I'm willing to hear more...when you have it...
This is a discussion on Possible homeowners insurance policy that will cover defensive Firearm liability within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; I am an insurance agent in upstate NY and I am also a gun enthusiast. At this point, as far as I know, there are ...
I am an insurance agent in upstate NY and I am also a gun enthusiast.
At this point, as far as I know, there are no homeowners policys that address coverage for self defense shootings etc. (for both legal defense costs as well as court awarded losses). I am in the process of working with an A rated insurance company in providing automatic coverage using their umbrella policy. In other words, you would have to purchase a homeowners and umbrella policy with them to get the coverage. A $1,000,000 umbrella only costs about $200 or so. I will post the details of the policy once it's approved. It will be an exciting policy to offer my fellow sportsmen and there will be no need to buy a separate policy to provide coverage for reasonable defense of life or property using a firearm. I don't want to come off as a salesman, but I think it's a great new product that many if us could greatly benefit from. And I do have the capacity do write policies all across both NY and PA. For example, I currently have a niche program for contractors and insure over 900 clients all across both states, all from my office located in upstate NY. Distance is not a factor for us! I cannot wait to get approval since I'm looking for coverage to protect myself as well! I would also love to gauge the interest from all of you. Please, by all means, feel free to leave any comments you might have! I am very interested in hearing how many of you would be interested in such a policy. Hopefully it is not against the rules o this forum to use it for commercial purposes, but I feel that this coverage is critical to all of us and at the current time it's very expensive and difficult to find. I will not use this forum to advertise, but once it's approved, I will gladly answer any messages from a forum member interested in obtaining coverage or needing any insurance advice. If the program is successful, we may open it up to more states each year in the hopes of expanding it to 30 or 40 states.
I'm willing to hear more...when you have it...
"Let us speak courteously, deal fairly, and keep ourselves armed and ready."
Bring it to Michigan.
Even though we have a very comprehensive Right of self defense, and stand your ground laws, as evidenced here,
Honest and Reasonable Belief
The Act (PA 311) creates a rebuttable presumption that a person using force has an honest and reasonable belief that imminent death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault will occur if the person using force honestly and reasonably believes the person against whom force is used is any of the following:
1. In the process of breaking and entering a dwelling or business
2. In the process of committing a home invasion
3. Has committed a breaking and entering or home invasion and is still present in the dwelling or business
4. Is attempting to unlawfully remove a person from a dwelling, business, or vehicle against his or her will
The presumption created by the Act does not apply in the following circumstances:
1. The person against whom force was used has a legal right to be in the dwelling, business, or vehicle
2. The person being removed from a dwelling, business, or vehicle is a child in the lawful custody of the person removing the child
3. The person using force is engaged in a crime or using the business, dwelling, or vehicle to further a crime
4. The person against whom force is used is a police officer attempting to enter a dwelling, business, or vehicle in the performance of his or her duties
5. The person against whom force was used has a domestic relationship with the person using force and the person using force has a history of domestic violence as the aggressor
Effect on the Common Law
In circumstances not addressed in the Act, the common law of self-defense still applies with one exception: There is no longer a duty to retreat when a person is “in his or her own dwelling or within the curtilage of that dwelling.” This exception applies even in cases where the rest of the Act doesn’t apply (PA 313).
A person who uses force in accordance with the Act is immune from civil liability for damages caused by the use of such force (PA 314). Additionally, courts must award attorney fees and costs to an individual who has been sued for using force and the court finds that the force was in accordance with the Act (PA 312).
Under the Act (PA 310), no crime has been committed when a person uses force as authorized. If a prosecutor believes that the force is not justified, he or she must provide evidence that the force used was not in accordance with the Act. Such evidence must be presented at the time of warrant issuance, preliminary examination, and trial.
Effect on Law Enforcement
The overall effect of the Act on police practice is minimal. Officers should still process suspected crime scenes as in the past. However, because of the duty imposed upon prosecutors by PA 310, officers should immediately consult with their prosecutor when investigating a case where self-defense has been claimed by the suspect or where the circumstances indicate that such a defense might be used at trial.
In the absence of guidance from a prosecutor, officers should attempt to gather circumstantial or direct evidence that might show that use of force was unjustified, i.e., the circumstances listed in PA 309 did not exist
something of this nature would only give further peace of mind.
I would rather die with good men than hide with cowards
If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans
Don't ever think that the reason I'm peaceful is because I don't know how to be violent
M&Pc .357SIG, 2340Sigpro .357SIG
Hopefully it's a viable option but it could just be another way for insurance companies to offer protection and then to screw you over and drop you faster than a stinky turd.
Sorry, I don't trust insurance companies.
See if you can add MA (very unlikely) and NH to that list of states. I'm certain that you could get a lot of new customers.
That said, make sure that the company you are dealing with has a GOOD reputation dealing with claims. Many/most seem to have abysmal records in this regard.
I am with the same company for >30 years (direct) for home/autos/umbrella, even though I am very unhappy with their lack of attention to written requests (that involved my requesting more coverage and adjustments to policy renewal date to resolve a nuisance problem) . . . since they have a stellar reputation on handling claims.
I have a very good friend who is an insurance adjuster (auto) and he confirmed for me info on how terrible most of the companies are on handling claims. It also tracked my own Google searches on customer (lack of) satisfaction when the rubber meets the road. [BTW: I once had a local insurance agent who was absolutely useless when we had a claim due to a car burning up (while my Wife was driving), company illegally took possession of the car and sold it at auction before even paying us anything, then they paid us 1/3 of book value. I even filed a complaint with the state Insurance department, and the company even agreed that what they did was wrong! I left them immediately and went with current (very anti-gun) company back then.]
As for NRA insurance, one of my clubs is insured by them and I am NOT impressed with their claim handling. Two of our buildings collapsed last Winter and it took >6 months for Lloyd's of London (underwriter for NRA) to agree to their own US adjusters numbers and cough up the money to rebuild the buildings. Hopefully, I'll never have to deal with any claims against my NRA Instructors coverage, as they have shown their incompetence in dealing with claims.
Just to give you an idea as to how I operate, the policy language has already been approved in NY. I am not going forward with marketing the policy to gun owners until I have everyone at the insurance company on board! Everyone from VPs to their claims and legal departments. Keep in mind, I am a gun owner just like you and I want and need this coverage just like you. I can understand how many do not trust insurance companies but most of the time the blame for unpaid claims or misunderstandings really lies with your agent. Insurance companies have to pay according to the policy language and any areas in the policy that are ambiguous, by law, have to go in favor of the policyholder. Most of the time insureds are upset is due to the agents lack of educating the insured on what they are purchasing and any gaps in coverage etc. It is also the agents job to work with and represent the policyholder during a claim. Like I said, any time the policy language is ambiguous in terms of whether the loss should be covered, the agent should stand up for you and make sure the policy reads, and pays, in your favor. It is a fact that insurance companies have to pay according to the policy language, carriers have no leeway or room to manuver in being the bad guy and not paying. Agents have the responsibility to make sure the policy language meets your needs, and when they fail do to so, it can understandably result in insureds feeling that the carrier is being the bad guy, when in fact the blame should fall squarely on the agent! Choose your agents wisely! And make sure that your policy comes with a knowledgeable agent, not simply a website address or mascot! I will make sure that my insureds know exactly what they are buying! I am also making sure the policy covers the needs of gun owners. I want to be able to sleep just as good at night as my customers!
Almost sounds too good to be true...keep us posted though. I'd like to know I'm covered in a self-defense situation, and it would be nice to be able to roll that into a Homeowner's policy, rather than purchasing a separate plan that could run me another $300-$500 annually in addition to all of the other insurance premiums that I pay.
We Tampa Insurance Adjusters are always there for you.
Liability is just like asking someone for the right of way at a four way stop sign IMO. I'm not going to shoot anyone I don't intend to shoot for survival. Be sure of your backstop. A no-shoot is a no-shoot. A good shot will save your ass and prison still beats your mouth being filled with dirt.
I don't know about you, but prison doesn't seem like a viable option for me. It's better than a dirt nap, but not a good as a quality lawyer. If I could find a reasonable insurance policy to protect me from jail or litigation I'm for it.
ramblinman, thank you for doing this. This coverage is long overdue as part of homeowners' policies. I look forward to the time when this kind of coverage is available in my state.
In the heat of the moment, what matters is what your body knows -- not what your mind knows.
Since you probably won't bring it to Florida, perhaps you can get them to write an umbrella policy (for Floridians) to cover defense shootings..etc?
It's my understanding that you are covered in your home owners policy if something happens in your home
As for outside... So long as you are on the right side you have immunity
"The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, we decent law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will lose."
-James Earl Jones