Firearms liability insurance plans

S

SK1911

Inactive
Hi all,
Never posted in this forum before. And the members of skunk work have been very helpful, hopefully this group will be as well. Just got off the phone with my bundled insurance agent and asked him ( state farm) if they offer fire arms / ccw coverage. As i expected the answer is no, and he suggested i contact the NRA. I am a member and know they recommend a plan for about $400/year. With the spouse and I holding concealed carry licenses and having firearms in the house, for self defense and paper punching. I thought it may be a good idea to find some type of liability insurance coverage regarding the fact, we may ( i hope not) have to defend ourselves with fire arm and possibly hurt or terminate some one intent on harming us or the family.
Having heard horror stories on the legal turmoil that would follow. I am now seeking solutions and figured there have to be many people in the same boat.

My question is any of the members have coverage's and what you opinions may be on who offers what? I'm open to realigning polices i have with a major insurance carrier if one exists or an independent specific coverage firm. My post is not intended to be a sales pitch for any group, but rather a pulse of what is available and if any one has said coverage, what there opinion may be.
Thanks SK
 
Consider CCWSafe AND USConcealed carry. I have both. I believe the legal aspects and not have to worry about being reimbursed, CCWSafe is much stronger. On the other hand, USConcealed carry has a higher bail feature and you can purchase one million in liability coverage from them. I would rather pay a little extra now, as compared to tens of thousands later. Btw, they both work together when one of their subscribers has them both. Below are the links so as you can compare their features for yourself.

http://ccwsafe.com

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/us...index.html?id=3steps&sid=Membership_and_bonus

Good luck!
 
Last edited:
IMO, this whole CCW insurance subject is just another angle to bleed the 2A.

Just like having to pay for a license to carry a weapon to exercise your right protect yourself from those that would physically harm you.

It's just that the insurance is paid to fend off the bad guy's lawyers or a leftist DA. Another tax on an inherent right.
 
FlySubCompact said:
IMO, this whole CCW insurance subject is just another angle to bleed the 2A.

Just like having to pay for a license to carry a weapon to exercise your right protect yourself from those that would physically harm you.

It's just that the insurance is paid to fend off the bad guy's lawyers or a leftist DA. Another tax on an inherent right.
Click to expand...
What hogwash.

In the real world people who have used their guns in self defense have been sued. Defending a civil suit of that sort is an expensive proposition. Legal fees alone could run from around $10,000, if the suit can be disposed of a an early stage, to $100,000 or more to go through a jury trial. And everything you have is on the line.

A primary purpose for liability insurance to to cover the cost of defense, which can be substantial even if you win.

If you have no income, property or other assets, perhaps you have less to worry about. But some of us own our home and have enough other assets that we have something to protect.
 
Frank,

In the slight chance (statistically) that I ever have face a self defense situation to save my life or the lives of my loved ones, I could give less than a damn at that moment if I loose my assets. Assets can be eventually be reacquired. The lives of me and mine, cannot.

The modern, legal mechanisms that allow for a perpetrator, or his family, to sue someone after a "good shoot" are just wrong.

1880's America...a robber gets popped by a general store owner during an attempted robbery. The very idea of store owner getting sued or even charged for the shooting would be ridiculous. Probably laughable, in those days.

Modern America... A thug (with a documented history of violence) violently attacks someone in a robbery, but gets dead via the victim using his pistol. The victim then faces an aggressive anti-self defense District Attorney, but still manages to get clear. Later, he gets financially raped in civil court by the dead thug's family. That is wrong and there should be no reason to have insurance to protect yourself in a clear defense event.
 
FlySubCompact said:
In the slight chance (statistically) that I ever have face a self defense situation to save my life or the lives of my loved ones, I could give less than a damn at that moment if I loose my assets....
Click to expand...
That's fine for you. It's your choice. But that being your choice is no basis upon which to spout off nonsense about the nature and purposes of liability insurance.

FlySubCompact said:
...The modern, legal mechanisms that allow for a perpetrator, or his family, to sue someone after a "good shoot" are just wrong....
Click to expand...
Nonetheless, your ill considered opinion does not change reality.

  • People who have used their guns, or force in general, have been sued and will continue to be sued.

  • You don't have the final say on whether it was a "good shoot." That decision will be up to others after the fact.

FlySubCompact said:
...1880's America...a robber gets popped by a general store owner during an attempted robbery. The very idea of store owner getting sued or even charged for the shooting would be ridiculous....
Click to expand...
That was then, and this is now. How things might have been more than a century ago is irrelevant. Things are different today, and we're living in the world of today -- not the world of the 1880s.

...Modern America... A thug (with a documented history of violence) violently attacks someone in a robbery, but gets dead via the victim using his pistol. The victim then faces an aggressive anti-self defense District Attorney, but still manages to get clear. Later, he gets financially raped in civil court by the dead thug's family. That is wrong and there should be no reason to have insurance to protect yourself in a clear defense event.
Click to expand...
So what? Things are as they are.

You may choose not to live in the real world of today. But others recognize that they are living in the real world today, and this thread is providing information that might help those people deal with reality.
 
That's fine for you. It's your choice. But that being your choice is no basis upon which to spout off nonsense about the nature and purposes of liability insurance.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with liability insurance in general. I pay for plenty of it now. It should not have to exist to cover an American in case of self defense.

You are right that this aspect does exist, today, in modern America. I say it should not and that it is wrong. A symptom of a current glut of lawyers, IMO. Too many "Call Saul Goodman's". Too few "Atticus Finch's".
 
FlySubCompact said:
... It should not have to exist to cover an American in case of self defense....
Click to expand...
While you may be entitled to your opinion, your opinion doesn't change reality.

This thread is about the real world, so your opinion is irrelevant. So apparently you have nothing worthwhile to contribute to the discussion underway in this thread.

If you have nothing useful to add, please don't bother posting.
 
Remember that there are two separate issues here: (1) your costs of defense if you are charged with a crime; and (2) defense costs and indemnification in a civil suit.

Review the exact terms of any plan you're considering. Some may cover one type of exposure but not the other. Decide what kind of protection you want and make sure that what you buy fills your needs. You might need two plans to get full coverage.
 
The Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network is the program I can wholeheartedly recommend.

Disclaimer: ACLDN was founded by my longtime friends and mentors, Marty and Gila Hayes at the Firearms Academy of Seattle. They are aided and abetted by John Farnam, Massad Ayoob, Tom Givens -- all people I know well and trust implicitly, so that's my bias right up front. (The ACLDN Advisory Board also includes Dennis Tueller and Manny Kapelsohn, both of whom I know only by their sterling reputations.) Also: Marty has paid me an occasional paycheck for 10 years or more, since I'm one of his staff instructors at FAS, and for awhile, I paid him an occasional paycheck in my role as editor of a firearms publication, so there's a little financial crossover to keep in mind too.​

ACLDN isn't insurance, and it isn't pre-paid legal coverage -- although it includes elements of both these ideas. Also, it isn't primarily intended to help you deal with a lawsuit. It is simply intended to help you avoid being prosecuted and put in jail for the rest of your life for the "crime" of defending yourself against a violent criminal attack.

The problem it's intended to solve is the cost of legal work following a use of force in self defense. A legal defense -- before trial! -- can cost a hefty chunk of change. A really good, early legal defense can stop things from going to trial, which is exactly what we want to happen. But here's the kicker: insurance plans pay out only after trial, and then only if you receive a "Not Guilty" verdict. If you successfully avoid trial by putting up a good, vigorous early defense and having all your legal ducks in a row, guess what? No insurance money for you. Or if you look at the stakes on the table, and the prosecutor offers you some chickenpoop plea bargain that amounts to, "Just sign here and the whole thing goes away forever as long as you stay out of trouble for a year, otherwise we can gamble with a felony conviction for you and a 20-year sentence if you lose at trial...." -- well, you might possibly want to just sign on the dotted line. But if you do that, again, no insurance money for you. Insurance pays only if it goes to trial, and only if you receive an unmixed Not Guilty. Otherwise you're on the hook.

Not only that: insurance pays out after trial. But criminal defense lawyers simply do not work on a contingency basis. They want cash up front. Once you've maxed out the credit cards, you'll have to find a way to fund that legal defense somehow. If you don't have a big chunk of change sitting in the bank to pay your legal fees right up front, you may find yourself trying to fund your legal defense with GoFundMe or some other scheme. (That didn't look so hot when Zimmerman did it...)

Pre-paid legal plans don't give you a choice of lawyers, and often aren't flexible from one state to another. If your PPL is based in your own state of residence, but your use of force happens on the other side of the state line, you may be out of luck. (NOT necessarily; but it's a factor to explore.) More concerning to me: if you don't like or trust the lawyer you're assigned, you may not be able to switch to another.

Further, most PPLs and insurances usually don't pay for essential but ancillary expenses, such as filing fees, the cost of detectives and expert witnesses, etc etc. There are exceptions and it's worth looking at the fine print to be sure you understand what's covered and what's not.

ACLDN's description of their own services compared to others can be found [at this link.] I think it's a fair, and fairly accurate, description of the factors you'll want to consider.

What ACLDN offers:

  • You choose your own lawyer. ACLDN does have a list of attorneys you might want to consult and every attorney on the list is also an ACLDN member. You are not required to choose only from that list; your attorney will be paid the same, regardless of where you find him or her.
    .
  • $10,000 immediately after an event. This money goes straight to your lawyer to get your legal defense work started, which is important as you'll want your attorney at your side right away.
    .
  • Up to half the ACLDN war chest (currently, that account stands at approximately half a million dollars) to help with any legal or related expenses should the case require it.
    .
  • Immediate access to experts in Use of Force Law and related issues; people who can testify on your behalf at trial and also help do a lot of the background legwork your lawyer will want done.
    .
  • A large educational package that includes 8 DVDs and an excellent resource book (Use of Deadly Force by Massad Ayoob).

So that's why I'm a fan of this particular type of coverage. Again, I'm biased because these are people I respect and trust.

pax
 
PAX, when I researched liability insurance (as the OP is doing), when I read what the ACLDN offered, as you listed, the decision was easy.


I know nobody from there. As a side note what I like since joining is the free legal training material from the network plus regular articles on the topic in my inbox and a members forum discussion. The legal training material they gave me is a lot more than I expected for the membership due and the training material is excellent resource to keep and continue to reference from time to time.


I don’t believe any pre-paid legal insurance give you any legal training from such experienced experts in the field?
 
Thanks

I certainly appreciate all the replies to the original post and have been given numerous opinions and suggestions, what i find interesting is no one has actually needed any of the services. So all of the conversations are one sided, with out any real results. This in fact is probably a very good thing and indicates, contrary to what the government tells us, there is not a lot of crazed individuals involved in self defense issues.
I now have a tremendous amount of research to follow up on and expect, i can make intelligent choices. What i have found on skimming some of the suggested providers is that every one of them say the the best, so its up to me to make that determination.
Thanks to all, who suggested options.

Stan
 
ACLDN sounds like a good idea, but I also feel that anyone who carries a gun should have a local attorney on retainer. And memorize his or her phone number; your cell phone or notebook will be taken from you.

A network is a good idea, but a lawyer who knows the local legal eagles and police, and can bail you out before the jail bunk gets too uncomfortable, is better than someone who parachutes in not knowing squat about the territory.

Jim
 
James,

I agree!

Though I'm not sure why you used the word "BUT", as if having your own local attorney would somehow be at odds with joining a support organization that pays for (and provides practical help for) the attorney you pick yourself.

pax
 
its also worth noting that the ACLDN has a long list of recommended attornies to choose from that are selected specifically for their expertise in self defense cases. You can still use any attorney you want but for the average member layperson who might not know where to begin or what to look for/ask in their search for their personal attorney, this is a huge step in the right direction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top