Umbrella Policy suggested for CC

[cjmore]

Is it a good idea to have an umbrella policy with your CC. What is a reasonable amount 1 – 5 M?

[Storm]

The NRA offers a Self-Defense Insurance (http://www.locktonrisk.com/nrains/defense.htm) as a rider to their Excess Personal Liability Insurance (http://www.locktonrisk.com/nrains/Excess.htm). There is also another company that offers SD/CCW insurance (http://www.mmdbrokers.com/) called MMD Brokers.

[legaleagle]

While a good idea, most insurance companies I come across will likely deny coverage, even if they defend you on the civil case. Unless expressly provided in the policy, you will not have a defense for criminal charges. The duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify by insurance companies. That is why they may defend you in civil action (negligence), but not pay money to the plaintiff suing you. The other problem is that every insurance policy I have seen excludes coverage for intentional acts. Rest assured, you will receive a reservation of rights letter to deny coverage for your intentional acts. Afterall, an act of self defense is not a negligent breach of duty to your fellow man; it is an intentional act where you intended to do something where you knew r should have known of the resulting harm.The good news, is that your insurance generally would deny a claim by a perp wanting civil damages as the perp engaged in conduct that was the proximate cuase of his/her injuries. This is the likely outcome at trial too, but you have to fight to get there. In other words, you earn the privilege of defending yourself by protecting yourself.I would be interested to see that the CCW specific policies provide. Just haven't read a policy yet. If anyone wants to provide me with a complete copy of the insurance policy, not a summary sheet, I would be interested in reading it to see what coverage is really offered.

[SSChameleon]

I'm an insurance agent and called my underwriter about this. She told me our umbrella policy would pay if you were to use the gun in a legal way and someone brought a civil case against you. Whether or not it was a deliberate act does not determine coverage, the legality of the action does.

I would recommend a policy that is equal or greater than your at risk assets (home, savings, income from current employment, etc).

[Irving]

Sounds the same as deliberately driving into an oak tree, to avoid hitting a baby carriage. Should still be covered. You were trying to avoid what you saw coming.

I know it's not the same though. Otherwise, letting the five bad guys kill you, would be less "damage" than killing all five bad guys.

[Storm]

Of course the real solution is to have an expanded Castle Doctrine Law that applies on the streets, like Florida. So if in the event you have to defend yourself the piece of crap criminal or their family can't even think about suing you for Wrongful Death, Injury, or whatever other BS their ambulance chasing lawyer can come up with.

Unfortunately, that is unlikely to happen in this state until the Republican gain control of at least the state senate if not the Governorship.

Apologies for the thread drift.

[legaleagle]

SSChameleon

Not trying to be a pain - but can you get a copy of the policy for review? Is this a standardized ISO policy for homeowners coverage? - you mentioned umbrella coverage, but what is the underlying policy. Among others things I would be curious to see how a deliberate act is defined; every policy I have seen and litigated excludes coverage for deliberate acts. While coverage for indemnity may be excluded, the coverage to provide a defense may still exist, as the duty to defend for an insurance co is broader.

I also noticed you mentioned using the gun in a legal way. Obviously, if you are negligent in your use, then coverage is triggered. Did your underwirter give you any explanation as to the difference between negligent use resulting in harm versus the act of defending yourself with would not be negligence on its face, rather deliberate/intentional.

[SSChameleon]

I'll have to pull a copy of the policy this week when I'm on my work computer. The questions I asked my underwriter were specific to the umbrella policy.

The underlying HO policy will include property damage so if you shoot an intruder in your home and he bleeds all over your carpet you can get the carpet replaced (you still have to pay your deductible).

By legal I was referring to self defense vs. outright murder. An intentional act will have coverage if you were acting in self defense.

I will ask for some more clarification about negligent use vs. self defense.

[Irving]

Of course the real solution is to have an expanded Castle Doctrine Law that applies on the streets, like Florida. So if in the event you have to defend yourself the piece of crap criminal or their family can't even think about suing you for Wrongful Death, Injury, or whatever other BS their ambulance chasing lawyer can come up with.


What about when you were rightfully defending yourself, but are sued when one of your bullets goes through a little girl's shoulder? Will/should the Castle Doctrine protect you from liability?

[Storm]

What about when you were rightfully defending yourself, but are sued when one of your bullets goes through a little girl's shoulder? Will/should the Castle Doctrine protect you from liability?

Of course not, the law would only shield you from lawsuit from the criminal aggressor and his family. But that is not what I was addressing in my post.

It is a ridiculous proposition that the law abiding citizen must make the choice when confronted with grievous bodily harm or death to choose between his that, and loosing their home, lively hood, etc. Most criminals have nothing to loose, they have little or no money or property. Even if they are caught, they have nothing to recompense you or your family for either your death or the injury they have caused you and you family.

It a win/win situation for them or their family and a lose/lose for the law abiding citizen.

It is my opinion that criminals should ply their trade in mortal fear of their life.

[Irving]

100% correct.