Concealed Carry Insurance? Do we need that in california?

[caburian]

You don't need insurance to exercise your civil rights.

but you should have insurance to give you a better chance fighting a civil lawsuit.

[Pistolero357]

Does anyone in this discussion have an opinion of whether the USCCA insurance policy or the NRA Carry Guard insurance policy is better for Californians?
Secondly, does anyone in this discussion have an opinion regarding the amount of coverage one ought to have, i.e. $500K, $1 million, or greater?

[SHEPHERD321]

I carry insurance, US & Texas Lawshield. 17.00 month.

[1bulletBarney]

Does anyone in this discussion have an opinion of whether the USCCA insurance policy or the NRA Carry Guard insurance policy is better for Californians?
Secondly, does anyone in this discussion have an opinion regarding the amount of coverage one ought to have, i.e. $500K, $1 million, or greater?

The post above yours was posted in 2014...

[riceman]

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=1128581

Big Jake in the Concealed weapon forum has a great review of 2 CCW insurance carriers. Very informative read. I hope the link works, if not will give you the title.

[riceman]

The link works.

[BAJ475]

The post above yours was posted in 2014...

Yes it is an old thread. But the question of what plan to select continues to be of interest.

As noted, this is a recurring question. There is no legal requirement for insurance in the several states that I have permits (CA, NV, UT, OR, WA & ID). But as others have stated, it is wise to have some sort of plan to cover costs and expenses. But this is not a simple or easy question to answer and requires some understanding of insurance law and the plans being offered in order to make an intelligent decision. First, you must understand that public policy prevents insurance companies from providing insurance to cover loss or damages due to deliberate and intentional criminal conduct. Next you need to understand that in a typical self-defense scenario involving a firearm there will be no question or dispute that you deliberately and intentionally shot the attacker. The only question will be whether or not this was a criminal act, not whether it was deliberate or intentional. If the jury finds that you were justified in drawing and using your weapon to defend yourself or others, you should be okay. But what if the jury finds that your action was not reasonable because you were not faced with an immediate threat because there was a possibility that you could have escaped? In other words, I am assuming a situation where there is no debate that the person is posing a threat of death or great bodily injury and you were being attacked. The only question being whether the threat is immediate or not. So, the question is how will your plan provider treat this situation? Will it deny protection because the jury found that you failed to act reasonably because you might have escaped? Or will it provide protection because, from the outset, you arguably have a legitimate self defense argument. The next question is how will your plan provider act in response to the situation where the prosecution, knowing that it has a very weak case, offers a sweetheart deal requiring you to plead to some minor criminal offense? Take for instance the George Zimmerman case and assume that the prosecutor knew and understood they were going to lose and that they offered Mr. Zimmerman a sweetheart deal. How would Don West have reacted? That answer is simple. As a responsible and competent attorney, he would not have placed his client in jeopardy of long and protected prison term. So the question that needs to be answered by your plan is what, if any, protection will the plan provide in this situation. Will it abandon you because you pled to a reduced minor criminal offense, or will they continue to stand by you because you always had a viable defense to the charges? Hopefully, this will provide you with the questions you need to have answered to select the best plan for your needs.

[TruOil]

could they? sure. They can look at information with whatever kind of bias they feel like. But it would be like saying that you clearly planned to get in an accident because you had auto insurance, or you clearly planned to get cancer because you have health insurance, or you clearly planned to burn your house down because you have homeowners insurance, etc...

Evidence of liability insurance is specifically excluded under the Evidence Code from consideration by judge or jury on the issue of liability for precisely the reasons you mention. So the correct answer is no, it cannot be considered as evidence of "intent."

[Librarian]

Moved to CCW forum and closed as necrothread.

Generally, a new thread is preferable.