I just shortened the take up and slack in my carry gun but I left the pull weight the same as from the factory. This got me to thinking about liability insurance relating to a self defense shooting. Does anyone know anything abut that or if it falls under an umbrella policy, home owners insurance, etc.?
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Sidearms & Scatterguns Liability insurance for concealed carry.
- Thread starter Ryguy
- Start date
I was kinda thinking the same Graham. I would think the only thing you would need insurance for while carrying would lead you to jail anyway.
What kinda situation did you have in mind?
What kinda situation did you have in mind?
Okay, there are a lot of points to cover and since it is so jurisdiction driven, it is best to read your policy and review this with your agent AND insurance company. In fact, I would get a definitive answer from the insurance claims department.
If you have homeowners insurance you are protected against any damages you may be found to be legally liable for. However, there are exclusions. The important exclusion to consider is the intentional act exclusion. Many policies exclude damages caused by your intentional actions.
So when you think defending yourself is an intentional act, it is. But like I said, it is very venue specific. One state's case law may dictate that acting in self defense was not intentional, while other courts hold that by simply using a firearm, you were acting intentionally regardless of the circumstances.
But since you live in Nevada and I handle litigation in your area besides just Reno, you would have a problem. The Nevada courts have held that despite your intent, it was reasonable to conclude that someone would suffer injury due to the acts of firing a firearm. Now if you used it in a crime, you cannot seek protecting from your insurance company against a negligence (or tort) action.
Now an accidental discharge is a completely different story, and likely you would have full coverage for any action or claim against you besides punitive damages.
It is important that you get with your insurance company. Not the agent by themselves. Agents are there to sell coverages. They do not make coverage decisions. Call in to make a claim but then ask for someone knowledgable enough and experienced enough to answer your questions.
Hope this gives you some idea of what to ask for.
If you have homeowners insurance you are protected against any damages you may be found to be legally liable for. However, there are exclusions. The important exclusion to consider is the intentional act exclusion. Many policies exclude damages caused by your intentional actions.
So when you think defending yourself is an intentional act, it is. But like I said, it is very venue specific. One state's case law may dictate that acting in self defense was not intentional, while other courts hold that by simply using a firearm, you were acting intentionally regardless of the circumstances.
But since you live in Nevada and I handle litigation in your area besides just Reno, you would have a problem. The Nevada courts have held that despite your intent, it was reasonable to conclude that someone would suffer injury due to the acts of firing a firearm. Now if you used it in a crime, you cannot seek protecting from your insurance company against a negligence (or tort) action.
Now an accidental discharge is a completely different story, and likely you would have full coverage for any action or claim against you besides punitive damages.
It is important that you get with your insurance company. Not the agent by themselves. Agents are there to sell coverages. They do not make coverage decisions. Call in to make a claim but then ask for someone knowledgable enough and experienced enough to answer your questions.
Hope this gives you some idea of what to ask for.
So there is something called civil tort. Although you may not be held criminally liable for a self defense shooting, the person you shot or their family may have a case in civil court. In that case, rather than loose your house and possibly your entire estate, insurance may cover any damages you are held liable for. So, needing insurance is a real possibility although you may not go to jail "anyway".
Doesn't necessarily have to be negligence, like if someone was beating on you and you shot them in self defense then the family sues you for killing them (most likely in a state like California where it's a borderline crime to defend yourself)
If I get butt hurt on the internet, who do I sue myself or the internet for providing the venue for same?
Actually, you can and I do for my job. If I make a mistake and it is ruled to be negligence because I overlooked something or provided the wrong treatment, professional liability insurance covers me. Also, in a self defense shooting, if you miss or the bullet over penetrates and injures someone else then insurance may cover you for those damages.
I got ya. Makes sense to me.
The quoted "anyway" must be lost in translation cause I don't get "it"...
The quoted "anyway" must be lost in translation cause I don't get "it"...
Last edited:
OP, are you talking about something like professional liability insurance? I agree with Ryguy, it's not the criminal case you have to worry so much about as the civil. IIRC from what my instructors taught, you can be found not guilty in the criminal case and then sued in civil and actually owe for damages or whatnot even though the other court said it was a clean shoot , etc. I'll have to look up my umbrella policy but I am under the pretense that it covers anything I am negligent with up to 1 million dollars worth. Interesting question. Better that mardukes batman belt thread...
Ryguy is the OP.
OJ would be a prime example of criminal court saying one thing and civil saying another.
OJ would be a prime example of criminal court saying one thing and civil saying another.
Similar threads
