Posted: 3/21/2012 4:56:45 AM EDT
|
Umbrella policy, tweaking, etc.
Plain speak: just check your insurance. This is especially true, since LLCs are connected to individuals/owners/operators in WI. Most insurance carriers specifically exclude “intentional acts and intentional injuries” from both home and personal liability umbrella policies, leaving CCW license holders unprotected for legal fees and civil suits stemming from a self-defense shooting while carrying a weapon under Wisconsin’s new Concealed Carry Law. Wisconsin began allowing licenses to carry concealed weapons on November 1, 2011 becoming the forty-ninth state to allow concealed carry. Governor Scott Walker signed the Castle Doctrine legislation on December 7, 2011 which grants immunity to the possessor of a firearm who uses their weapon for self-defense purposes while in their home, auto or in the business they own or occupy from being prosecuted or sued for using their weapon in a self-defense shooting situation. While the Castle Doctrine does provide protection for gun owners involved in shootings occurring in their home, car or business, it does not provide any immunity for the use of a weapon outside of these areas. This leaves a very large void for WI CCW license holders who engage in a self-defense shooting while they are out in public and opens them up to legal fees if charged with a crime or if sued by their target, the target’s family, the business owner where the shooting occurs or other bystanders. V OUT |
|
Quoted:
Umbrella policy, tweaking, Most insurance carriers specifically exclude “intentional acts and intentional injuries” from both home and personal liability umbrella policies, leaving CCW license holders unprotected for legal fees and civil suits stemming from a self-defense shooting while carrying a weapon under Wisconsin’s new Concealed Carry Law. V OUT Classic. This is why I hate insurance. |
|
I buy a self defense policy through the NRA that covers legal fees. No point in shooting a bad guy to save your life and then losing your home to the "victim's" family.
Link |
|
Quoted:
The wife and I have a homeowners rider/umbrella policy that does in fact, cover a CCW shooting outside our home. We've had it for some time. Was this an additional policy to the homeowners & homeowners umbrella policy, similar to additional personal property policies that are issued for jewelry & firearms? I'm with State Farm and both the homeowners & umbrella policy exclude: bodily injury(or death) or property damage which is: a. either expected or intended by the insured; or b. the result of any willful and malicious act of the insured. a. is what has me concerned. It's so ambiguous that it appears that they could exclude coverage even if the bodily injury is inflicted by self defense measures. I'll have to contact my agent to see if self defense is covered. Regardless of the answer, I'll have to find out what is needed to be covered both inside & outside the home. variable, thanks for bringing this issue to light. I never would have though about it otherwise. I'm sure that there are many others out there who don't realize it either. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
The wife and I have a homeowners rider/umbrella policy that does in fact, cover a CCW shooting outside our home. We've had it for some time. Was this an additional policy to the homeowners & homeowners umbrella policy, similar to additional personal property policies that are issued for jewelry & firearms? I'm with State Farm and both the homeowners & umbrella policy exclude: bodily injury(or death) or property damage which is: a. either expected or intended by the insured; or b. the result of any willful and malicious act of the insured. a. is what has me concerned. It's so ambiguous that it appears that they could exclude coverage even if the bodily injury is inflicted by self defense measures. I'll have to contact my agent to see if self defense is covered. Regardless of the answer, I'll have to find out what is needed to be covered both inside & outside the home. variable, thanks for bringing this issue to light. I never would have though about it otherwise. I'm sure that there are many others out there who don't realize it either. Under the HO/Umbrella, not a separate rider like jewelry and firearms (we have those as well). IIRC and AFAIK from my conversations with Clark, SD in or outside of the home was covered. Maybe I should revisit the topic w/him. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The wife and I have a homeowners rider/umbrella policy that does in fact, cover a CCW shooting outside our home. We've had it for some time. Was this an additional policy to the homeowners & homeowners umbrella policy, similar to additional personal property policies that are issued for jewelry & firearms? I'm with State Farm and both the homeowners & umbrella policy exclude: bodily injury(or death) or property damage which is: a. either expected or intended by the insured; or b. the result of any willful and malicious act of the insured. a. is what has me concerned. It's so ambiguous that it appears that they could exclude coverage even if the bodily injury is inflicted by self defense measures. I'll have to contact my agent to see if self defense is covered. Regardless of the answer, I'll have to find out what is needed to be covered both inside & outside the home. variable, thanks for bringing this issue to light. I never would have though about it otherwise. I'm sure that there are many others out there who don't realize it either. Under the HO/Umbrella, not a separate rider like jewelry and firearms (we have those as well). IIRC and AFAIK from my conversations with Clark, SD in or outside of the home was covered. Maybe I should revisit the topic w/him. There's an article in today's JS Online that addresses this very issue. All it seems to do is cloud the issue even further. It pretty much says that coverage may or may not apply and it would be based upon individual circumstances. http://www.jsonline.com/business/insurance-may-not-cover-legal-costs-of-selfdefense-shootings-v74l92m-144120785.html FMD, I know you like to do the internet lawyer thing and will find these following cases interesting. I've found two separate WI Court of Appeals decisions that ruled that Insurance Co.'s have a duty to defend an Insured when they are claiming self defense. And both of these cases involved SD claims that weren't clean cut in that they were he said/she said situations. I'd think that in SD shootings, especially in the home and privileged under the Castle Doctrine, an Insurance Co. would pretty much have a duty to defend under a HO/Umbrella. Even with these decisions, I'd still hate to take the chance that coverage MAY or MAY NOT apply. http://wi.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19870310_0002.WI.htm/qx http://www.wisbar.org/res/capp/z1996/96-1497.html Another interesting tidbit is this statement from the Wisconsin State Bar in which they opposed the Castle Doctrine. "The presumption will work to bar civil suits against a property owner who uses force against a person they reasonably believed entered (or was in the process of entering) the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, unlawfully by force." http://www.wisbar.org/am/template.cfm?section=Legislative_Advocacy&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&Contentid=106889 At one point in the proposed Castle Doctrine Legislation, there must have been some sort of immunity from Civil action. In this article they state: "Despite immunity, if the homeowner is nevertheless sued in civil court, he or she would be entitled to all costs incurred to defend against the civil action." http://www.wisbar.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=InsideTrack&Template=/CustomSource/InsideTrack/contentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=105635 Omitting this in the current law was a big mistake. |
|
There's a few reasons why I don't worry about it all that much (those who know what Annie_O does to bring home bacon will understand), but we still worry. Clark (the insurance agent above) actually has made the claim that we are "over" insured. There's no such thing.
It's good that folks think about these things (and thank you for the links above). Annie_O and I were talking about it last night, and I think she's setting up an appointment to talk to Clark before long. I'll let you know what I find. ETA: Re-reading the thread, I see that I used the term "rider" in my original post incorrectly. My apologies for giving the impression that it was a separate add-on or any other confusion. |