TexasCHLforum.com

Another thing to consider is that most umbrella policies exclude "purposeful acts". You'll have to get them to specify if a self-defense shooting is considered a purposeful act.

alvins wrote:So i might be working for a new company in a few weeks. I was reading through their policy manual about chl. They allow you to carry into the building IF you have 1,000,000 personal liability insurance policy. BUT you are not allowed to use your gun to defend yourself or anyone else on the company premesis. So whats the point? This is a clinic and I havent see any 30.06 sign or anything.

I would recommend that, should you obtain such insurance, you make doggoned sure first that your use of a firearm in self-defense is explicitly covered, or, alternately, obtain a written statement to that effect from your insurance agent, after satisfying yourself that he is personally good for a $1mil. judgment against you. I hope I am not wearing out my welcome, saying this again.

I recognize that you speak in terms of a "personal liability insurance policy," and do not directly address the intentional use of a firearm, but I suspect that is what your prospective employer means, given the context. I wouldn't put any faith in this possibly ambiguous language, particularly since your public question here may itself suggest this is your understanding.

It is widely true, if not customary, that a personal liability policy excludes "intentional acts," and if you hurt someone or something firing your weapon in self-defense the insurance company would be likely to call that an excluded intentional act on your part. Some time ago here on this forum a member reported that his homeowner's liability policy explicity states that "an intentional act is covered." I have yet to receive a reply to my request for a copy of the language which says this, not, by the way, a repetition of a saleman's sales pitch. I really find it hard to believe. If this were shown, as I said earlier, I would promptly look into purchasing a policy myself.

I, for example, had to give some serious thought to this question a while back when I was considering purchasing some kind of coverage for a CHLer. I wrote to my liability insurance company, a top-notch company which I will leave unnamed, asking whether the legal use of my firearm in self-defense was covered, my having a CHL, and I was nicely advised just what I expected to be advised, that the use of a firearm for self-defense was an excluded intentional act.

I am not saying that you cannot purchase some kind of probably relatively limited liability insurance covering the use of your firearm in self-defense -- that one particular type of intentional act. I am only saying that you should take care before trusting that liability insurance such as homeowner's, with or without an umbrella, protects you.

Elmo

(Edited to apologize to sjfcontrol. I had overlooked your post.)

If the point is to comply with a silly company policy, it doesn't matter if DGU is covered.

well accually my issue with the whole thing is that you have to sign all this stuff and maintain your chl on record with them. i personally believe they have no right to know you have a chl or not.my last job was in heath care and they had a no gun policy so i always kept my gun in my car and never said anything about owning guns period to anyone.