CCW Insurance comparison chart

[BucDan]

All this reading, I'm still undecided

[JDoe]

All this reading, I'm still undecided

Read the contracts carefully side by side. See what each actually covers and does not cover.

Much of what was posted above is not completely accurate or terms and conditions have been changed at most or all firms mentioned. You need current up to date good information gleaned directly from their contracts.

[fr0ng]

i went with ccw safe and added the extra 1m civil liability.

[dperez002]

Great info! Thanks for sharing!

[TheMechanic]

Wonder why Lockton Affinity was not on the list?

[Chewy65]

I am in the market for CCW insurance and note that some very good points have been raised here, "Raised" as in the past, since the last post was more than a year ago.

I alos am concerned with "recoupment". Please note that the current policy provides for recovery or recoupment "if required by applicable law". For me, and this is not legal advice, the question becomes when is USCCA (perhaps more properly Universal Fire & Casualty Insureance Company) required to recoup. Drilling down, the question might be what is "applicable law" and does ot "require" recovery or recoupment? Is it enough that Cal Ins Code sec. 533 forbids insuring liability for intentional acts and/or that an insurer could be denied the right to issue California policies if it did not seek recoupment?

A lot is said about the presence of a recoupment policy provision. Per cases cited in the following National Review article an insurer has a right to seek recoupment as long as it reserves that right when it accepts a defense EVEN IF THE POLICY CONTAINS NO RECOVERY PROVISION. https://natlawreview.com/article/it-...oogle_vignette

I am not too sure of this. Especially if the insurer or its authorized agent has led the insured to believe it will not seek recoupment.

Bear in mind tht I am neither an expert on insurance law and am not qualified to give legal advice regding the same. I offer my thoughts only to stimulate discussion.

[Chewy65]

ticle discusses Florida Law and is somewhat dated, it may be worth a gander.https://www.floridabar.org/the-flori...cts-exclusion/ Perhaps the commentary regarding State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Marshall, 554 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 1989) is most relevant. (Note that this is a decision of the Florida Supreme Court; not the SCOTUS.)

"the Marshall court did note that the public policy concerns which usually preclude liability coverage for intentional acts are not implicated in self-defense cases. Thus, the court indicated that it would not invalidate a policy provision specifically granting coverage for intentional acts of the insured in self-defense.²²" Bold emphasis added.

When, and if" I find time to get down to a major law library I would lime to shepardize State Farm v. Marshall. If those of you living in the modern world have access to Lexis or Westlaw, I woujld love to know how California has treated the point.

[Chewy65]

California Court Clarifies Intentional Conduct Exclusion in Insurance Policy Litigation Here is some California law courtesy of the Fourth District Court of Appeal. https://frostbrowntodd.com/californi...cy-litigation/

I don't want to comment too much on it, but note its language regarding the lack of a covered "occuremce". The USCCA Self-Defense Liability Coverage Form specifically includes acts of self-defense in the defiinition of an "occurrence". I really think a read of State Farm Fire and Casualty Company v. Diblin, 114 Cal.App.4th 1245; 337 Cal.Rptr.3d 688 (2025) is in order.

Addendum. Interestingly, in reply to my inquiry my State Farm agent informed me that the company is no longer issuing umbrella policies.

[BAJ475]

California Court Clarifies Intentional Conduct Exclusion in Insurance Policy Litigation Here is some California law courtesy of the Fourth District Court of Appeal. https://frostbrowntodd.com/californi...cy-litigation/

I don't want to comment too much on it, but note its language regarding the lack of a covered "occurrence". The USCCA Self-Defense Liability Coverage Form specifically includes acts of self-defense in the definition of an "occurrence". I really think a read of State Farm Fire and Casualty Company v. Diblin, 114 Cal.App.4th 1245; 337 Cal.Rptr.3d 688 (2025) is in order.

Addendum. Interestingly, in reply to my inquiry my State Farm agent informed me that the company is no longer issuing umbrella policies.

Chewy, there is a case out of the State of Washington dealing with coverage of a self defense (actually defense of another) case where the court found that there was no coverage. It was not a self defense policy but a general business liability policy that contained an express exclusion for intentional acts. The owner of the business shot the boyfriend of a relative who was being attacked by her boyfriend. The business owner was sued on the basis of wrongful death and submitted the claim to his business liability insurer, because the incident occurred on his business property. The Washington court noted that while some courts in other states would read the policy to include coverage, the Washington court would not do so, saying that the parties were bound to what they had agreed to. What is bizarre is that the Washington Insurance Commissioner cites this case for the proposition that most self defense insurance policies are prohibited by Washington law, when the court made no such finding. The problem for me is that CCW-Safe, that I have had from the time I first got a CCW, will not cover me for an incident in the State of Washington. That leaves me to two choices, a Washington approved insurer that has a recovery clause or AOR.

The reason I went with CCW-Safe is that I wanted to know about possible recovery of amounts paid by CCW-Safe. As you know, it is against public policy to offer insurance to cover damages caused by intentional criminal acts. So, my question was what happens if I were involved in a fatal self defense incident and because the prosecutor knew that he or she had a very weak case offered a misdemeanor brandishing charge, in lieu of going to trial for murder. As you know, no competent attorney would suggest going to trial and not accepting the prosecutors offer in such a situation. But, in doing so, you are stating or at least not denying that you engaged in an intentional criminal act. When I posed my question to the person answering the phone at CCW-Safe, she said that she did not know but would have someone get back to me. When I got that return call, the person identified himself as Don West, explaining that he was an attorney. I said that I knew exactly who he was and thanked him for calling me back. Mr. West stated that he understood my question, adding that if the prosecutor in George Zimmerman's case had made any reasonable offer, instead of no offer at all, the case would not have gone to trial. I have been with CCW-Safe ever since.