Defense insurance denial of coverage - Attorneys on Retainer Alternative

[Brandon B]

Hey all,

Lately, there have been some discussions floating around the internet discussing the denial of service by self defense insurance companies.  I know USCCA was most recently in that hot seat.  I was wondering if anyone has any thoughts on CCW Safe.  I heard the head attorney for Attorneys on Retainer go over their contract and it sounds like there are just as many options for CCW Safe to deny you coverage.  This seems a bit scary since if you did ever have to defend yourself, then defend yourself in court, most likely you'll be fighting some kind of criminal charge in the court case, that's where they decide if it was a self defense act.  We'll, if you're being charged, does that give CCW Safe the option to not cover you?

Seems like the Attorneys on Retainer don't have this problem.  Or if you're carrying somewhere a school activity is going on, elsewhere in the park you're at, and you're not aware, technically you shouldn't be carrying at all, would CCW Safe deny coverage, since technically you weren't allowed to carry, it looks like that's what their contact says.  

I'd be curious to see if anyone has any opinions about the potential for denial of service vs something like Attorneys on Retainer, which is an actual law firm, not insurance company.  Or is all the Attorney on Retainer stuff just meant to generate fear of the insurance companies meant to drive business to them?

[crc4]

Most insurance carriers can deny you if your claim does not fall into a legally justified Self Defense action. Basically, if you do not have the 5 Elements of a justifed and legal Self Defense action, you will be denied.

If you don't know the laws that govern SD, then you're already playing in a minefield. 

Where insurance comes into play is if you do have the 5 Elements in your favor but are still charged and prosecuted. All companies will want to see the facts of the case and make a determination of your innocence before spending funds. That's as it should be.

Some companies will also ask for any money spent in your defense, if you are found guilty or make a plea deal, to be repaid. The Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network does not do that. The funds spent for your defense, whether you're found guilty or make a plea deal, are not required to be returned.

The ACLDN is not an insurance carrier. It is not insurance. It's a self supporting fund currently standing a 4 million. Up to one-half of that fund can be spent on your case both in a criminal case and a civil case.

Do your own research. Read the fine print. Don't believe the hype, particularly with USCCA. Remember, USCCA is not an insurance carrier - they buy a policy to cover their members, and insurance companies want to hold on to that money. 

Even with a legally justified case, USCCA has been known to deny coverage.

Again, do your research. 

 

Edited September 30, 2023 by crc4

[DHF]

Legal Plan Comparison from the Virginia Citizens Defense League.

https://vcdl.org/page/legal-plan-comparison

[crc4]

14 minutes ago, DHF said:

Legal Plan Comparison from the Virginia Citizens Defense League.

https://vcdl.org/page/legal-plan-comparison

Good comparison, though the information is dated (2017) and some of it has changed since then, but it's a good place to start.

 

[DHF]

Forgot to mention that I have CCW Safe.  Back in 2018 I did as much of an in-depth review as I could with the resources available including ordering Andrew Branca's "Self-Defense Insurance Explained".  I keep up with the industry options and even took a hard look at US Law Shield earlier this year.  I stand by my choice of CCW Safe.  Best first step is knowing Self Defense law to the greatest degree you can as crc4 touched on above. 

I don't give being denied too much thought as I know my temperament and that I don't go to blows quickly much less a weapon, I am very aware of what I am legally allowed to do and not do, and I put effort in staying away from where bad #### happens (rule #1).  Sure, something could always happen that negates all this but  all I can do is pick these things and pick the plan I think is best.

If I did anything on top of my current plan and being a law junkie, I would add an additional policy such that allows for dual coverage, such as US Law Shield.

[crc4]

One thing to add, is your choice of attorney. Not all attorneys, including 90% or more of criminal lawyers, rarely get a 'good guy' client such as a legally justified SD actor.

Criminal attorneys get guilty people and work to get them off. A good SD lawyer needs to know how to keep a 'good guy' out of the judicial system, and if prosecuted how to defend them. A lawyer defending a guilty person and a lawyer defending a 'good guy" in an SD shooting are rarely the same.

Find a lawyer now, before you need him/her. I did and he's represented many justified SD shooters with success.

You don't want a lawyer who is charging you hourly fees to learn on your dime how to handle a legitimate SD case.

[Brandon B]

So if I'm looking at it right, ACLDN is a financial support group you can use to help pay for your attorney of choice.  I notice right in the first paragraph you could fall under the same shortcomings as the insurance companies, when it says "...and after an assessment that your incident constituted a legitimate act of self defense, the Network will work with you and your attorney (paid for by the Network), to assure the best possible legal defense."  This sounds like even they look at the case and only offer financial assistance if THEY decide it was SD.  Isn't this what the trial is about?  I am curious what ya'll think about that Attorney's on Retainer.  It looks like its more of a law firm that uses the large pool of membership to pay for cases.  But it looks like a law firm that specializes in SD cases. 

Thanks for the feedback guys. 

[crc4]

46 minutes ago, Brandon B said:

This sounds like even they look at the case and only offer financial assistance if THEY decide it was SD. 

You are correct. That's they way it should be. Just because you say it was a lawful SD action doesn't make it so. Criminals claim SD all the time when it's not. ACLDN has your attorney send their findings to them to be sure it was a lawful SD action so they don't waste additional money. ACLDN has that responsibility to its members to be sure that they aren't funding an unlawful SD action. I like that. It makes it incumbent on the member to act lawfully by KNOWING the laws of SD, not just guessing.

If your house has damage, your homeowners insurance sends a rep out to check the damage. They don't take your word on it. That keeps your homeowners company from spending money for non-legitimate claims.

It's no different with ACLDN.

 

Edited October 1, 2023 by crc4

[Brandon B]

I guess I was thinking the whole point is for the courts to determine if it was an SD event or not.  If you get charged with something your defense is SD.  So isn't the decision of guilt by these companies premature? It is a guilty before proven innocent model.  I get you don't want to insure bad guys from just shooting people willy nilly and then having them claim SD, but it seems like its a ton of risk for the customer to be paying all this money just to have someone decided, "Nah, not good enough."

[crc4]

1 hour ago, Brandon B said:

I guess I was thinking the whole point is for the courts to determine if it was an SD event or not.  If you get charged with something your defense is SD.  So isn't the decision of guilt by these companies premature? It is a guilty before proven innocent model.  I get you don't want to insure bad guys from just shooting people willy nilly and then having them claim SD, but it seems like its a ton of risk for the customer to be paying all this money just to have someone decided, "Nah, not good enough."

Juries are the finders of facts. ACLDN determines whether you followed the 5 Laws of Self Defense. If you did, you're covered. If you didn't you're not. I don't see a problem. ACLDN doesn't say you're guilty. They say you don't qualify under the terms of agreement. That's a big difference.

A homeowner's insurance company may find you committed insurance fraud and not pay your claim. If you're prosecuted criminally, the jury will determine if you're lawfully guilty of fraud. An insurance company does not wait until you're convicted of fraud or found not guilty to deny your claim.

$150 a year for coverage from ACLDN is not a ton of money. Act within the laws of self-defense and you won't have a problem qualifying for the specified coverage. Act outside the laws of self defense and your claim is justifiably denied.

It's really that simple. Perhaps the question you should be asking is do you know the laws of self defense. If you don't and act unlawfully, you won't be covered. Again, that's how it should be.

 

Edited October 2, 2023 by crc4

[DHF]

Kayla Giles shares her side of the story with Attorneys on Retainer

Attorneys on Retainer did an interview with Kayla and have posted it on YouTube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRAr5Hq2TYY&t=2s

 

[DHF]

... and Heavy Duty Country posted this video a few hours ago.  He asks the real question at 7:50 into it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vTWfNLT_Zs

 

[pop pop]

I am a member of ACLDN and have been for years. It is NOT insurance but does have a review board. Massad Ayoob, Marty Hayes, John Farnum, Tom Givens, and a couple more are on the review board. These are some of the names of the most knowledgeable people in the Self Defense Field. These guys will do a review to make sure it is self-defense afterwards. Comes down to trust guys. I trust these men and this organization, Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network. 

Like crc 4 states, they all do it(some type of review). Now I don't know about Attorneys on Retainer, but I would need to know they, are highly skilled in self-defense law, and can defend a Self Defense (affirmative defense) case. IMO, I want the best attorney I can find in Self Defense cases. They are few and far between (good S D attorneys). 

I also agree with crc4 you must know your states, or the state where you are in, laws of self-defense in order to be sure your within your rights to legally use force. 

Edited March 7 by pop pop

[BigK]

15 minutes ago, pop pop said:

I also agree with crc4 you must know your states, or the state where you are in, laws of self-defense in order to be sure your within your rights to legally use force. 

Careful here! In Kayla Giles case the prosecution and USCCA looked at her research history on the internet about her local laws and used that against her to claim she that proved she planned her shooting. Hard to believe, huh?

[pop pop]

Big K, not hard to believe. most investigators and insurance companies will look at your every action for the past few months. This is not the first time I have heard about USCCA denning coverage to their members.  I am sure the teacher who did you Concealed Carry permit training told you about self-defense laws. Take a class, Noting wrong with training oneself. I do that every time I go to my firing range. Prosecutor could say I went to my range and practiced before I shot someone but wouldn't necessarily make it so. I try to go to my rang on a regular basis. Educate yourself all I am saying.  

I don't know about the lady your speaking of because we don't have all the facts, so it is hard to make a judgment in her case. I just hope and pray I never need to use S D for me or mine. 

[TNTiger1981]

I currently have US Law Shield and am looking at possible alternatives (my policy renews this month). I am leaning towards AOR and called this am to get more information. The guy that answered said he actually works in the law office with the owner and was very knowledgeable and helpful for most questions. He would not answer how many cases they had defended or how many they turned down. He pointed me to Google reviews for actual clients that wrote reviews. How do I know if these are real people or just paid review writers? Anyway, it is a bit difficult to get good information to make an informed decision. Doing the best I can and hoping I never need their services.

[DHF]

Looks like we have even another player in the self defense coverage arena.  I saw an ad for them on the Washington Gun Law YouTube channel.

Right To Bear  https://protectwithbear.com

[P_Taylor]

Are we really discussing which is more trust worthy between a lawyer and an insurance company?