Wednesday, August 05, 2009

I'm Tired of Arguing

Since MMD went into business a month ago, I've argued a lot of bullshit. At times, I've lost my temper. The temper can be seen in my reaction to "Luke."

The other partner is a bit more even-tempered than I am. Here is his response to the multiple, ignorant criticisms of this program:


Engaging in an act of self defense will involve two separate and distinct legal processes – criminal procedures and civil actions. These are two different areas of law and specialized to the extent that many criminal lawyers will not take civil work and visa versa.

If you are involved in shooting another person, make no mistake, you will be arrested and your weapon will be confiscated. The time involved to establish your innocence will vary from a few hours to months or even years. A criminal lawyer should be retained as quickly as possible and this will involve legal fees and retainers. YOUR HOMEOWNERS POLICY OR YOUR UMBRELLA POLICY WILL NOT RESPOND TO ANY OF THESE EXPENSES. You are on your own. With a favorable result in your criminal defense, our policy will reimburse this expense to the limit of our liability on the policy. (Note that this reimbursement will be twice or five times what the NRA policy will reimburse depending on the limit your choose.)

If you do injure or kill your adversary in an act of self defense you will be sued by some interested party. Even if your state has a castle doctrine, you will still be sued and will have to go through the legal process of defending this suit until it is dismissed in court. It is doubtful that your homeowners policy will respond to these suits due to the definition of occurrence in those policies which includes the requirement that the occurrence be "accidental’ and also because of the intentional acts exclusion. Once again, our policy will respond unequivocally in defense and payment of these suits up to our limit of liability.

"The chances of this happening are so remote that I don’t need insurance."
If the chances are so remote of being involved in a self defense situation, why do you bother to carry a concealed weapon at all?

"This insurance is written on a surplus lines basis and accordingly must be expensive for what your get."

Surplus lines carriers write coverages that are not available in the standard market. Standard companies will generally not insure any liability exposures that involve firearms – ammunition manufacturers, gunsmiths, ranges, shooting clubs and instructors are all written on a surplus lines basis. The liability coverages involving firearms offered by the NRA are all written on a surplus lines basis. Rates in the surplus lines market are established in the open market and are in a lot of cases much more flexible than standard lines rates which must be filed with each individual state.

"The policy is redundant with my other insurance – homeowners, personal liability, umbrella."

None of the liability policies you currently carry will respond to any expenses on the criminal side of the equation, which can be expensive even if it is a righteous shooting.

"My state has a castle doctrine and I can’t be sued for an act of self defense."

First, your act of self defense must be legally determined to be a lawful act of self defense before it would fall under the castle doctrine. Secondly, anyone can sue anyone for anything and accordingly you will be sued castle doctrine or not. A defense of this civil suit must be mounted until the court decides that your case falls under the provisions of your castle doctrine. Thirdly, in most cases, the castle doctrine only applies within your own residence and does not apply to acts outside of your own premises.

CCW Violation: My experience and trial in a court of law.

After the Shooting Stops: Dealing with the Aftermath of a Lethal Encounter

Aftermath of a Shooting

After a shooting, What to reveal

Self defense or Unjustified Shooting?

Homeowners Policies and Acts of Self Defense

"Reasonable Actions to Protect Persons or Property
…In the case of Cooperative Fire Insurance Association of Vermont v. Bizon et al., 693 A.2d 722 (1997), the superior court held that even though the insured’s shooting and killing an intruder may have been done to protect his property, the policy contained an unambiguous intentional acts exclusion and there was no question but that the action was intentional. And in the case of AutoOwners Insurance Company v. Harrington et al., 565 N.W.2d 839 (1997) the supreme court of Michigan held that "to except injurious action taken in self-defense from an intentional acts exclusion would impermissible disregard the clear language of the exclusion…"
Homeowners Coverage Guide, Interpretation and Analysis by Diane W. Richardson

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?