25th Anniversary K9
25th Anniversary K9

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Liability insurance for self defense shootings

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Thanks for being our guinea pig Rainman, Let us know what you think of it when you get the policy.
    Tom
    Live today, tomorrow may not come!
    Boberg XR9S
    Kahr CW40
    Springfield Armory 1911
    Dan Wesson Revolver

    HY*NDAI is to cars, what Caracal, Hi-Point, and Jennings is to handguns. The cars may or may not run ok, but the corporation SUCKS.

    Comment


    • #47
      In that case it would be probative as to motive and would be allowed. What is not allowed is for the plaintiff to bring up you have insurance to pay for your tort and that that you the defendant won't have to pay anything it is the big bad insurance company that will be writing the check.

      In a criminal case most judges limit the mention of insurance to use as to prove motive only. If it is not probative as to motive then it is best to not mention it. If the DA cannot prove insurance is part and parcel of motive then.....judges discretion.
      Wake Up...Grow Up...Show Up...Sit Up...Shut Up...Listen Up

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by thetmanski View Post
        Thanks for being our guinea pig Rainman, Let us know what you think of it when you get the policy.
        I will. There is already missinformation posted in this thread. There is no one man determination of your benefits from the first (uninsured) level. The next level is an insurance contract. It involves a subsidiary of Meadowbrook, a very reputable organization. Members are beneficiaries, not policy owners. The USCCA owns the policy so that YOU are not targeted in lawsuits simply by the presence of insurance. Coverage is for ALL household members in the event of a shooting at home. If you concealed carry, it is only for the USCCA member. They are working on a "family" CCW rider. For now, both parties must take separate memberships. More to follow.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Longitude Zero View Post
          In that case it would be probative as to motive and would be allowed. What is not allowed is for the plaintiff to bring up you have insurance to pay for your tort and that that you the defendant won't have to pay anything it is the big bad insurance company that will be writing the check.

          In a criminal case most judges limit the mention of insurance to use as to prove motive only. If it is not probative as to motive then it is best to not mention it. If the DA cannot prove insurance is part and parcel of motive then.....judges discretion.
          Exactly right.

          Comment

          Working...
          X