Do you use a CHL insurer / prepaid legal plan?

[TXAZ]

My Texas CHL card arrived today. I've been considering purchasing a CHL plan. I've read their marketing blurbs, but I'd rather seek referrals from you:
Do you have any personal experience with these vendors? Good or bad comments, particularly if you had to use their services.
Thanks in advance.

USCCA
CCW SAFE
Armed Citizen Legal Defense
NRA Self Defense Insurance
Second Call Defense

 

[JohnKSa]

There are two basic "flavors" as far as I can tell.

One flavor is basically an insurance plan. You are entitled to reimbursement for legal costs up to some limit if you are involved in an incident that is covered by the insurance plan.

The other flavor is a legal services contract. As a member, you are entitled to claim the services of a lawyer who is contracted to defend members should the need arise due to a qualifying incident.

 

[jtmckinney]

The other flavor is a legal services contract. As a member, you are entitled to claim the services of a lawyer who is contracted to defend members should the need arise due to a qualifying incident.

This is what I have. I don't have a CHL so I get the non CHL policy, it is a little cheaper. I also get the multi state option as I take at least a few firearms to Arkansas when I go there hunting and visiting relatives. It is very seldom but I sometimes exercize the option to legally have a concealed firearm in my vehical.

Only pays lawyer fees and does not cover expert witnesses or any other cost that may be incured. They also advertize you are getting a lawyer experienced in firearm and self defence matters.

Thankfully I have never had to call them and hope I never do.

Hope this helps.
James

 

[XD40inTX]

My wife and I (both with CHLs) belong to Texas Law Shield, a pre-paid legal plan. We've never had to use them (thankfully) but a friend in Dallas did. The attorney arrived before the police, our friend got his gun back, slept in his own bed that night, and the law firm never asked him for an additional dime.

 

[Armed_Chicagoan]

I went with CCW Safe because they provide attorneys immediately at no out of pocket cost to you, and there is no limit on legal expenses. They say if Zimmerman had used them they would have paid his entire $2 million+ legal expenses. And it's less than $100/year.

This is not insurance though, they will provide lawyers to defend against civil suits but it doesn't pay for any civil liability. Which isn't a particular issue for me since my state has immunity from civil suits in cases of justifiable self defense and I rarely, if ever, carry out of state. If I ever incur civil liability I'll have bigger things to worry about, like spending the rest of my life in prison.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

If I ever incur civil liability I'll have bigger things to worry about, like spending the rest of my life in prison.

Civil liability does not send you to prison, it just empties your bank account ... possibly for the rest of your life. Prison is what happens if you are convicted of a criminal offense.

 

[JohnKSa]

...it doesn't pay for any civil liability. Which isn't a particular issue for me since my state has immunity from civil suits in cases of justifiable self defense...

My state also has laws which offer civil immunity in cases of justifiable self-defense. It's critical to understand that such laws don't mean that you can't be sued, nor would they prevent you from having to go to court to defend against a civil suit.

Generally speaking, what they do for you is that you would only have to prove to the judge's satisfaction that the shooting was justifiable and then it would all be over. You would still probably require the services of a lawyer to get through that process.

To complicate issues, civil immunity clauses don't always clarify what constitutes adequate proof that a shooting was justified. There are a number of ways one can escape conviction or prosecution after a shooting, and not all of them could reasonably be touted as being true proof that the shooting was justified. I asked a TX lawyer about this on one occasion and he admitted that it would take court cases to set precedents to determine precisely what constituted proof that a shooting was justified for the purposes of claiming civil immunity.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...it doesn't pay for any civil liability. Which isn't a particular issue for me since my state has immunity from civil suits in cases of justifiable self defense...

My state also has laws which offer civil immunity in cases of justifiable self-defense. It's critical to understand that such laws don't mean that you can't be sued, nor would they prevent you from having to go to court to defend against a civil suit.

Generally speaking, what they do for you is that you would only have to prove to the judge's satisfaction that the shooting was justifiable and then it would all be over. You would still probably require the services of a lawyer to get through that process....

This bears repeating because many people have an extravagant idea about how much protection civil immunity laws provide. Even an acquittal in a criminal trial in which the defendant pleaded self defense does not necessarily establish the the defendant's use of force was justified for the purposes of a civil claim. The issue is discussed at length in this thread, "Civil Liability, Civil Immunity, and the Use of Force".

If you're sued, even the best case, getting the suit tossed out at a preliminary stage, can wind up costing anywhere from $5,000 to $20,000 in lawyer fees. And figure the legal bill for a civil jury trial to be anywhere from $50,000 to $150,000 (roughly).

 

[leadcounsel]

I am a member of the Armed Citizen Legal Defense Network.
http://www.armedcitizensnetwork.org/learn/membership-benefits

It's affordable and makes sense for gun owners. They provide excellent free educational tools, videos, have legal courses, and in any self defense situation they provide a $10,000 retainer up front for an immediate lawyer, and additional grants for unmeritorious prosecution (think about situations where politics, race, political pressure, etc. come into play).

Since most people don't have the $10,000-$50,000 or more to pay I think it's a wise investment.

 

[leadcounsel]

Civil liability does not send you to prison, it just empties your bank account ... possibly for the rest of your life. Prison is what happens if you are convicted of a criminal offense.

What I believe he was saying is that since he can't be sued in his state if he's not criminally liable, is that if he is sued, the inference is that he was deemed criminally liable and would spend his life in prison and not care about the civil suit.

As others pointed out, that concept may be a misnomer, because of various complex legal concepts/arguments, and the fact patterns.

A prosecutor may feel it's too close to prosecute, for instance, but the civil lawyers may still come forward.

 

[Armed_Chicagoan]

Civil liability does not send you to prison, it just empties your bank account ... possibly for the rest of your life. Prison is what happens if you are convicted of a criminal offense.

Point is if I'm found civilly liable I'm likely in prison already.

My state also has laws which offer civil immunity in cases of justifiable self-defense. It's critical to understand that such laws don't mean that you can't be sued, nor would they prevent you from having to go to court to defend against a civil suit.

Generally speaking, what they do for you is that you would only have to prove to the judge's satisfaction that the shooting was justifiable and then it would all be over. You would still probably require the services of a lawyer to get through that process.

To complicate issues, civil immunity clauses don't always clarify what constitutes adequate proof that a shooting was justified. There are a number of ways one can escape conviction or prosecution after a shooting, and not all of them could reasonably be touted as being true proof that the shooting was justified. I asked a TX lawyer about this on one occasion and he admitted that it would take court cases to set precedents to determine precisely what constituted proof that a shooting was justified for the purposes of claiming civil immunity.

In my state (Illinois) I could only be held civilly liable in cases of willful and wanton misconduct.

The statutes on defense of a person, property, and dwelling in Illinois all contain the language: "In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7-4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct."

 

[Frank Ettin]

My state also has laws which offer civil immunity in cases of justifiable self-defense. It's critical to understand that such laws don't mean that you can't be sued, nor would they prevent you from having to go to court to defend against a civil suit....

In my state (Illinois) I could only be held civilly liable in cases of willful and wanton misconduct.

The statutes on defense of a person, property, and dwelling in Illinois all contain the language: "In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7-4 of this Article,...

Sigh! You're not paying attention. And I'm sorry for sounding harsh, but I get tired of repeatedly explaining the legal "facts of life" to folks you just don't get it. And why you're missing the point was explained in JohnKSa's post, my post, the thread I linked to and leadcounsel's poste. But here it is again:

Even with a civil immunity law, you can still be sued, required to defend a civil lawsuit and spend a bunch of money doing so.

Yes, a civil immunity law cuts off your civil liability in the case of a justified use of force. So who decides if your use of force was justified. You have no idea, do you? Let's look at how the question of justification can be decided.

1. Of course you don't have the final decision.
   
   
2. The DA choosing not to prosecute doesn't necessarily decide your use of force was justified. He might just have concluded that yours would not, for a variety of reasons, be a case he wants to prosecute. The decision could not be characterized as an affirmative finding of justification.
   
   
3. A grand jury deciding not to indict similarly is not an affirmative finding of justification.
   
   
4. And of course, an acquittal at a criminal trial is merely a finding by the jury that the prosecution didn't meet its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Again, that is not an affirmative finding that your use of force was justified.
   
   
5. So if a civil plaintiff decides that he might be able to overcome your claim of justification, you can be sued. And even if you dispose of the suit quickly, without having to go to trial, it can still cost you some very healthy legal bills.

Civil immunity laws are good things, but they are not magic shields.

 

[JohnKSa]

Point is if I'm found civilly liable I'm likely in prison already.

That is incorrect. The threshold for civil liability is much lower than it is for criminal conviction. It's not at all uncommon for someone to avoid criminal conviction and still be civilly liable.

I could only be held civilly liable in cases of willful and wanton misconduct.

Proving "willful and wanton misconduct" by a preponderance of the evidence is MUCH simpler than proving murder beyond a reasonable doubt.

Finally, as Frank points out, even if you manage to convince a judge that you qualify for immunity from civil prosecution under your state's laws you may still incur significant legal expenses accomplishing that goal.

 

[Armed_Chicagoan]

Frank Ettin - CCW Safe pays for 100% of the cost of defending a civil suit. The only thing it won't pay is a judgment. And note the Illinois statute I cited makes no mention whatsoever about whether or not it was justified. All that needs to be shown is who the aggressor was.

JohnKSa - the bar to show willful and wanton misconduct is quite high - higher than for negligence or reckless endangerment. I'm having great difficulty even thinking of a scenario where there would be willful and wanton misconduct that wouldn't also be illegal in a lethal force scenario.

Again, given the strong civil immunity laws in my state I decided that CCW Safe was the best option for me. Those of you who live in states with weaker civil immunity statutes may wish to purchase more protection.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...And note the Illinois statute I cited makes no mention whatsoever about whether or not it was justified. All that needs to be shown is who the aggressor was...

Balderdash. See, for example (emphasis added):

Chapter 720. Criminal Offenses

5. Criminal Code

Sec. 7-1. Use of force in defense of person.

(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or the commission of a forcible felony.

(b) In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of “aggressor” set forth in Section 7-4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.

Immunity attaches only to a justified use of force. Therefore, unjustified use of force is not entitled to immunity.

 

[JohnKSa]

...the bar to show willful and wanton misconduct is quite high - higher than for negligence or reckless endangerment. I'm having great difficulty even thinking of a scenario where there would be willful and wanton misconduct that wouldn't also be illegal in a lethal force scenario.

There's a tremendous difference in what's required to convict someone of a criminal action and what's required to prevail in a civil suit.

In a civil suit, one need only show that the majority of the evidence supports the complaint while in a criminal case, the standard of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt".

That means in a civil case, if 50.000001% of the evidence supports the complaint then the plaintiff wins even if the rest of the evidence supports the defendant.

In a criminal case, if 99% of the evidence supports conviction but there's still a "reasonable doubt" that the defendant might be innocent the jury should vote to acquit.

 

[Armed_Chicagoan]

Balderdash. See, for example (emphasis added)

What I meant is that there need not be a prior finding or declaration of justification. If the prosecutor simply doesn't press charges and doesn't say it was justified you'd only have to show by a preponderance of the evidence that per the statute it was justified in any civil suit. And note that in Illinois you don't have to be in fear of your life or great bodily harm, deadly force is justified on someone committing a forcible felony.

There's a tremendous difference in what's required to convict someone of a criminal action and what's required to prevail in a civil suit.

In a civil suit, one need only show that the majority of the evidence supports the complaint while in a criminal case, the standard of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt".

That means in a civil case, if 50.000001% of the evidence supports the complaint then the plaintiff wins even if the rest of the evidence supports the defendant.

Yes, but it's still a very high bar to show willful or wanton misconduct. That preponderance of the evidence door swings both ways - the defendant in a use of force civil suit only has to show by a preponderance of the evidence that he was in fear of his life or great bodily harm, or the plaintiff was engaged in a forcible felony.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...If the prosecutor simply doesn't press charges and doesn't say it was justified you'd only have to show by a preponderance of the evidence that per the statute it was justified in any civil suit...

"You'd only have to show"? That isn't necessarily a trivial undertaking. The legal fees involved in doing so can be substantial. If it takes a jury trial, it could cost $50,000 to $150,000, or more.

The point is that you're still sued and in court and exposed to spending a lot of money. If you have insurance to cover the cost, fine; but you're still in court.

...And note that in Illinois you don't have to be in fear of your life or great bodily harm, deadly force is justified on someone committing a forcible felony.

Do you even know what a forcible felony is:

(720 ILCS 5/2-8) (from Ch. 38, par. 2-8)

Sec. 2-8. "Forcible felony". "Forcible felony" means treason, first degree murder, second degree murder, predatory criminal sexual assault of a child, aggravated criminal sexual assault, criminal sexual assault, robbery, burglary, residential burglary, aggravated arson, arson, aggravated kidnapping, kidnapping, aggravated battery resulting in great bodily harm or permanent disability or disfigurement and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

Any of those pretty much will involve a reasonable fear of death or grave bodily harm.

 

[JohnKSa]

Yes, but it's still a very high bar to show willful or wanton misconduct. That preponderance of the evidence door swings both ways - the defendant in a use of force civil suit only has to show by a preponderance of the evidence that he was in fear of his life or great bodily harm, or the plaintiff was engaged in a forcible felony.

You're changing your position as the discussion progresses.

Here was your initial claim.

Which isn't a particular issue for me since my state has immunity from civil suits in cases of justifiable self defense... If I ever incur civil liability I'll have bigger things to worry about, like spending the rest of my life in prison.

You initially claimed that avoiding criminal conviction would eliminate the chance of your needing coverage to deal with the expense/contingencies of a civil suit and/or that if you DID get involved in a civil suit, it would only happen in conjunction with or subsequent to a criminal conviction.

Neither of those claims is realistic.

First of all, although it may be difficult for the plaintiff to prove "willful or wanton misconduct" in a civil trial it's not anywhere near as high a bar as what is required to convict someone in a criminal trial. So it's quite possible that you could avoid criminal conviction and still have to defend against a civil suit.

Second, if you have to show, by a preponderance of the evidence that you were not involved in "willful or wanton misconduct", you will be doing so in civil court. Your tacit admission that you might have to defend against the claim of "willful or wanton misconduct" ("That preponderance of the evidence door swings both ways...") is meaningless if you also claim you aren't subject to a civil suit.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Point is if I'm found civilly liable I'm likely in prison already.

How did that work out for O. J. Simpson? He was acquitted of murder by a jury trial, yet he was found in civil court to be liable for Nicole's "wrongful death" and was hit with a judgement of $33.5 MILLION dollars.