SigTalk is a forum community dedicated to SIG Sauer enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about Sig Sauer pistols and rifles, optics, hunting, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!

Self Defense Liability Insurance

4394 Views 59 Replies 34 Participants Last post by Carmel Sig, 11 mo ago

TontoFAC

Discussion Starter · 12 mo ago

What is the consensus about Self Defense Liability Insurance? Anyone personally had to use their insurance to cover legal fees?

Reactions: 1

1 - 20 of 60 Posts

Doons

· #2 · 12 mo ago

I have not had to use mine (hope it stays that way) and have to depend on faith that it does what it claims it will do, if I do need to use it. To me it is inexpensive and provides some peace of mind. The larger question, is how many of the companies that sell this insurance, have defended a defensive shooting? I use the company the has defended an actual client of a murder charge while using his weapon to defend himself. This is NOT a claim they are the best nor a recommendation of their services. Simply that if they are the only one that have defended a client, a response to your question will likely find no one who has used their policy.

You may find the video about that defense interesting… or not?

ccwsafe.com

VIDEO - The Stephen Maddox Case: How it Happened In His Own Words

Stephen Maddox is a CCW Safe Member that was assaulted multiple times by an attacker and was forced to defend himself. He was charged with Murder and was facing life in prison. CCW Safe defended Stephen and he was found Not Guilty in a jury trial. This video is Stephen telling his own story from sta

ccwsafe.com

Reactions: 3

Adjutant

· #3 · 12 mo ago

I have US Law Shield. I too, hope I never need to use their services. Ive been very happy with what I have found about them.

Youre going to have people come on here and tell you that they dont need it because they are TOO EXPERIENCED to ever have a "bad shoot", and that its a waste of money.

Im worried about the family members of said bad guy suing me in civil court, even though I had every right to defend myself.

US Law Shield protects me from any monies being spent on a civil suit. thats why I have insurance.

Reactions: 5

bblr

· #4 · 12 mo ago

Lots and lots of threads here on this.

Reactions: 2

Thechef1

· #5 · 12 mo ago

I saw a post on reddit recently. Guy used his gun to fire a "warning shot" into the windshield of a car. He did not have insurance it spend I think 30k in legal fees and 4 months in jail. I dont have any but that thread made me rethink it.

Reactions: 2

Cbp210

· #6 · 12 mo ago

I use the Self Defense Fund and so far so good. I got their plan because they have been great representing the open carryers who got arrested in Texas several years ago with many of the charges being dismissed and filing federal lawsuits for civil rights violations. I am not looking to make waves but these guys have shown to be very proactive in representation.

Self Defense Fund Protects You When You Are Protecting Yourself

HoosierBuddy

· #7 · 12 mo ago

Thechef1 said:
I saw a post on reddit recently. Guy used his gun to fire a "warning shot" into the windshield of a car. He did not have insurance it spend I think 30k in legal fees and 4 months in jail. I dont have any but that thread made me rethink it.

This (insurance) has been covered in a couple of different classes I've taken (defensive handgun, defensive shotgun) at my local range. My understanding is that you are not covered if you commit a criminal act.

So, for example, firing a "warning shot" would not be covered if it was an unlawful act. I think there's a high probability that a warning shot directed at someone else's windshield is going to be a felony in a lot of instances.

The insurance might be very helpful in a civil case where you've either not been charged or been charged but not found guilty. A wrongful death suit brought by a decedent's kids for example. Just the attorney fees would be 5 figures.

Reactions: 4

jazzman001

· #8 · 12 mo ago

If any person fire's a warning shot, that person should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The only reason to fire your weapon is to stop an aggression with a deadly weapon, that you have done everything to avoid. Some people should not have a gun! In any Defensive course or in a CCW class, it has been stated that There is no such thing as a warning shot. Also, you are responsible for EVERY round that leave's your weapon Period! People like that give law abiding citizen's who decide to carry a bad name and also give the media another talking point on why they need to ban gun's. If you carry a gun, you Better know when and where to use your gun to protect yourself and your family! As far as liability insurance, I use USCCA.

Reactions: 5

TontoFAC

Discussion Starter · #9 · 12 mo ago

Thanks All. I currently have USCCA. I came across an article on Project Gunner site that compares USCCA, Safe and US Law Shield. There is a lot there and am trying to pick through it.

Reactions: 3

Nickp

· #10 · 12 mo ago

TontoFAC said:
Thanks All. I currently have USCCA. I came across an article on Project Gunner site that compares USCCA, Safe and US Law Shield. There is a lot there and am trying to pick through it.

any chance you have a link to that comparison...?

Reactions: 1

TontoFAC

Discussion Starter · #11 · 12 mo ago

Nickp said:
any chance you have a link to that comparison...?

Here it is: CCW Safe vs US Law Shield vs USCCA: Which CCW Insurance is Better?

Reactions: 1

Carmel Sig

· #12 · 12 mo ago

I have insurance because even though I'm unlikely to ever need it, if I do it averts a high probability of sleeping under a bridge during my golden years.

I started with USCCA, but switched to CCW Safe this year for two reasons:

USCCA reserves the right to 'claw back' any/all financial support if one is found guilty. I'm not worried about personally committing a crime, but legit self-defense that occurs while traveling through a leftist state and tried in an anti 2A court could cause a perfectly legal self defense situation to be judged harshly. I understand USCCA's position but don't want that risk. If USCCA changes that policy, I'd strongly consider going back.
CCW Safe has a slate of experts that get activated in a self defense situation, providing a knowledgeable team (in addition to a good lawyer of my choice) to work on my behalf if a situation arises.

In my view, if one has significant assets (house, car, etc) it may be smart to protect them against the very low probability of a SD event, which could have high financial impact. Even if a criminal case is judged in one's favor, the risk of civil suit (a free money game for perps) makes a policy potentially a good idea.

See less See more

Reactions: 3

FreeTacos

· #13 · 12 mo ago

I have CCW Safe. If I remember correctly, they were one of the few that had civil damages coverage. And I'm more worried about civil suits than criminal charges. They also have a discount for LE, Military, Veterans.

Reactions: 3

CodeSection

· #14 · 12 mo ago

FreeTacos said:
I have CCW Safe. If I remember correctly, they were one of the few that had civil damages coverage. And I'm more worried about civil suits than criminal charges. They also have a discount for LE, Military, Veterans.

USCCA has up to $2,000,000 in civil liability coverage. CCW Safe offers up to $1,000,0000 in civil liability coverage, though it costs extra. I used to have both CCW Safe and USCCA for years....CCW Safe for unlimited legal representation from experienced criminal attorneys and USCCA mainly for the civil liability coverage.

Earlier this year I canceled my USCCA membership after reading their civil liability coverage because it is a secondary policy. USCCA's policy only kicks in after your homeowner's/auto's regular policy and personal umbrella policy. CCW Safe's civil liability policy is a secondary policy as well.

After reading my personal umbrella policies, I found I am covered. I verified the coverage with my insurance agent as well as with my insurance company. Thus, some individuals may have civil liability protection from their personal umbrella policy that covers their home and auto. The language the insurance company has on those policies may change from state to state so it is important to read whatever policy YOU have. Sections in the policy to focus on are "Exclusions" along with "Intentional Acts". Most policies I have read have excluded coverage from intentional acts which result in bodily injury.

However, I have read in my umbrella policies:
EXCLUSIONS: Intentional Acts
We will not pay for or defend any claim or suit which results from bodily injury or property damage which:
a. Arises from an act intended by an insured;
b. Arises from an insured's failure to act: or
c. Arises from an act which a reasonable person would expect to cause bodily injury or property damage.

This exclusion does not apply where the bodily injury or property damage arises from an insured's negligence or from an insured's use of reasonable action to protect persons or property.

So, at the end of the day, you may not need the extra secondary civil liability coverage with these memberships.....

See less See more

P-shooter

· #15 · 12 mo ago

I just signed up for USCCA. They offered me a nice LE discount. Also they just removed the caps for their legal representation so they line up better with the others. I honestly have not researched these as throughly as I probably should have. I have a good friend who is a USCCA instructor so I did rely on his choice to guide me.
What I really should research is if any of them will defend you if you don't use your weapon. Specifically if I am charged in relation to carrying under LEOSA (HR218) which has happend in a couple of cases. I believe that the accused won each of these cases but I know it wasn't cheap.

P-shooter

· #16 · 12 mo ago

CodeSection said:
However, I have read in my umbrella policies:
EXCLUSIONS: Intentional Acts
We will not pay for or defend any claim or suit which results from bodily injury or property damage which:
a. Arises from an act intended by an insured;
b. Arises from an insured's failure to act: or
c. Arises from an act which a reasonable person would expect to cause bodily injury or property damage.

This exclusion does not apply where the bodily injury or property damage arises from an insured's negligence or from an insured's use of reasonable action to protect persons or property.

So, at the end of the day, you may not need the extra secondary civil liability coverage with these memberships.....

I just read an article about the new insurance requirement law passed in San Jose CA. They pretty much showed that for the most part gun owners wouldn't need to do anything as their current homeowners policy would provide the coverage required by the law. And in fact the article showed that the law would do nothing to impact gun crime as the only thing it could do is pay for accidental shootings and there have been like 2 there in the last 5 years that would have fallen under this requirement.

Reactions: 1

CodeSection

· #17 · 12 mo ago

P-shooter said:
I just signed up for USCCA. They offered me a nice LE discount. Also they just removed the caps for their legal representation so they line up better with the others. I honestly have not researched these as throughly as I probably should have. I have a good friend who is a USCCA instructor so I did rely on his choice to guide me.
What I really should research is if any of them will defend you if you don't use your weapon. Specifically if I am charged in relation to carrying under LEOSA (HR218) which has happend in a couple of cases. I believe that the accused won each of these cases but I know it wasn't cheap.

These links might be of help...... https://www.deltadefense.com/public/self-defense-liability-policy.pdf and https://www.usccamemberterms.com/

Reactions: 1

CodeSection

· #18 · 12 mo ago

P-shooter said:
I just read an article about the new insurance requirement law passed in San Jose CA. They pretty much showed that for the most part gun owners wouldn't need to do anything as their current homeowners policy would provide the coverage required by the law. And in fact the article showed that the law would do nothing to impact gun crime as the only thing it could do is pay for accidental shootings and there have been like 2 there in the last 5 years that would have fallen under this requirement.

Good to hear. Every person should check with the policy that covers their state.

Obviously, if one does not have an umbrella policy, they would have limited coverage to only what the liability amount is listed in their homeowner/auto policy......Thus, it is prudent to make sure one has an umbrella policy that covers their potential exposures from all sources.

Reactions: 1

PaulWVa

· #19 · 12 mo ago

I have insurance for carry just like I have insurance on my car. It's worth it for the peace of mind. I've never had to use either one (knock on wood). I had an old "work" friend that lost control of his Mustang (yes, he was speeding but not outrageously) ... he lost control on a soft shoulder and went over a hill ... he hit a house ... yes, a house and did many thousands in damages. His insurance did pay a lot, but he got sued for much more and it changed his whole life.

I know it's not exactly the same thing, but it sure got my attention as to what can happen ... my insurances help protect not only me but my wife too. It sure helps me sleep better.

Reactions: 2

marathonrunner

· #20 · 12 mo ago

Adjutant said:
I have US Law Shield. I too, hope I never need to use their services. Ive been very happy with what I have found about them.

Youre going to have people come on here and tell you that they dont need it because they are TOO EXPERIENCED to ever have a "bad shoot", and that its a waste of money.

Im worried about the family members of said bad guy suing me in civil court, even though I had every right to defend myself.

US Law Shield protects me from any monies being spent on a civil suit. thats why I have insurance.

CCW safe is the best company and offers best coverage

Reactions: 3

1 - 20 of 60 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.