Insurance company - Page 2
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17

Thread: Insurance company

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Posts
    127
    ^^^The way insurance companies typically work is that if you want the insurance company to defend you, you give them the right to settle (in civil claims only). If you are involved in a self-defense situation, and you invoke your insurance to indemnify you, they will likely settle (litigation costs can exceed your liability coverage, leaving you with the excess costs). If the company does settle, then the case can never again be filed (isn't the peace of mind worth the settlement). Considering that a settlement can be reached rather quickly, versus waiting years for a court trial, with pre-trial motions, depositions, and discovery research can take an emotional toll, it's not unreasonable in the least to settle.

    Settling a case is NOT an admission of guilt under any jurisdiction's Rules of Evidence. That means that any settlement cannot be used against you in any other case, civil or criminal. The law recognizes that some settlements may be motivated simply as a means of "buying the peace" and putting an issue to rest. It also recognizes that the cost of defending against litigation can cost significantly more than a settlement.

    The insurance company cannot require you to admit guilt in criminal court, nor can they enter a plea without your consent. This would be contradictory to the lawyer's duty of zealous representation.

    Keep in mind that just because you have insurance does not mean they will defend you. Be sure you understand how your policy works, and what its limitations are. If you are not within the limitations, or if during the incident you commit an intentional crime, or an intentional, malicious act, then your insurance policy cannot defend you.

  2.   
  3. #12
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Panhandle, Idaho
    Posts
    279
    Homeowners policies typically (99% of the time) will not pay for intentional acts as Ken said above. They may pay for defense costs with a reservation of rights not to pay any final award, but even that is a stretch.


    The NRA policy is the correct way to go, and was designed to specifically fill this need.


    Where a homeowners policy will pay is if your gun fires accidentally and injures someone. An example is your house catches on fire and you've left loaded guns stashed all around, one cooks off and hits a fireman responding.


    BTW, an insurance policy has nothing to do with pleas and and criminal defense attorneys, that's for criminal court. They will only deal with civil trials involving financial awards.


    30+ years as an agent and underwriter.

  4. 25 years ago when I carried a permit in SC you were required to buy insurance to post bond in case you were arrested even if the shooting was justified. At that time I went to Pridential and got a Million dollar peronal liability policy in case I was sued in a Civil court over a Justified shooting. Keep in mind even if the action is justified you can still be hauled in to a civil suit. I tried about 10 years ago and could find no one to purchase liability insurance from. It may exist. I would call the NRILA ofNRA and ask them. Their legal dept may know. I am afraid now most insurance companies do not want to get involved in self defense situations
    Last edited by Glock27; 12-22-2009 at 09:14 AM. Reason: spelling

  5. MMD BROKERS
    Covers people in NM, CO,AZ, and TX
    MMD Brokers LLC - Firearm Insurance

    Give them a call and see if they can write a policy for your location...very affordable!
    Quick to the gun, Sure of your grip. Quick to the threat, sure of your shot. - Chris Costa

  6. prices $250-$350/yr
    Quick to the gun, Sure of your grip. Quick to the threat, sure of your shot. - Chris Costa

  7. #16
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Panhandle, Idaho
    Posts
    279
    Case in Pennsylvania just decided regarding this issue.


    The U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that a man’s drunkenness did not render his attempted shootings of a woman accidental and therefore did not trigger coverage under either his homeowners policy or his personal umbrella liability policy under Pennsylvania law.

    The court sided with State Farm Fire & Casualty in denying coverage to Dr. Thomas Mehlman for his March 2005 attempted shootings of Maria Iacono. Iacono survived as the multiple shots fired at her by Mehlman all missed but Mehlman killed himself after the attempts. Iacono then sued Mehlman’s estate, which sought to have his insurance policies pay.

    The appeals court concluded that despite Mehlman's intoxication, Iacono’s alleged injuries were not caused by an accident so there was not an “occurrence” under the homeowners policy or a “loss” under the umbrella policy. State Farm did not owe a duty to defend or indemnify Mehlman under either policy.

    “Mehlman’s alleged actions demonstrate that he had an unmistakable intent to cause harm to Iacono. Damages resulting from a violent assault with a deadly weapon are exactly the type of injury against which insurance companies are not and should not be expected to insure,” the appeals court stated.
    Insurance Does Not Cover Shootings by Drunk Pennsylvania Doctor

  8. #17
    From MMD Brokers LLC - Firearm Insurance Policy:

    C. Defense of Criminal Charges or Criminal Proceedings

    We shall have no obligation to provide a defense or to reimburse the “insured” for any costs or expenses incurred in connection with the investigation or defense of any criminal charges or criminal proceedings against the “insured”. However, subject to all of the terms, conditions and exclusions of this policy, we will reimburse the “insured” up to the Limit of Liability stated on the Declarations, for the reasonable and necessary costs and expenses incurred in connection with the investigation and/or defense of any criminal charge or criminal proceeding caused by or arising out of the use of a “legally possessed firearm” providing both:

    1. the “insured” pleads not guilty; and

    2. the criminal charge or criminal proceeding is either dismissed or the “insured” is acquitted.

    If both of the above conditions C.1 and C.2 are fulfilled and reimbursement is made under this Insuring Agreement, reimbursement of the reasonable and necessary costs and expenses incurred in connection with the investigation or defense of any criminal charges or criminal proceedings shall be part of not in addition to the Limit of Liability stated on the Declarations. Thus, payment of such costs and expenses will erode and may exhaust the Limit of Liability provided by this policy.
    Washington State already provides some of this protection gratis via RCW 9A.16.110 - Defending against violent crime — Reimbursement.

    ... (2) When a person charged with a crime listed in subsection (1) of this section is found not guilty by reason of self-defense, the state of Washington shall reimburse the defendant for all reasonable costs, including loss of time, legal fees incurred, and other expenses involved in his or her defense. This reimbursement is not an independent cause of action. To award these reasonable costs the trier of fact must find that the defendant's claim of self-defense was sustained by a preponderance of the evidence. If the trier of fact makes a determination of self-defense, the judge shall determine the amount of the award ...
    Ken Grubb
    Puyallup, WA

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast