CCW Insurance

[wthopkins]

We have come up with a policy specifically tailored to holders of concealed carry licenses.
It is by far the best coverage you can currently purchase.
Although it is available in selected states, we hope to broaden as time goes on.
We would be interested in your thoughts and comments.
Full details are available at www.mmdbrokers.com

[freakshow10mm]

My umbrella policy already covers that.

[Ed K]

I think it's a bad idea the Obamanation may see it and mandate it and some people who CCW CANNOT afford it.
I wish you well but most homeowner or business insurance will cover the owner in justified incedent.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

My umbrella policy already covers that.

That would be very odd if it did. I used to sell the stuff (P&C Insurance) and none of it ever covered intentional acts which self defense is. I could be wrong but I would check again if I were you.

[pax]

wthopkins,

A quick glance at the coverage shows this might be a good start. But one question: is there any reimbursement for legal fees that result in the DA deciding not to press charges? It's possible to rack up quite a bill even without the expense of a trial and a "not guilty" verdict.

pax

[freakshow10mm]

My umbrella policy covers acts of lawful self defense.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

My umbrella policy covers acts of lawful self defense.

Just out of curiosity, if you are OK with telling me, what Company has your umbrella policy.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Looking at the policy, it appears that the purchaser would pay all of the fees for criminal defense and then be reimbursed up to the limits of the policy if:

A) They pled not guilty; and
B) Were not convicted

So from a practical side, my first concern would be "Can I afford to get to a not guilty verdict and then wait for reimbursement?" Pax also brought up a good point about legal assistance prior to any indictment or criminal charges.

On the civil side, I see less benefit. If you are convicted in criminal court, you get no coverage. If you are not convicted, then most states have laws that limit or prohibit such suits. So the benefit would primarily be limited to covering the costs of having an attorney show up at summary judgment and point out you were acquitted/never charged or paying legal fees in those few states that still lack such laws.

A lot would depend on how much the policy cost.

[johnwilliamson062]

Ignore

[Tennessee Gentleman]

My umbrella policy covers acts of lawful self defense.


One more question. Does your coverage include defense costs for civil AND criminal (you are indicted) costs? You got me to checking and my umbrella indeed covers defense costs for civil liability but not criminal.

[johnwilliamson062]

I don't know if you can buy insurance for criminal acts in Ohio.

[freakshow10mm]

If found to be a justifiable shoot, no civil case can be brought against me. Coverage is for legal council for criminal defense. The premium is higher for criminal defense because criminal council charges more than civil defense council.

[Hkmp5sd]

Who is underwriting this?


As stated in their advertisement:

Coverage provided 100% by Underwriters at Lloyds, London)

Value really depends on price. At $10/month, maybe this is worth it. As I have been carrying 22 years, having been insured would have cost me about $2,500. At $100/month, that would be about $25,000 for the past 22 years. Not worth it.

[wthopkins]

I am going to try to take this one at a time as you have asked some very good questions:
Freakshow - "self defense" yes - what about defense of others - wife family, kids?
Pax - covers "lawful use of a legally possessed firearm"
Bartholomew - it is illegal to insure criminal acts, however if you have an insurance policy for criminal defense - one the lawyer is more motivated to get a not guilty and you are not stuck with a public defender coupled with the fact that if he thinks he has a good case, he might take the policy in lieu a retainer ($25,000)
Tennesee - covers criminal on a reimbursement basis, civil in its entirety
HKmps5sd - add up the cost of your homeowners insurance or your auto insurance over the last 25 years

Please send any other questions to [email protected]
Its much easier to handle on a one by one basis than on a forum.
Kudos to you guys, you are at least thinking about this!

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Tennesee - covers criminal on a reimbursement basis, civil in its entirety

Yeah, that seemed too good to be true because if found guilty how would they get the money back? You might have to front a LOT of money up front.

If found to be a justifiable shoot, no civil case can be brought against me.

Oh I think they can bring it but it would probably be thrown out after some motions I guess.

[freakshow10mm]

No, they cannot file a suit. It will be thrown out before the hearing. This has already been done a few times in Detroit area.

[pax]

Please send any other questions to [email protected]
Its much easier to handle on a one by one basis than on a forum.

Huh. This is a discussion forum, not an advertising forum. It's generally assumed, when someone posts something here, that they are posting it for the purposes of participating in a discussion about it. If it was just an ad, maybe one of us should have deleted it on sight...

Now I'm left wondering... What's "easier" about dealing with general questions about these policies in private rather than here in the open? Does the general information people need to know about these policies change that radically, from one person to the next? :confused:

pax

[Ricky B]

No, they cannot file a suit.

That will definitely vary by state.

As to insurance covering criminal acts, no state will allow that. But you can get coverage for the costs of defense, and you can certainly get coverage for negligence. In a civil action for a shooting, any decent PI lawyer will include in the complaint a claim for negligence to trigger homeowner's and other insurance coverage.

[Al Norris]

Ordinarily, I would immediately close this thread as being off topic. however...

Folks, let's see if Mr. Hopkins wants to discuss this insurance or if he simply wanted to advertise his policy.

Mr. Hopkins? The ball is in your court.

[wthopkins]

The policy reimburses criminal defense up to the policy limit. Note that is applies to "lawful use of a legally possessed firearm" and accordingly it would respond to criminal charges brought for "open carry" if charges are dismissed or if you are found not guilty.
The policy covers civil defense and settlement.
Even if your state precludes civil suits, one will be filed - anyone can sue anyone for anything - and you will incur legal expense to get it dismissed.
Notable writers on self defense and concealed carry like Masad Ayoob have numerous stories of righteous shootings that have taken years to resolve and have cost substantially in defense. The going figure I have seen most often is an average of $50,000 in legal expense.
Many lawyers will consider your defense costs as insured and accordingly will charge a minimal retainer for your defense.
The policy does not require an act of self defense to trigger coverage and would apply to hunting, range shooting, competition - any lawful use.
It is also not limited to your premises but applies at any outside location.
The policy responds to "defense of others" in addition to self defense.

The easiest way to understand the coverage is to read the form which is available on the web site.

[Brian Pfleuger]

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?

[wthopkins]

As we can't insure criminal acts, the criminal portion can only be on a reimbursement basis.

[Ricky B]

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.


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.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Therein lies the catch 22. A reimbursement does no good for a guy who can't afford to defend himself in the first place.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Which is why I for one am skeptical of CCW insurance unless you have a lot of money to pay up front and then recoop it later.

[wthopkins]

As noted above, many attorneys will consider legal expenses as insured in a righteous shooting and will defer to the insurance company for payment.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

many attorneys will consider legal expenses as insured in a righteous shooting and will defer to the insurance company for payment.

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?

[Ricky B]

As noted above, many attorneys will consider legal expenses as insured in a righteous shooting and will defer to the insurance company for payment.

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.

[wthopkins]

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.

[Brian Pfleuger]

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?

[Ricky B]

It's better to have a couple of thousand in reimbursement than nothing at all.

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.

[Ricky B]

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.

[Brian Pfleuger]

$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.

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?

[pax]

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

[Ricky B]

The tough thing here is, there really-and-truly are not a lot of options for financing a self defense case.

True.

* You can get a prepaid legal plan,

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.


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)

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.


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.

[glockman55]

CCW Insurance? Just what I don't need. **** more of my money away on useless insurance. What next? LOL

[Marty Hayes]

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

[Brian Pfleuger]

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.

[wthopkins]

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.