IF YOU OWN GUNS: Best Thing You Can Do for Yourself In Liability Insurance

This is a discussion on IF YOU OWN GUNS: Best Thing You Can Do for Yourself In Liability Insurance within the Off Topic & Humor Discussion forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Umbrella Liability Policy , that be the ticket. If there ever was State-mandated liability ins. for gun owners it would likely be expensive. If you ...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 17
Like Tree4Likes

Thread: IF YOU OWN GUNS: Best Thing You Can Do for Yourself In Liability Insurance

  1. #1
    Ex Member Array detective's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    buffalo NY
    Posts
    952

    IF YOU OWN GUNS: Best Thing You Can Do for Yourself In Liability Insurance

    Umbrella Liability Policy, that be the ticket. If there ever was State-mandated liability ins. for gun owners it would likely be expensive. If you have an Umbrella Policy you already have it and it's not.

    I specifically asked State Farm a few years ago if personal liability enhanced from Umbrella ins. would cover Self-Defense Acts with a gun both in your home or on the street. I asked my agent. The answer was an unequivocal YES. I think it used to be that SD would be termed a "intended" act and therefore not covered by Liability Ins but the agent explained: they (State Farm), in a street example of SD, would consider your intent to be to take a walk, or go to the store, whatever, and the SD incident not intended nor the SD action taken "intended", your purpose is walking. As well, I'd add: you don't have a choice unless to die, so the act is the only left.

    I switched companies due to better premiums, Amica, rated #1 in the country by JD Powers, though it is small. I asked the same question of the agent for them, again the answer was YES, "that's what it's for" (meaning that type of event, unusual and potentially quite costly).

    I pay an extra $200/year for 2 million extra liability. That's half the price of a cup of coffee per day. That liability can be used for anything, a car accident when your standard Liability runs out, not rare with the costs of medicine, or a slander suit, or SD act, Liability Suit having to with your home, anything. One note, your premium for it will depend on your car and home level of risk, especially car. You have to have the same company for both and I initially had to raise my standard Liability for car a bit, extra $30/year for me. I have a very good driving and accident record and am older as well.

    But everyone was telling me for years, before I had guns, to get an Umbrella Policy, best deal in town to really protect you - especially in car accidents where often State minimums can be too low to keep you out of terrible debt.

    So, I'd check this out if I were you, you have a lethal weapon and some of us wear one while around the public! You NEED Liability Ins. and this is a usually inexpensive way to get it, and for your car, your house - a no brainer in summation.

    TWO NBs: --Liability Ins. does not pay for legal fees but if you win the suit you usually are paid those fees by the other party.
    As well, with a very large suit, the Ins Company's attorneys' will no doubt be in on the Defense. If you use just them I don't think you pay them. The Ins. Co. does. That's who they work for.

    ---Your insurance, Umbrella or not, will NOT cover you if Police find it wasn't a legitimate SD shooting. They won't cover you for suits after a Murder 2 indictment and conviction. Who would?
    Last edited by detective; September 19th, 2013 at 08:56 PM.
    ANGLICO likes this.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    Distinguished Member Array kapnketel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Northern Kentucky
    Posts
    1,709
    Never trust an insurance agent as to what is covered or not. If you do confirm in writing to use in the declaratory action when they deny coverage. Trust me on this, 30 + years in the insurance industry...
    blitzburgh and Tzadik like this.
    I'd rather be lucky than good any day

    There's nothing that will change someone's moral outlook quicker than cash in large sums.

    Majority rule only works if you're also considering individual rights. Because you can't have five wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for supper.

  4. #3
    VIP Member
    Array ANGLICO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    I'm the guy next door that is polite, but does not tell you crap.
    Posts
    3,485
    @ OP = Detective. Great discussion! We need more of these 'after the fact and what have you done to protect yourself before hand' discussions!

    I have coverage from a recognized national insurance instution (origionally US Military Officers relate - but has expanded) that does offer these umbrella policies................ and they can be cheap in considering what you would lay out if not insured.

    My umbrella policy covers everything from the 80 foot Palm Tree to the USPS Mail Man falling on my stairs, to the fact that I might actually LEGALLY DEFEND MYSELF.

    To the OP - Great Topic!
    detective likes this.
    Socialism Kills! Time proven, with a very large body count! We are a Constitutional Republic....... not a Democracy, get it correct!

    Don't be mistaken for a Gecko45: http://lonelymachines.org/mall-ninjas/

    Watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14qTdp-Dd30

    ANGLICO Images

  5. #4
    Ex Member Array detective's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    buffalo NY
    Posts
    952
    Quote Originally Posted by kapnketel View Post
    Never trust an insurance agent as to what is covered or not. If you do confirm in writing to use in the declaratory action when they deny coverage. Trust me on this, 30 + years in the insurance industry...
    It is but no specific examples are used for anything, including car. I think in terms of Law they'd have to cover it, and that may have been the explanation for the change in policy, a Case or Finding. There would be no legal reason they could avoid covering you unless it was a charged crime on your part instead of SD.

    Besides, this idea is not original with me - it is practiced by other gun owners. I think it is a known truthful entity - though not known by many.
    Last edited by detective; September 20th, 2013 at 03:13 AM.

  6. #5
    Ex Member Array detective's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    buffalo NY
    Posts
    952
    Quote Originally Posted by ANGLICO View Post
    @ OP = Detective. Great discussion! We need more of these 'after the fact and what have you done to protect yourself before hand' discussions!

    I have coverage from a recognized national insurance instution (origionally US Military Officers relate - but has expanded) that does offer these umbrella policies................ and they can be cheap in considering what you would lay out if not insured.

    My umbrella policy covers everything from the 80 foot Palm Tree to the USPS Mail Man falling on my stairs, to the fact that I might actually LEGALLY DEFEND MYSELF.

    To the OP - Great Topic!
    Well thank you. Yes, much better to find out these things now than after the first sopena hits. That's why I posted.

  7. #6
    Distinguished Member
    Array oldnfat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,394
    Is a standard "Home owners" policy the same as an umbrella policy?
    I shoot with a pistol and a Canon. We must all hang together amigos, or we will all hang separately. NRA life member.

  8. #7
    VIP Member
    Array ANGLICO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    I'm the guy next door that is polite, but does not tell you crap.
    Posts
    3,485
    Quote Originally Posted by oldnfat View Post
    Is a standard "Home owners" policy the same as an umbrella policy?
    No! I am too stupid to give you advice (yes, I am admitting that) but you really need to do research. Each Company that will insure you will have absolutely different terms and conditions. This is why you need to have very inexpensive riders that will cover the 'other things' that you may worry about.

    NOTE: I'm not anyway involved in selling or promoting insurance. Just sayin...............................I got my Butt Covered!
    Socialism Kills! Time proven, with a very large body count! We are a Constitutional Republic....... not a Democracy, get it correct!

    Don't be mistaken for a Gecko45: http://lonelymachines.org/mall-ninjas/

    Watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14qTdp-Dd30

    ANGLICO Images

  9. #8
    Distinguished Member
    Array Sister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Myrtle Beach, SC
    Posts
    1,609
    If you shoot then dead they don't need insurance, they need an undertaker.
    United Daughters of the Confederacy Member


    Matthew 12:36, 37

    36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. 37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.


  10. #9
    VIP Member Array maxwell97's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,991
    So, would this mean your insurance company is motivated to see you convicted of murder? Because that's the surest way they can avoid making payments?
    "Yet this government never of itself furthered any enterprise, but by the alacrity with which it got out of the way... The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way."

  11. #10
    Ex Member Array detective's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    buffalo NY
    Posts
    952
    Quote Originally Posted by oldnfat View Post
    Is a standard "Home owners" policy the same as an umbrella policy?
    No, an Umbrella Policy is added personal liability that could be used for home-liability when the standard amount runs out, or the same for auto-liability, or for any liability suit, from Slander to SD Act. If, say, you have $100,000 auto-liability and a suit for $800,000 is won by the other party for medical costs - don't laugh, two friends of mine for illnesses ran up $500,000 each - the Ins. Company, say in my case, would just take the 800 thousand from my 2 million Umbrella Liability Policy. I'd pay $0 - instead of losing my house and belongings, having my wages practically all garnished and be forced into bankruptcy at 65 - or any age.

    Or rather, I'd have $2,100,000 of Liability Ins available to pay the $800,000. That's more precise.

    All for .54 cents a day in my case.

    (I represent no Ins. Co or the Industry and would vomit if I did)

  12. #11
    Ex Member Array detective's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    buffalo NY
    Posts
    952
    Quote Originally Posted by maxwell97 View Post
    So, would this mean your insurance company is motivated to see you convicted of murder? Because that's the surest way they can avoid making payments?
    800 grand to most Ins Companies is like 2 bucks to us. Sure they'd care, but I don't think to the point of weeping.

    (You can bet your butt your liability premium would go up though, past Pluto.)
    Last edited by detective; September 20th, 2013 at 12:43 PM.

  13. #12
    Distinguished Member Array kapnketel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Northern Kentucky
    Posts
    1,709
    An umbrella policy is good sense as you get pretty cheap excess cover. But I would not assume a SD shooting os covered. He policy responds to bodily injury caused by an occurrence. Occurrence” is generally defined to mean “an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions. Intentional acts are not covered. Your coverage is at risk as you obviously intended to shoot the perpetrator. You Can argue that while you meant to shoot, you did not intend to kill, a tough sell. Your best hope is to get a defense under a reservation of rights and hopefully successfully defend a suit. Even of that happens, you are still on shaky ground for the verdict.
    I'd rather be lucky than good any day

    There's nothing that will change someone's moral outlook quicker than cash in large sums.

    Majority rule only works if you're also considering individual rights. Because you can't have five wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for supper.

  14. #13
    Ex Member Array detective's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    buffalo NY
    Posts
    952
    Quote Originally Posted by kapnketel View Post
    An umbrella policy is good sense as you get pretty cheap excess cover. But I would not assume a SD shooting os covered. He policy responds to bodily injury caused by an occurrence. Occurrence” is generally defined to mean “an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions. Intentional acts are not covered. Your coverage is at risk as you obviously intended to shoot the perpetrator. You Can argue that while you meant to shoot, you did not intend to kill, a tough sell. Your best hope is to get a defense under a reservation of rights and hopefully successfully defend a suit. Even of that happens, you are still on shaky ground for the verdict.
    Well, they do cover for SD acts, I know that. So does the other poster who has the same type of Umbrella with another company. And their previous stance (if indeed they had that) was likely seen as unsustainable.

    See, in any catastrophic event people take actions, they attempt to put out a fire in their house with an extinguisher before running out, and though that may keep it smaller in terms of destruction with a fast-acting Fire Dept at hand, they still lose their home. In a car accident they may turn the wheel suddenly to avoid a head-on and only end up with an extremely serious accident etc. But those acts do not nullify Ins coverage as if the intention was to set the house on fire or intentionally ram their car into another. The real intent was to watch TV - not have a less serious fire than a killer, or their intention was to drive to work, not to cause an "extremely serious accident. And in an SD act the intention is not to have to try and act to save your life by injuring or killing a perp, it is to take a walk or go the store. All of these events are happenings out of the blue, accidents of fate, the fire, the crash, the BG attempting to kill you. That you react cannot be called the "intent" - it isn't.

    In short, legally they are required to cover SD acts. That they have to is proved by the fact that they do. Ins Companies are not noted for their limitless humanity and wouldn't actually cover you for anything if they could get away with it.

    (Besides, they are not losing tons of money on SD use of Umbrella Liability Policies. Suits for SD acts are incredibly uncommon. They spend more on rubber-bands per year (plus they get most people's premium with $0 cost to them for their cusomer's whole life. They MAKE, not lose money by covering SD acts, though not much - same as it is not much or anything they lose.)

  15. #14
    Distinguished Member Array kapnketel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Northern Kentucky
    Posts
    1,709
    Having denied coverage for SD acts on umbrella policies and winning in court on the issue ( I am a claim exec at a carrier) you had better read the policy closely. Your insurer may have a special policy form but a standard umbrella it is questionable coverage. It is a grey area, all cases are very fact specific.

    I understand your point but your thoughts on intent run contrary to a lot of court decisions.
    I'd rather be lucky than good any day

    There's nothing that will change someone's moral outlook quicker than cash in large sums.

    Majority rule only works if you're also considering individual rights. Because you can't have five wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for supper.

  16. #15
    Ex Member Array detective's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    buffalo NY
    Posts
    952
    Quote Originally Posted by kapnketel View Post
    Having denied coverage for SD acts on umbrella policies and winning in court on the issue ( I am a claim exec at a carrier) you had better read the policy closely. Your insurer may have a special policy form but a standard umbrella it is questionable coverage. It is a grey area, all cases are very fact specific.

    I understand your point but your thoughts on intent run contrary to a lot of court decisions.
    I don't know when these cases were but I don't believe Ins Companies have the same policy anymore towards claims. I also don't know if the SD acts were questionable or not in your cases.

    I don't believe the prior court cases would have precedence over cases now or if it was found to be an act of SD by police without question - that the argument for coverage has any holes in it. Catastrophic events which are unknown, unplanned for in any specific way, and do not exist in the mind beforehand are not caused by the intention of those to whom they happen. The person reacting to save his life is a reaction only to an event he had no intent to even participate in because he had no foreknowledge it would exist. If you denied coverage it would include the premise that the only way to receive it would be to die without any attempt to save one's life when such attempts appeared possibly successful. Under how many claims for coverage would that condition exist? It would be denied for every accident on earth involving Liability.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

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