Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

I am seeing a positive trend among many companies that provide homeowners and renters policies. As many of you know, homeowners and renters polices have Personal Liability coverage that cover bodily injury and property damage to others for which the insured may be liable. One of the troublesome provisions in that coverage was the exclusion for Intentional Acts. In other words, the policy is written so that there is no coverage for acts that the insured knew, or should have known, would cause injury or property damage. Of course, a self-defense shooting falls into that exclusionary language (or used to). Recently, I have noticed that several large insurers are including language in their Exclusion for Intentional Acts that provide a specific Exception for acts taken in self defense. So, Intentional Acts are excluded under the policy, Except that acts committed in self-defense are not excluded.

I have not seen any cases arise that test this exception to the exclusion. Unfortunately, I have seen a number of older cases that fell into the Intentional Act Exclusion because the exception had not yet been added to the policy.

Read your policy. If you haven't read you policy in awhile, do so. In fact, I highly recommend contacting your agent or policy services department and asking for a copy of your CURRENT policy and endorsements. (Endorsements are attachments to the policy that make modifications to the main policy.) Do not rely on a policy that you have had for a long time. Updates are frequent and an old policy may not be up to date.

I have been an insurance adjuster in Virginia for nearly 20 years. I handle "large-loss" liability claims in Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, West Virginia, DC, Texas and North Carolina, in case anyone is interested in my qualification.

Micro wrote:Recently, I have noticed that several large insurers are including language in their Exclusion for Intentional Acts that provide a specific Exception for acts taken in self defense. So, Intentional Acts are excluded under the policy, Except that acts committed in self-defense are not excluded.

I'm highly interested in knowing these companies names. Thanks! The exclusion is nuts!

The Exclusion for intentional act is absolutely necessary. If it didn't exist, people would expect insurance companies to pay for damage or injuries they caused, well, intentionally. The problem was that the one justifiable act that causes damage/injury - self defense- was captured under that exclusion. Slowly, that act is the becoming the exception to the exclusion with several companies. For instance, I have seen that exception in USAA policies. I've talked to my counterparts in other companies (the large ones with agents) who have stated that they are seeing it implemented as well.

Kreutz wrote:

Micro wrote:Recently, I have noticed that several large insurers are including language in their Exclusion for Intentional Acts that provide a specific Exception for acts taken in self defense. So, Intentional Acts are excluded under the policy, Except that acts committed in self-defense are not excluded.

I'm highly interested in knowing these companies names. Thanks! The exclusion is nuts!

+1

Micro wrote:I am seeing a positive trend among many companies that provide homeowners and renters policies. As many of you know, homeowners and renters polices have Personal Liability coverage that cover bodily injury and property damage to others for which the insured may be liable. One of the troublesome provisions in that coverage was the exclusion for Intentional Acts. In other words, the policy is written so that there is no coverage for acts that the insured knew, or should have known, would cause injury or property damage. Of course, a self-defense shooting falls into that exclusionary language (or used to). Recently, I have noticed that several large insurers are including language in their Exclusion for Intentional Acts that provide a specific Exception for acts taken in self defense. So, Intentional Acts are excluded under the policy, Except that acts committed in self-defense are not excluded.

I have not seen any cases arise that test this exception to the exclusion. Unfortunately, I have seen a number of older cases that fell into the Intentional Act Exclusion because the exception had not yet been added to the policy.

Read your policy. If you haven't read you policy in awhile, do so. In fact, I highly recommend contacting your agent or policy services department and asking for a copy of your CURRENT policy and endorsements. (Endorsements are attachments to the policy that make modifications to the main policy.) Do not rely on a policy that you have had for a long time. Updates are frequent and an old policy may not be up to date.

I have been an insurance adjuster in Virginia for nearly 20 years. I handle "large-loss" liability claims in Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, West Virginia, DC, Texas and North Carolina, in case anyone is interested in my qualification.

Do you ever run across cases of self defense were damage was significant enough for an insurance claim? I can't imagination a massive amounts of damge being done.

Personal injury. You are most likely going to get off in criminal court (if you're even charged) but you can bet your ass that you're going to get sued in civil court by the attacker...er...victim as his lawyer will claim. "Johnny was such a good little boy, he just got mixed up with the wrong crowd."

Lockton Risk sells self defense insurance. Same company that handles the Armscare coverage for the NRA.

OgenRwot wrote:Personal injury. You are most likely going to get off in criminal court (if you're even charged) but you can bet your ass that you're going to get sued in civil court by the attacker...er...victim as his lawyer will claim. "Johnny was such a good little boy, he just got mixed up with the wrong crowd."

And Insurance would cover that eh? Definitely worth looking into to make sure you policy has it.

Precisely. We've all heard those ancedotes. Someone breaks into a house and gets shot then sues the homeowner. Or their family does. They claim an overreaction to the threat presented. In some instances, a savy attorney can make a compelling case. In cases where the insurer threatens to disclaim coverage due to intentional act, and the homeowner faces the prospect of an expensive legal defense and no coverage for the outcome, he will sometimes amit to negligence in order to get coverage. Negligence is covered. But negligently shooting someone is NOT self defense. See the conundrum? Either maintain self-defense and pay the legal costs and potential outcome yourself, or admit to negligently shooting someone, get coverage, but loose your insurance when its all said and done.

The Exception (self defense) to the Exclusion (intentional act) does away with that. You would be able to maintain your position and the insurer would owe a defense and coverage. In fact, if it were truly self defense then the coverage would most likely be a moot point since no verdict would likely be rendered.

Insurance policy language is pretty much boiler-plate in Virginia. Except for coverage amounts, which are picked by the insured when he buys the policy, most insurance policies in the state pretty much read the same. Every policy is going to exclude intentional acts. But some insurers are adding the self-defense exception to the policy. This is something I've only started seeing recently. To remain competetive, and since few people will ever have to avail themselves of the exception, I suspect it till end up in more policies with more companies.

Like I said, policies change. Sometimes they change and you never really know about it. I recommend that you read your policy. Look at the "Exclusions" section under the "Liability" portion of the policy. The Exclusions section should have an "exceptions" section. See if it's there. If you have an old copy of your policy laying around (1 year or more), then ask for a new copy to include all your endorsements. The language could be in the body of the policy, or in an endorsement.

I have no idea why this has been added to some policies. Something must have happened somewhere, or enough people asked for it, for companies to have changed their policies. Whatever the reason, it's a relatively new occurrence and a welcome change.

Micro wrote:Precisely. We've all heard those ancedotes. Someone breaks into a house and gets shot then sues the homeowner. Or their family does. They claim an overreaction to the threat presented. In some instances, a savy attorney can make a compelling case. In cases where the insurer threatens to disclaim coverage due to intentional act, and the homeowner faces the prospect of an expensive legal defense and no coverage for the outcome, he will sometimes amit to negligence in order to get coverage. Negligence is covered. But negligently shooting someone is NOT self defense. See the conundrum? Either maintain self-defense and pay the legal costs and potential outcome yourself, or admit to negligently shooting someone, get coverage, but loose your insurance when its all said and done.

The Exception (self defense) to the Exclusion (intentional act) does away with that. You would be able to maintain your position and the insurer would owe a defense and coverage. In fact, if it were truly self defense then the coverage would most likely be a moot point since no verdict would likely be rendered.

Insurance policy language is pretty much boiler-plate in Virginia. Except for coverage amounts, which are picked by the insured when he buys the policy, most insurance policies in the state pretty much read the same. Every policy is going to exclude intentional acts. But some insurers are adding the self-defense exception to the policy. This is something I've only started seeing recently. To remain competetive, and since few people will ever have to avail themselves of the exception, I suspect it till end up in more policies with more companies.

Like I said, policies change. Sometimes they change and you never really know about it. I recommend that you read your policy. Look at the "Exclusions" section under the "Liability" portion of the policy. The Exclusions section should have an "exceptions" section. See if it's there. If you have an old copy of your policy laying around (1 year or more), then ask for a new copy to include all your endorsements. The language could be in the body of the policy, or in an endorsement.

This is one reason even I've considered joining the NRA even though I don't care for how they play the political game most of the time...liability insurance.

I have no idea why this has been added to some policies. Something must have happened somewhere, or enough people asked for it, for companies to have changed their policies. Whatever the reason, it's a relatively new occurrence and a welcome change.

There is a big market for this and the heavily regulated, non-free market, but not totally government controlled market is responding to it. Honestly, if I had a list of providers who offered that provision (SD is covered), I would only shop those carriers. That is why people are asking for names. If we have a policy which does or doesn't cover it, we could simply read it. However, if we don't have a policy which covers it or need a new policy, it would be nice to know which providers are putting that provision in their coverage.

It won't sell the policy in of itself, but if you are looking at several providers offering similar coverage for similar rates, it would definitely win my over.

I'm sorry, I won't say specifically that a certain company offers this exclusion. I can't. Things change all the time. What I will say is that I've seen it in my company's policy and a couple of other large companies' policies. So what I'm saying is that companies are trending in the right direction. If you are serious about shopping around, then contact companies like Nationwide, State Farm, Allstate. They have their own agents. Ask to see a copy of the policy you are buying and look for the exception. Don't expect an agent to know if that exception exists in the policy.

I will tell you that agents and most policy service reps don't know every provision or aspect of a policy. If you ask an agent or a policy services representative if that exception exists in a policy, 99.9% of the time they won't know, and many won't know where to look. It's just a small aspect of the policy. I know, because it's a special area of interest for me. If I were to turn around at my desk and tell my counterpart that "there's a new exception in the policy for self defense" she would probably say "huh? what? whatever." It is unlikely the vast majoirty of adjusters have ever had a case of a claim involving self defense.

All I'm trying to say is that in the past self defense used to be an exclusion, and now some companies are making an exception. I suspect the reason is because there has been a case somewhere where someone successfully argued that while an "intentional act" is essentially "misconduct", "self defense" is hardly "misconduct." And of course, because self-defense claims represent a miniscule, microscopic portion of their claims.

Even when self defense was an exclusion, if one had the time and money he could hire a lawyer and try and force the insurer to provide coverage based on the above argument. It's less about the ulimate coverage than getting the insurer to pay for the defense (a huge cost to most people). If you are sued and win a self-defense case, you don't have to pay anything - because you won. If you lose a self-defense case, it's because the evidence suggested the shooting wasn't in self-defense, which means the shooter should be held accountable for it.

I will say that, since it is available on the internet, Allstate writes that exception into their policies.

The exception will read something like this (in Allstate's case)

The "Reasonable Force" Exception
As with all coverage disputes, the determination of whether the intentional injury exclusion applies to injuries caused by acts of self-defense depends on the exact wording of the exclusion and the policy as a whole. Some liability policies include an exception to the intentional injury exclusion for "bodily injury resulting from the use of reasonable force to protect persons or property." If the exclusion includes this exception, or one similar, the intentional injury exclusion will not apply to circumstances where the insured uses reasonable force in defending himself, others, or property. See Glover v. Allstate Ins. Co., 229 Ga. App. 235, 493 S.E.2d 612 (1997) (exclusion in family liability provisions of homeowners insurance policy, excluding damage for bodily injury or property damage resulting from any willful act or omission that is a crime unless such act or omission was for the preservation of life or property, applied to preclude coverage for shooting of innocent bystander by homeowners' child who fired gun in attempt to apprehend individuals who had assaulted him while trying to steal his vehicle).

http://www.insurancesolutionsdfw.com/li ... efense.htm

The above scenerio is interesting because it is a case where a homeowner could be liable for damages in a justified shooting case. A scenerio where an innocent bystander was injured or sustained damage.

Interesting. I just checked my USAA policy and they do have the exception for lawful use of force. It is qualified though by an "insured" so make sure your wife, etc are named on the policy.

USAA's policy does offer it. It's a relatively new provision. Last year or so. AFAIK, USAA's was one of the first to offer it. In fact, it's not even "offered" - it's a standard part of the policy now.

BTW, any family member that resides in your home is an "insured" under the policy. They must be a relative. A friend living with you doesn't qualify.

I caught that with USAA...and it was just this past year. Not surprised they did it but a little surprised it wasnt already there.

This is a tag.

Another option could be the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network. Lots of information at this site about getting through a self defense incident.

http://www.armedcitizensnetwork.org/ima ... -SDLaw.pdf

Can any USAA customers tell me how they rank in price and service? I have auto and home through Geico and think I can do better elsewhere. I'm a veteran since I think that matters for USAA if I recall.

Kreutz wrote:Can any USAA customers tell me how they rank in price and service? I have auto and home through Geico and think I can do better elsewhere. I'm a veteran since I think that matters for USAA if I recall.

I've been a USAA customer for years. I have had and dealt with other companies and USAA beats everyone I've seen hands down in price and service. I've never had a problem with them. If you are eligible its worth your time to check them out.

zephyp wrote:

Kreutz wrote:Can any USAA customers tell me how they rank in price and service? I have auto and home through Geico and think I can do better elsewhere. I'm a veteran since I think that matters for USAA if I recall.

I've been a USAA customer for years. I have had and dealt with other companies and USAA beats everyone I've seen hands down in price and service. I've never had a problem with them. If you are eligible its worth your time to check them out.

I agree USAA is good. All of my insurance is through them as well as credit and several loans, past and present. I've never been disappointed. Had a homeowners claim a couple years ago for water damage and they were very prompt and easy to deal with.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk