Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

I've been reading this board and there are numerous posts regarding the circumstances under which it is justifiable to use deadly force. I thought it might be interesting to discuss the "other" legal issue that might arise from a shooting - a lawsuit.

Whether or not a shooting is deemed justifiable by a Commonwealth's attorney, or whether or not you are cleared of any criminal wrong doing in a criminal court, a lawsuit filed by the "victim," or his survivors is a distinct possibility. Criminal exoneration does not insulate you from a civil suit. Consider the O.J. Simpson trial. He was found "not guilty" in the criminal trial, but found liable in the civil trial.

Has anyone given any thought to this? How would you find the means to pay for an adequate defense? I will say that it is probable that your homeowner's liability coverage would not pay any verdict rendered against you in a self defense shooting situation, and may not even pay for your defense. You see, most homeowner's liability policies in Virginia exclude coverage for an intentional act, or an act that a reasonable person would believe would cause bodily harm. A self-defense shooting is an intentional act, and it is intended to cause bodily harm. And even if you "win" the case, you may have thousands of dollars in legal fees that cannot be recovered.

I'm an insurance adjuster by profession and have handled liability claims for the past 17 years. I handle claims in Virginia, Maryland, DC, Delaware, West Virginia and North Carolina. I've occasionally seen this arise. Just wondering if anyone has ever given it any thought?

Here's a link that the NRA endorses for just such an event. Don't have any idea of the cost but it might be worth a look.

http://www.locktonaffinity.com/nrains/Excess.htm

Absolutely - it is thought about and has been discussed here more than a couple of times. I think it's always very well worth discussing civil lawsuits related to a self-defense shooting.

It's unfortunate, the litigiousness of our society. Everyone seems to want something for nothing, and lawsuits seem like an easy way to do that.

I had to pay to litigate a frivilous lawsuit this past Spring and it cost me thousands of dollars that I will never see again - for absolutely no reason - the guy who sued me is a lunatic and had no basis for his claim.

There's just no way around it in the society in which we live. Carrying a firearm and being prepared to use it, you must be aware that the possibility of a lawsuit exists. The way I see it, I would rather spend some time in court than be dead.

Immunity from civil prosecution is something we're beating the table for in a castle doctrine for VA. Other states have it. Its what we want. Why should we pay some scumbag or his family for damages when he/she tried to kill us or loved ones? A good solid castle doctrine will solve that.

I'm in full agreement with Rick,,I would rather get sued than get dead,,,,, Well said DK,, We gotta keep pounding on em to get what we want and need this year,,No settling for the little gimmes like they did last year...

zephyp wrote:Immunity from civil prosecution is something we're beating the table for in a castle doctrine for VA. Other states have it. Its what we want. Why should we pay some scumbag or his family for damages when he/she tried to kill us or loved ones? A good solid castle doctrine will solve that.

Castle Doctrine only protects you in your home, car or curtilage thereof. I don't think it will help you if you're walking down the street, get mugged and have to defend yourself in public. Am I wrong?

allingeneral wrote:

zephyp wrote:Immunity from civil prosecution is something we're beating the table for in a castle doctrine for VA. Other states have it. Its what we want. Why should we pay some scumbag or his family for damages when he/she tried to kill us or loved ones? A good solid castle doctrine will solve that.

Castle Doctrine only protects you in your home, car or curtilage thereof. I don't think it will help you if you're walking down the street, get mugged and have to defend yourself in public. Am I wrong?

A full up castle doctrine (like in FL) defines castle as anywhere you have a legal right to be.

Yup, that's the one we need to push for!!!

I've seen that NRA product. It's interesting. I'm curious as to how far it will take you. It seems like a "safe" product to sell. It provides for the payment of defense costs and provides liability coverage for acts of self defense. However, if you are being sued, the lawsuit will never allege you were defending yourself. It will allege you were neglignent in some respect. If a verdict is rendered against you, it won't be because you were defending yourself, it will be because you were found to be negligent and that the injury or death was caused as a result of that negligence. In a civil case, if you are found to have acted negligently, you weren't acting in self defense. That means that in the event of a verdict, the carrier for that NRA coverage may still not pay a verdict because the cause of injury wasn't self defense, it was some act of negligence (reckless firearms handling, etc) which may not be covered (I don't know if it is or not).

I know this sounds a bit strannge, as if I'm parsing the language of the coverage. And I am. It's because that's what insurers sometimes do. They are very strict in their interpretation of a policy and, likewise, apply them strictly. What looks like coverage may not be.

I had a case in Virginia where a person barged into a house and assaulted the owner's girlfriend. The homeowner let loose on the guy with a .22 rifle. Even as the guy retreated out the door, he fired. The homeowner was criminally charged and successfully defended himself. However, he was sued by the "victim," the attorney arguing that as the homeoner fired as the intruder retreated, he was no longer acting in self defense. Coverage was denied because the act was intentional. But the lawsuit alleged only gross negligence on the part of the homeowner. That triggered the insurer's duty to defend the homeowner. The insurer stated while they would defend, they would pay no verdict because they were confindent they could prove the act was intentional and not simply negligence (sot of a no-brainer). continued

The case was eventually settled for a small sum. I will tell you, until this matter was resolved, the homeowner sweated. Not only was he faced with the possibility of having to pay a judgement, he had to consult a separate attorney about protecting his assets. Sweating 30 days in hjail is nothing compared to sweating losing your life's saving, house, retirement, etc... And that's not fun especially in the face of an insurer that may be looking for an "out."

I hadn't heard the "castle" proposal, yet. It sound like a good idea. Some statutory immunity from civil suits would be the ideal solution.

Micro wrote:The case was eventually settled for a small sum. I will tell you, until this matter was resolved, the homeowner sweated. Not only was he faced with the possibility of having to pay a judgement, he had to consult a separate attorney about protecting his assets. Sweating 30 days in hjail is nothing compared to sweating losing your life's saving, house, retirement, etc... And that's not fun especially in the face of an insurer that may be looking for an "out."

I hadn't heard the "castle" proposal, yet. It sound like a good idea. Some statutory immunity from civil suits would be the ideal solution.

Right now there is no formal proposal other than the one we're hoping our legislators will eventually take up - again - with our modifications.

Howdy, Y'all,

Certainly the potential civil ramifications of a self-defense situation are nothing to sneeze at. The whole idea of using deadly force in self defense is because, as Rick so eloquently put it, we'd "rather spend some time in court than be dead."

That said, it seems to me that an enterprising insurance company could clean up by selling affordable criminal and civil litigation insurance to worried gun owners. Maybe as a rider to an existing homeowners' policy? With discounts for CHP holders? What d'ya think, Micro?

Regards,

George

It would be a tough product for an insurer to administer.

In a situation where the homeowner claimed self defense, but there were questionable circumstances (and a lawyer can find questionable circumstances in any scenerio). Such as shooting an intruder as he was fleeing out the door. Then I think a lawsuit would be more likely. And the likelyhood of a verdict would be greater. Under these circumstances, a good plaintiff's lawyer would be able to show the shooter went too far, beyond the force needed to defend himself. This is clearly an intentional act. I can't see that this would be covered by any policy. No insurer is going to write a policy that will provide coverage for an intentional act. To get around this, and to get at insurance money, a plaintiff's attorney will likely allege some form of negligence in the lawsuit to trigger insurance coverage. See, insurance covers the damage from negligence, but not damages from an intentional act. But I think the insurer will work to prove there was no negligence, and that the act was rather intentional, and not covered. I've actually seen this scenereio play out. The homeowner is between a rock and a hard place. He has a lawyer after him, and an insurer trying to get our of coverage. So the homeowner is left with a hard choice. Does he maintain his position that he shot the intruder in self defense - an intentional act not covered by the policy, and possibly expose himself to a verdict he may have to pay himself? Or does he admit to some form of negligence, in essence admitting he did something unintentional but wrong that resulted in otherwise avoidable injury - just to get insurance coverage?

It's a tough situation. And I only bring this up because I think its an interesting legal aspect a lot of people don't think about.

A self-defense shooting is an intentional act. It appears the NRA provides a policy that covers civil liability from a self-defense shooting. But if it is truly a sef defense shooting where there are no questionable aspects, I don't see where there would be any civil liability. If there are questionable circumstances, then it may not be a bona fide act of self defense and I wonder if the NRA policy would cover it.

Just my rambling thoughts.

George,

My immediate shot from the hip on insurance is its not a particularly good idea. My thought is that would telegraph a message to the antis that we are admitting that we could be at fault and want to be protected. Having said that if we could convince insurance companies to offer that kind of insurance we can also convince legislators to pass a meaningful castle doctrine with an immunity provision. I'd much rather focus on the latter. Just my $0.02.

Some sort of statutory immunity would be great. But insurance is not a bad idea. A combination of both is probably best.

I'm not sure what the basis for statutory immunity would be. Perhaps, if the shooting was ruled justifiable, and happened inside the home of the shooter, them that might pass. The problem is that the applicability of any statutory immunity (like sovereign immunity for police officers) is rebuttable. In other words, a savvy lawyer might be able to argue that statutory immunity doesn't apply for some reason or another. Then insurance would be a good fall back.

There is no two ways around it. Shooting an intruder in your own home, even under the most justifiable circumstances, is a life-altering event.

zephyp wrote:George,

My immediate shot from the hip on insurance is its not a particularly good idea. My thought is that would telegraph a message to the antis that we are admitting that we could be at fault and want to be protected. Having said that if we could convince insurance companies to offer that kind of insurance we can also convince legislators to pass a meaningful castle doctrine with an immunity provision. I'd much rather focus on the latter. Just my $0.02.

Zephyp, I have to agree with you. When it comes to firearms, I perfer to stay very low key. I would rather carry CC over open carry. I want to run in stealth mode and draw NO attention.

In the situation where the bad guy was followed out of the house by the shooter and the shooter kept on shooting he was dead wrong. As soon as the threat is over you don't fire anymore and you don't chase a perp. If you do chase the perp YOU have now become the aggressor.
Bill

SgtBill wrote:In the situation where the bad guy was followed out of the house by the shooter and the shooter kept on shooting he was dead wrong. As soon as the threat is over you don't fire anymore and you don't chase a perp. If you do chase the perp YOU have now become the aggressor.
Bill

If he threw away his weapon and ran, I agree with that.

As long as this type of insurance remains in the private sector it has some advantages,,, However there have been rumblings in the anti gun camps to make that sort of thing mandatory.This would fall right in line with their plans to wipe out gun ownership as we know it,, It would put the government in the position of being able to regulate the costs and I'm willing to bet that they would be extremely high.There is no way we as gun owners would get a fair shake if we allow that door to ever be opened. we all know what responsible gun ownership is and how to act accordingly,, Insurance might even cause some to be more reckless knowing that they have it when confronted with a self defense situation. I would rather see gun owners work in the legislature to improve the gun laws than rely on an insurance company,, A correct Castle Doctrine Bill will do more to help gun owners than any insurance policy.

I dont think any form of insurance for gun owners is a good idea unless its to protect against theft and fire. We need to have immunity from civil prosecution plain and simple. The qualifier would be if you are cleared of criminal charges then the BG and/or his family and/or anyone else on the planet cannot file a civil suit. Plain and simple.