[CrackerKen]

Considering the litigious society we live in, and considering the liabilities that can come up concerning the use of a firearm, I'm thinking that an umbrella liability policy would be a good thing (like $500K to $1 million). Not only do we have to concern ourselves with lawsuits if we have to shoot someone (even if it is justified), we have to worry about any bullets that miss the target. Nobody, not even well trained police, can be 100% sure that every single round will be on-target. You might put 100% in the middle of your target at the range, but when things get crazy in a threatening scenario, your accuracy will vary. We might hit a car, an innocent by-stander that comes into the field of fire, or whatever/whoever. Even police agencies are regularly sued when officers are justified in the use of deadly force. So, us civilians are certainly a target for plaintiff attorneys if we are involved in a shooting.

Question: How many of the forum members have an umbrella liability policy, in addition to their personal liability coverage on their homeowners policy?

 

[Paladin]

Considering the litigious society we live in, and considering the liabilities that can come up concerning the use of a firearm, I'm thinking that an umbrella liability policy would be a good thing (like $500K to $1 million). Not only do we have to concern ourselves with lawsuits if we have to shoot someone (even if it is justified), we have to worry about any bullets that miss the target. Nobody, not even well trained police, can be 100% sure that every single round will be on-target. You might put 100% in the middle of your target at the range, but when things get crazy in a threatening scenario, your accuracy will vary. We might hit a car, an innocent by-stander that comes into the field of fire, or whatever/whoever. Even police agencies are regularly sued when officers are justified in the use of deadly force. So, us civilians are certainly a target for plaintiff attorneys if we are involved in a shooting.

Question: How many of the forum members have an umbrella liability policy, in addition to their personal liability coverage on their homeowners policy?

Interesting idea.

I have a $300 liability policy as part of my homeowners insurance as I have a pool and I wanted to be covered when my kids were younger. I've never dropped it even though the kids are all in their teens now.

Not sure if that would cover gun related incidents but it is something to look into.

 

[SwampRat]

http://www.locktonrisk.com/nrains/epl.asp
http://www.locktonrisk.com/nrains/selfdefense.asp

That's only two I could find on NRA's site..As an Instructor I carry 1mil..

 

[Glock23-4-Me]

I am a licensed insurance agent for the state of florida and I dont recall that the umbrella policy will cover you for such a thing. I cant rule it out because, although licensed, I dont sell them. I have a book in my attick and I can look into it if anyone really wants me too.

 

[Atlanta Guy]

Had umbrella, dropped it on advice of CDA

FWIW: (and the standard disclaimer that I am not an attorney)

That was my thinking as well several years ago, so I picked up a $500K umbrella liability policy. I no longer have it, though.

Whether you agree or not, all (and I mean 100%) of the instructors I've had in the past year have advised the class that you only say 2 things to the police if you are involved in a shooting: I was afraid for my life and I want to speak to my attorney. Well, in order to do the second, I had to actually have an attorney at the ready.

So I found a criminal defense attorney who carries concealed, is an NRA instructor, and was licensed to teach the Utah concealed carry classes. In our first meet-and-greet, get acquainted session I mentioned that I had an umbrella liability policy. He advised me to drop it unless I had substantial assets that needed protection.

Here is what he said, and I'm using his exact numbers: Most people that are going to sue you don't have the cash to pay an attorney up front, so I'll be working on contingency. I can expect a wrongful death suit to take about a year and a half, maybe two, to go to completion. I'll probably ring up $60,000 in costs over that time. For it to be worth my while to take a chance on contingency, I'd need a minimum payout of 5x that, or $300,000.

So I'll take a look at you, the defendant. Can't go after your house, can't go after your retirement funds. What liquid assets do you have? (Liquid because it does me (the attorney) no good to get a judgement that you can't pay.) Most people don't have $300,000 lying around to pay off a lawsuit, so I'm going to decline taking on this case.

Hold on, hold on. You have a $500,000 umbrella liability policy for just this sort of thing?? What went from me saying no thanks has just turned 180 degrees around to me saying f**k yeah, that's worth a shot. So perversely, what was intended to protect you in the case of a lawsuit has just ensured that you WILL get sued.

May I respectfully suggest you touch base with a criminal defense or personal injury attorney before you purchase a policy?

 

[mike3980]

FWIW: (and the standard disclaimer that I am not an attorney)

That was my thinking as well several years ago, so I picked up a $500K umbrella liability policy. I no longer have it, though.

Whether you agree or not, all (and I mean 100%) of the instructors I've had in the past year have advised the class that you only say 2 things to the police if you are involved in a shooting: I was afraid for my life and I want to speak to my attorney. Well, in order to do the second, I had to actually have an attorney at the ready.

So I found a criminal defense attorney who carries concealed, is an NRA instructor, and was licensed to teach the Utah concealed carry classes. In our first meet-and-greet, get acquainted session I mentioned that I had an umbrella liability policy. He advised me to drop it unless I had substantial assets that needed protection.

Here is what he said, and I'm using his exact numbers: Most people that are going to sue you don't have the cash to pay an attorney up front, so I'll be working on contingency. I can expect a wrongful death suit to take about a year and a half, maybe two, to go to completion. I'll probably ring up $60,000 in costs over that time. For it to be worth my while to take a chance on contingency, I'd need a minimum payout of 5x that, or $300,000.

So I'll take a look at you, the defendant. Can't go after your house, can't go after your retirement funds. What liquid assets do you have? (Liquid because it does me (the attorney) no good to get a judgement that you can't pay.) Most people don't have $300,000 lying around to pay off a lawsuit, so I'm going to decline taking on this case.

Hold on, hold on. You have a $500,000 umbrella liability policy for just this sort of thing?? What went from me saying no thanks has just turned 180 degrees around to me saying f**k yeah, that's worth a shot. So perversely, what was intended to protect you in the case of a lawsuit has just ensured that you WILL get sued.

May I respectfully suggest you touch base with a criminal defense or personal injury attorney before you purchase a policy?

Your ignoring protecting the other guy. Mistakes do happen that we should be responsible for. This is like saying I don't need auto insurance if I have limited assets. Your lack of moral concern could qualify you to become a lawyer.

Aw, come on barristers, you've heard worse insults and I'm only kidding.

 

[MPDC66]

Many who live in Florida as a primary residence also have "vacation or summer" property in other states. Only one can be your protected "residence" and that would be the Florida home if you use it on your federal taxes. The other home is fair game.

You may have more attachable worth than you think. Since an umbrella policy is relatively cheap, I recommend it for anyone with unencumbered assests. I am not wealthy but do have (whats left of it anyway, LOL) the fruits of over thirty five years labors that I don't wish to toy with.

Be aware, however, that an umbrella policy usually requires you to up the limits on other insurances you have as far as liability is concerned.

 

[Glock23-4-Me]

Be aware, however, that an umbrella policy usually requires you to up the limits on other insurances you have as far as liability is concerned.

You are correct. You have to have certain limits on the underlying policies. Umbrella does not take the place of the other policies but "sits on top" so to speak and when the underlying policy is exhausted it kicks in. Which is why the umbrella policy requires higher limits on your other policies because they dont want to pick up the tab on smaller claims you may have. This is part of the reason they are not very expensive because they dont pay out often.

Enough insurance talk, lets get back to :ak

 

[brownie]

I don't own my home, a trust owns it, with my wife and I as trusties. We only manage the place, it can't be attached to a law suit as one of our assets.

In fact, when I worked against many of the real smart BG's involved in OC, they had their holdings in a nominee trust [ a blind trust ], and you couldn't find out who owned the damned property as the atty assigned to manage the nominee trust was, by his professional standards and obligations, not going to divulge his "client".

Brownie

 

[capngeo]

I don't own my home, a trust owns it, with my wife and I as trusties. We only manage the place, it can't be attached to a law suit as one of our assets.

In fact, when I worked against many of the real smart BG's involved in OC, they had their holdings in a nominee trust [ a blind trust ], and you couldn't find out who owned the damned property as the atty assigned to manage the nominee trust was, by his professional standards and obligations, not going to divulge his "client".

Brownie

Once again....&[email protected]*ing lawyers!.... Ah that feels better!

 

[deadeyedick]

My insurance against lawsuits is extra ammo.

OK : censoredholes, who wants to sue me now? istols

:rolf

 

[Glock23-4-Me]

My insurance against lawsuits is extra ammo.

OK : censoredholes, who wants to sue me now? istols

:rolf

whats the saying? a dead man cant testify????

 

[CrackerKen]

Great discussion guys. Thanks for the responses. I understand the "deep pockets" situation that plaintiff attorneys prey on. In my situation, I am tempted to get one of the NRA self defense policies that SwampRat mentioned. I don't want a low-life, or the survivors of a low-life, emptying out my money market account, or any of my other assets. As someone else mentioned, if someone is hurt because of something I have to do (other than a BG), I would have something to cover them. If you think about some of the situations that could lead to one of us having to shoot, and where that situation could happen, you can see how there could be other people or property in the area subject to injury if you happen to miss. It's a tricky issue with various opinions. We all have to do what bests suits our situation.

 

[brownie]

Great discussion guys. Thanks for the responses. I understand the "deep pockets" situation that plaintiff attorneys prey on. In my situation, I am tempted to get one of the NRA self defense policies that SwampRat mentioned. I don't want a low-life, or the survivors of a low-life, emptying out my money market account, or any of my other assets. As someone else mentioned, if someone is hurt because of something I have to do (other than a BG), I would have something to cover them. If you think about some of the situations that could lead to one of us having to shoot, and where that situation could happen, you can see how there could be other people or property in the area subject to injury if you happen to miss. It's a tricky issue with various opinions. We all have to do what bests suits our situation.

One of the reasons I'm reluctant to pull the trigger unless absolutely necessary to do so, regardless if the statute says I'm within the letter of the law.

If they need it right now, they get it, if they don't absolutely have to have lead right now, I'll reserve the option until the situation absolutely does require it. I'll not hesitate when the time is right, but I'll not jump at the chance solely based on some law that may allow it in any given circumstance.

BTW-I have a Lockton policy through the NRA and have had for 4 years now but I won't rely on that policy to cover any law suits by shooting someone who was collateral damage either.

Brownie

 

[CrackerKen]

Brownie - I couldn't agree more.

Collateral damage, backdrop, by-standers, etc, all have to be considered, if possible. However, if it's one of those situations where either you shoot or get shot, you don't have many choices. Situational awareness is a good thing too.

Another thing to consider: Has everyone given thought to how they may be effected if they have to kill someone? I have, many times. It's easy to think there would be no isses at all if you killed for survival. That is not always the case. There have been many instances of police officers going off the deep end (mental break downs, alcoholism, and more) after they have been involved in fatal shootings. This includes people who were rough and tough police officers. There's lot of things to consider when you are carrying a weapon.

 

[Franklin]

FWIW: (and the standard disclaimer that I am not an attorney)

That was my thinking as well several years ago, so I picked up a $500K umbrella liability policy. I no longer have it, though.

Whether you agree or not, all (and I mean 100%) of the instructors I've had in the past year have advised the class that you only say 2 things to the police if you are involved in a shooting: I was afraid for my life and I want to speak to my attorney. Well, in order to do the second, I had to actually have an attorney at the ready.

So I found a criminal defense attorney who carries concealed, is an NRA instructor, and was licensed to teach the Utah concealed carry classes. In our first meet-and-greet, get acquainted session I mentioned that I had an umbrella liability policy. He advised me to drop it unless I had substantial assets that needed protection.

Here is what he said, and I'm using his exact numbers: Most people that are going to sue you don't have the cash to pay an attorney up front, so I'll be working on contingency. I can expect a wrongful death suit to take about a year and a half, maybe two, to go to completion. I'll probably ring up $60,000 in costs over that time. For it to be worth my while to take a chance on contingency, I'd need a minimum payout of 5x that, or $300,000.

So I'll take a look at you, the defendant. Can't go after your house, can't go after your retirement funds. What liquid assets do you have? (Liquid because it does me (the attorney) no good to get a judgement that you can't pay.) Most people don't have $300,000 lying around to pay off a lawsuit, so I'm going to decline taking on this case.

Hold on, hold on. You have a $500,000 umbrella liability policy for just this sort of thing?? What went from me saying no thanks has just turned 180 degrees around to me saying f**k yeah, that's worth a shot. So perversely, what was intended to protect you in the case of a lawsuit has just ensured that you WILL get sued.

May I respectfully suggest you touch base with a criminal defense or personal injury attorney before you purchase a policy?

You must be a blood sucking attorney? That's exactly what I was thinking. I don't know if this type of insurance exists? If it did, the only good thing about it, really, is that the insurance company would pick up the attorney fees ($100,000) you're going to pay to defend yourself. They will in turn counter sue the bg's family (which sued you) for damages (money spent on your attorney). So, maybe insurance would be a good thing? The bg's bg's would get theirs again? Most people just aren't very sue-able though. The others, probably are pretty well shielded. You could be 100% in the right but in our great society, with laws written by blood sucking attorneys, everybody had the right to sue everybody and those disclaimer we sign...well, you can't give away your right to sue. It's the American way!
Got to love it!

Franklin

 

[MPDC66]

Weapons liability aside, there are good reasons to have an umbrellla policy such as serious injury to a person or worker on your property. Like it or not, there are instances where a "pay out" will save the homeowner lots of grief.

Again, many in Florida own more than one residence. If your non primary is paid for and you have other assets outside of a retirement account, you might be surprized at how , relatively, small an estate some lawyers will go after. Some even just threaten to get a settlement with no intention of going all the way. In this economy, they are scrounging for smaller pieces of cheese.

 

[Buckley]

Insurance sure helps me sleep better at night. Damned lawyers!

 

[NkmG19]

Insurance sure helps me sleep better at night. Damned lawyers!

:rolf

 

[Jimceleb]

Insurance sure helps me sleep better at night. Damned lawyers!

No kidding. Well worth the few hundred dollars a year for an extra couple of million in insurance.

Two-million in coverage, $450.00 per year. Money well spent, IMO.