Results 1 to 10 of 12
Thread: USCCA "self-defense shield"
06-14-2011, 09:46 PM #1
USCCA "self-defense shield"
I don't want to start a (another) epic rant thread, but....any thoughts on this?
(If you don't feel like reading through all of it, it'd be a $127 cost minus your membership fee at the low end for $50,000 civil liability and $25000 criminal liability.)
06-15-2011, 05:42 AM #2
- Join Date
- Aug 2006
- In the middle of the iron curtain.
It looks like a good idea to me, kinda like car insurance. I am surprised no one was willing to do this before. I bet with the likelihood low that any of us ever has to discharge our weapon in self defense, its a great money maker.
06-15-2011, 06:44 AM #3
- Join Date
- Nov 2008
- Live Free or Die
in States like MA I think it would be a great idea, states like TX not so much but there are exceptions
06-15-2011, 08:30 AM #4
This plan has enough loopholes to look like swiss cheese -
The defense fund is a foundation not underwritten by their insurance company, not subject to the same financial requirements, etc.
Nothing is paid up front, so this does not help the person who is not sitting on ca$h.
They are collecting credit card payment on line without providing specific details of the contractual obligation. Even the words about the grant are vague - it implies, but does not state, the grant will always be granted. It could be all will be granted, or it could be like the car dealer barking "All credit applications will be accepted!".
There is no mention of the specific insurance company, it's AM Best rating, or aggregate coverage limits (if any) on the master policy.
Not owning the insurance policy is a detriment, not a benefit - as the customer is the CCA, not the buyer. If you own the policy, it cannot be cancelled without a formal notification. There is no requirement that the insurance carrier notifiy all beneficiaries in the event of a cancellation.
They use the term "beneficiary" rather than "additional named insured", so you are probably covered descriptively, not with the iron clad obligation of being listed in the policy.
This trick of reselling the right to be a beneficiary on someone else's insurance skirts VERY close to offering insurance, and some state insurance commissioners may not buy the claim the CCA is not selling insurance.
Although it is against public policy to insure against criminal penalties, I very much doubt prepaid legal that pays benefits prior to conviction is illegal - but they hang their hat on this to deny coverage until after the acquittal - which is a rare beast. Once someone is threatened with trial, and the case looks like it's winnable, the pressure for even the innocent person to take a plea deal is tremendous (look at that guy in FL who turned down 5 years probation and got 20 no parole years). Also, in a very justified case charges can be dropped or the subject no true billed after spending tens of thousands on representation. Mighty convenient how this is not covered.
06-15-2011, 08:56 AM #5
06-15-2011, 09:43 AM #6
Great summary Rob.
I'm not an insurance expert, but I think an umbrella liability policy and a good firearms attorney are probably a better bet.Support Comm2A. Proud and Out Ammosexual!
06-15-2011, 09:44 AM #7
Also, it seems quite expensive. $127/year for $25,000 in coverage? You'll need $100,000+ to defend yourself against a murder charge in eastern MA. Compare this to an umbrella policy, where you can get $1M coverage for several hundred per year.
06-15-2011, 09:50 AM #8
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
- Live Free or Die
06-15-2011, 11:01 AM #9Member, Leominster Sportsmen's Association
Member, Gun Owner's Action League
Patron Member, National Rifle Association
"There are more silly fads and idiotic rumors in the gun culture than there are among pre-teen girls." Tim ChandlerďIf voting made any difference they wouldn't let us do it.Ē Mark Twain (Samuel Langhorne Clemens)
"...secession is not rebellion." Salmon P. Chase, Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, July 1867
06-15-2011, 10:54 PM #10
The ability of an insurance policy to cover a self defense scenario has been debated, but the policies generally have terms that limit intentional force against another person to acts taken with the intent of protecting persons or property. The classic case is knocking someone over and breaking their hip when pushing them out of the way of an oncoming bus, not self defense - but it would be an interesting application of the clause. Also, a conviction *might* be enough to let the carrier weasel out of coverage.
The comparison on dollar limits is not really relevant, since the big claim of the USCCA policy is coverage for legal defense fees. Liability insurance provides for legal defense from torts only; not from criminal charges.
I don't doubt that the USCCA means well, but I question the solidity of the footing of the underwriting, and the level of contractual protection that is actually provided by their policy.