TexasCHLforum.com

Apparently, [Pre-paid legal service] and the USCCA insurance plans are doing a lot more business, thanks to the Zimmerman/Martin shooting.

http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/08/11 ... erest.html

Does not spark any interest from me.........

AEA wrote:Does not spark any interest from me.........

More than once during his ordeal I was glad I have [pre-paid legal]. Like all insurance, I hope to never need it but it's a good feeling to know its there.

I would opt for $2 millions general liability umbrella insurance. That should cover any lawsuits.

Beiruty wrote:I would opt for $2 millions general liability umbrella insurance. That should cover any lawsuits.

Criminal defense and lawsuits are two different animals. [pre-paid legal] claims to defend you in a criminal case. I don't think a liability umbrella policy will do that. In fact, your insurance will probably settle with the other party long before your criminal case ever makes it to court.

jmra wrote:

Beiruty wrote:I would opt for $2 millions general liability umbrella insurance. That should cover any lawsuits.

Criminal defense and lawsuits are two different animals. [pre-paid legal] claims to defend you in a criminal case. I don't think a liability umbrella policy will do that. In fact, your insurance will probably settle with the other party long before your criminal case ever makes it to court.

You may be correct.

jmra wrote:In fact, your insurance will probably settle with the other party long before your criminal case ever makes it to court.

I can imagine how that looks to prospective jurors in a criminal trial, even if the judge says they can't consider it. It's not for everybody but I avoid lawsuits by not owning anything they can get by suing me.

bizarrenormality wrote:

jmra wrote:In fact, your insurance will probably settle with the other party long before your criminal case ever makes it to court.

I can imagine how that looks to prospective jurors in a criminal trial, even if the judge says they can't consider it. It's not for everybody but I avoid lawsuits by not owning anything they can get by suing me.

In the past I have known of very wealthy people who leased everything and payed those leases thru offshore accounts. Hard to get a lawyer to file a lawsuit when there are no assets that can be seized.

bizarrenormality wrote:

jmra wrote:In fact, your insurance will probably settle with the other party long before your criminal case ever makes it to court.

I can imagine how that looks to prospective jurors in a criminal trial, even if the judge says they can't consider it. It's not for everybody but I avoid lawsuits by not owning anything they can get by suing me.

The criminal trial will most likely be BEFORE the civil trial, so the jurors in the criminal case will never hear about the civil case.

Owning nothing of value except that which is protected by a homestead exemtion might work for you, personally, but most folks probably wouldn't like living that much on the edge. Savings, IRA's, etc make the future a little brighter, and the insurance is there to protect that.

I hope you never have to use your weapon to protect yourself, B-N. If you do, I predict you'll wish you had spent that money on the insurance, 'cause lawyers don't work for free; not even for innocent folk.

Beiruty wrote:

jmra wrote:

Beiruty wrote:I would opt for $2 millions general liability umbrella insurance. That should cover any lawsuits.

Criminal defense and lawsuits are two different animals. [pre-paid legal] claims to defend you in a criminal case. I don't think a liability umbrella policy will do that. In fact, your insurance will probably settle with the other party long before your criminal case ever makes it to court.

You may be correct.

He is. Your umbrella policy may help you pay off a judgement, or a settlement, but you're gonna foot the bill for the lawyer that represents YOU. The insurance company will have their own lawyer who's interests might be different than yours. Been there, done that (not for a shooting but rather an MVA while on duty as a paramedic).

Beiruty wrote:I would opt for $2 millions general liability umbrella insurance. That should cover any lawsuits.

It won't cover intentional acts such as shooting someone on purpose. If you accidentally shoot someone, an umbrella should respond upon exhausting your primary liability policy limit.

n5wd wrote:

bizarrenormality wrote:

jmra wrote:In fact, your insurance will probably settle with the other party long before your criminal case ever makes it to court.

I can imagine how that looks to prospective jurors in a criminal trial, even if the judge says they can't consider it. It's not for everybody but I avoid lawsuits by not owning anything they can get by suing me.

The criminal trial will most likely be BEFORE the civil trial, so the jurors in the criminal case will never hear about the civil case.

Owning nothing of value except that which is protected by a homestead exemtion might work for you, personally, but most folks probably wouldn't like living that much on the edge. Savings, IRA's, etc make the future a little brighter, and the insurance is there to protect that.

I hope you never have to use your weapon to protect yourself, B-N. If you do, I predict you'll wish you had spent that money on the insurance, 'cause lawyers don't work for free; not even for innocent folk.

Actually where insurance is involved, the insurance companies like to settle their part prior to any criminal verdict. Their goal is to limit their liability as much as possible. A prime example of this is Zs HOA insurance settling with the Martins long before Zs trial.

jmra wrote: ...where insurance is involved, the insurance companies like to settle their part prior to any criminal verdict. Their goal is to limit their liability as much as possible. A prime example of this is Zs HOA insurance settling with the Martins long before Zs trial.

This is truly very often the case, jmra, and you have made a very important statement. One invites making a serious error if one assumes that when an insurance company settles a claim it is admitting (1) that its policy indeed covers the incident, or (2) even if it does, there is any liability on the part of its insured. Insurance companies settle claims for a multitude of reasons, and one not personally involved in that settlement should never make an assumption about the reason for settlement unless it is laid out in uncertain terms by the parties.

As the lawyer for Zimmerman's HOA put it, at the time of the HOA's payment of the claim,

"When claims are filed, they're filed against anybody who could possibly have any culpability," [the lawyer] said. Trayvon's parents must have concluded that Zimmerman's homeowners association did, he said, thus the claim.

In the settlement, the association did not admit any wrongdoing or liability. [The lawyer] said its decision to settle was most likely a business decision.

"It's really nothing more than a risk-versus-reward analysis," [He] said. Orlando Sentinal, 4/5/19.

This thread appears to indicate that some might still believe that one's standard homeowner's insurance, including umbrellas, covers the consequences of an intentional act when those consequences were intended by that act. To again kick that horse, since this issue can be critically important to members of the forum, if one's broker says that is the case, one should get a written opinion from the broker, or, preferably, his liability insurance carrier's front office, saying that that is the case, and put the written opinion in his safe deposit box so that it is never lost. Even that written piece of paper will be worthless if the one making that assurance has inadequate assets to cover claims made against the insured.

As once was said here on the forum, if you are able to get such a written assurance from your carrier, and your attorney verifies the liability taken upon itself by your carrier, please let me know the name of the company, and that of your attorney, so I can get some of that insurance, and assurance, too. <irony>

This is not legal advice. I am not your lawyer, nor or you my client. Consult your own attorney for legal advice. Take care to not govern your actions by my personal opinions or anything else I might say.

Jim

n5wd wrote:[.... lawyers don't work for free; not even for innocent folk.

Actually, they quite often work for free.