, which gives lots of education, access to experts for you and your lawyer -- but no guarantee of any money at all, let alone enough money to pay for a complete defense from start to finish. (That will change in future, when their Foundation gets large enough. Right now it's a hope for the future.)

  • You can get a prepaid legal plan, wherein the lawyer you receive might be all that & a bag of chips -- or might be slow, reluctant, and not very enthusiastic about defending your extensive case. In either case, the generalist paperwork lawyers available through these plans almost certainly won't understand the nuances of defending a true self defense case, and that creates another set of drawbacks to consider.

  • If you're poor enough, you can throw yourself into the "public defender" pool. Chances are, you aren't poor enough, almost certainly not if you own your own home; and public defenders are notoriously eager to plea-settle and notoriously inexperienced at trial work (it's like getting a student doctor; they gotta learn their craft somehow, after all ... but they are typically at the beginning of a career, with all that entails).

Have I missed anything?

Personally, I think the best choice is a combination of options: get some insurance, join the ACLDN, and maybe toss prepaid legal onto the pile of paperwork if you occasionally need a lawyer for other things. Don't expect any one option to be the start & finish of what you'll need. Don't judge the insurance options too harshly, as there simply aren't any truly comprehensive policies out there for CCW holders.

All of the above was simply to say this: coverage limitations are a practical reality to consider, nothing more or else. They don't have to be a deal-killer, and in fact they should not be. This is a classic case of the perfect (which is non-existent) being an enemy of the good (a decent option for some, available now).

pax
 
Last edited:
The tough thing here is, there really-and-truly are not a lot of options for financing a self defense case.
Click to expand...

True.

* You can get a prepaid legal plan,
Click to expand...

I would check out the coverage of any such plan very carefully. I doubt very much that they would cover a murder trial or even ADW.

public defenders are notoriously eager to plea-settle and notoriously inexperienced at trial work.
Click to expand...

Actually, their "notoriety" stems from posts like yours (and others like it) in which posters like to badmouth PDs. It will vary by jurisdiction. In Northern CA, they are pretty good. Who are the PDs trying their cases against? Prosecutors. Are they as good as the prosecutors? Typically, they are (at least here in Northern CA).

(it's like getting a student doctor; they gotta learn their craft somehow, after all ... but they are typically at the beginning of a career, with all that entails)
Click to expand...

Prosecutors aren't hatched as full-fledged trial lawyers. The new prosecutors start with simple cases and work their way up. Same with PDs.

PDs and prosecutors have similar work-loads. Why is it that people are always bad-mouthing PDs for wanting to settle but no one says that about prosecutors? I find it odd.

As for experience, as I mentioned in another post, my brother-in-law recently retired after more than 30 years as a PD. He tried all sorts of jury trials. He was familiar with the juries and judges in his county. When he had a trial pending, he worked nights and weekends. His clients got represented by an experienced and smart lawyer (with an Ivy League education), one much better than a private lawyer who only occasionally tried a criminal case.

But, as noted, not everyone qualifies, and if one doesn't qualify for a PD and doesn't have big bucks to spend on his defense, then he may have to make do with a crappy private attorney. I know of one top private attorney who does criminal work whose rate is $650 an hour. You'd be up in the six figures pretty quick with a serious criminal case if you hired him.

Don't judge the insurance options too harshly, as there simply aren't any truly comprehensive policies out there for CCW holders.
Click to expand...

That's true. But the consumer must consider the cost. The premiums for a CCW policy may be greatly disproportionate to the benefits. For example, if the risk to the insurance company is that one in 10,000 insureds will have a claim that they have to pay out on, and if the premium is $400 per year, the insurance company collects $4,000,000. If overhead and administration is 25%, it will collect net premiums of $3,000,000 with one payout of $250,000. That would be an example of insurance that is overpriced.

Being in CA, I don't have, and would be unlikely to be able to obtain, a CCW. So this is pretty theoretical for me. If I did have a CCW, I would rather spend the money on an umbrella policy that would cover me for negligence and provide more protection against civil liability. I think the risk of some kind of civil liability would greatly outweigh the risks that I would be charged with a crime.
 
PAX:

We have just added a new benefit for members of the Armed Citizens' Legal Defense Network, that being an instant $5,000 fee deposit paid to the attorney of the member's choice, right after a self-defense incident, in order for the member to afford to hire an attorney to represent him/her with interaction with police, prosecutor and grand jury, (if there is one). That is above and beyond the legal defense grant the Legal Defense Foundation will consider.

Look for it to appear on our web site any day now.

Marty
 
I was just asking questions to better understand the policy.... the fact that the insurer has stopped answering legitimate questions doesn't factor well with the credibility of the policy or company.
 
Peetzakiller:
Those are annual premiums.
Coverage would apply if your license is held at the time of the actionable offense. Anything that happened after that would not affect our coverage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top