JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
I'm all for companies being creative to offer products which help the 2A community, but trying to dodge the insurance regulations with the thinnest veil is just asking to get slapped. If they got the insurance license (and there is no honest explanation that they are not offering insurance, no matter how much I wish the answer was otherwise) then in order to shut them down the government would have to come out with a targeted anti-2A explanation for the enforcement, one that might be defeated on 2A and equal protection grounds. I want these companies to succeed.
 
I'm all for companies being creative to offer products which help the 2A community, but trying to dodge the insurance regulations with the thinnest veil is just asking to get slapped. If they got the insurance license (and there is no honest explanation that they are not offering insurance, no matter how much I wish the answer was otherwise) then in order to shut them down the government would have to come out with a targeted anti-2A explanation for the enforcement, one that might be defeated on 2A and equal protection grounds. I want these companies to succeed.

I think the point is that they aren't allowed to offer insurance for defense of criminal acts, the Ins Commissioner interprets lawful SD as a criminal act, and thus prevents them from offering products with or without a license. They aren't trying to dodge financial requirements, they are trying to dodge a dodgy legal argument.
 
I think the point is that they aren't allowed to offer insurance for defense of criminal acts, the Ins Commissioner interprets lawful SD as a criminal act, and thus prevents them from offering products with or without a license. They aren't trying to dodge financial requirements, they are trying to dodge a dodgy legal argument.
Bingo
 
In every state I'm aware of, insurance may be sold to defend against accusations of willful conduct, but cannot indemnify the person for damages they are found liable for for willful conduct, such as punching someone or robbing them.
Not sure if you are aware but, no, states are not allowing companies to sell self defense insurance. This is because they have ruled that the insured parties are profiting from a criminal act, which most if not all states prohibit. This concept goes way back when "notorious" criminals were able to sell their stories and make money off the books, movies, ect. This is why OJ Simpson's book was titled, "If I did it."

Washington state in particular is going after these companies and is why, even if they get a license, they cannot sell insurance there. Some states are not interpreting (read massively stretching) the intent of these laws and allow for the programs. This is why NRA Carry Guard insurance is no longer. Under this logic, school districts, which are covered by "insurance" in case of sexual misconduct by one of their employees, should not be allowed to purchase this coverage, since they are profiting by the criminal act of another.

When we rent vehicles we have the option of obtaining a loss / liability damage waiver (LDW). This is not insurance. But it sure seems to work like "insurance." It is different, but similar, as is ACLDN. Except a bureaucrat gets to decide the fate of the program and of those seeking protection. As I stated in an early post; they hate us.

His quote shows there is no winning this situation while he is in office. ""We made two things very clear to USCCA," Kreidler said. "Insurers must be authorized to sell in our state, and policies can't cover illegal activity. These law violations are fixable, if the company wishes to do business in Washington state."

Fixable meaning they only pay if you win. What about appeals? Once you are charged does the policy go away? (Anti 2A bureaucrats will say yes no doubt.) Respectfully, we all what these companies to succeed. But it will never happen with some people running the show.
 
The issue isnt that they are selling insurance without proper licensing, etc.

Its that they are offering to cover expenses for those involved in a self defense shooting. THAT is what the state has issue with.


At least that is how I read it back when WA threw out USCCA and the NRA programs. They were covering criminal activity... even though they stated that if you are found guilty, etc they would not cover you. So in no way is illegal activity covered.

At no time did the state say they these companies were skirting the rules & regs of the insurance industry, therefore were banned.
 
Anyone have a copy of the actual letter from the state?

And yes, there have been Washington appellate decisions where the court of appeals has ruled against insurance companies that refused to defend insureds against alleged criminal use of firearms. See Webb v. United Services Automobile Association.
I'd like to review the actual letter first hand, but it didn't come up in my Google search.
 
Because turd Ferguson himself labeled it "murder insurance" and has stated other disparaging things about it.

Frankly it would be their worst nightmare for the defendant to have adequate legal counsel....after all it makes it pretty hard to villainize you for defending yourself
Spot on here.^^^
However...
I am wondering what the difference is between this "insurance and having a lawyer on retainer?
 
Your lawyer doesn't pay the judgment if you lose the lawsuit. In most types of insurance the insurer does, up to policy limits.

The most common type of retainer is a deposit made to keep the lawyer available to perform services for the client, and the lawyer bills against the deposit. When the lawyer earns the entire deposit and keeps working, the client gets additional bills.

But the retainer payment (deposit) is not an insurance premium because the lawyer is charging by the hour to perform the work you need, not charging in return for taking a risk off of your shoulders.

Typical insurance policies only require the insured to pay the premium and if a defense is necessary, the insured does not pay anything toward the defense fees (other than the self-insured retention or deductible).
 
Anyone have a copy of the actual letter from the state?
Cease and desist: https://fortress.wa.gov/oic/consumertoolkit/Orders/OrderProfile.aspx?OrderNumber=LUQeSXZmyPbzbYLxpepWZg%3D%3D&fbclid=IwAR0_VMOnQJZoEpuM2DihMEcsllht0e5AV_PO-Cw_L8fSzr1FkH51zjkPhwg

Summary of why ACLDN didn't want to be "insurance:" President's Message

Also, from Facebook:
Screen Shot 2020-03-28 at 11.44.41 PM.png
 
As I expected, the only basis for that cease and desist letter is the fact that ACLDN does not have an insurance license. None of the anti-2A political statements in the news are contained in that cease and desist letter.

Yes, we all know that this is a politically-driven hit job to try and make it as hard as possible to be a gun owner and exercise our constitutional rights. But the state went after the easy target using the generic insurance license requirement that every insurer must comply with.

The ACLDN's position that self-defense is not a contingency is unfortunately unlikely to succeed in court. The contingency which triggers payment of defense and indemnity is whatever the policy defines the contingency to be, self defense, water leak, auto accident.

True, if someone is found guilty of illegally shooting someone the insurer is not on the hook to pay for those damages. But the insurer is on the hook to defend against the alleged unlawful shooting depending on the terms of the policy and the alleged acts. The insured's right to a defense is analyzed differently than the insured's right to indemnity.
This is why you sometimes see cases where a plaintiff's lawyer sues a homeowner and alleges not that the homeowner did something intentionally wrong to hurt the plaintiff, but instead alleges that it must have been an accident that injured the plaintiff. The plaintiff wants a solvent insurer on the hook instead of a broke homeowner whose insurer will not pay for intentional tort damages.
 
Your lawyer doesn't pay the judgment if you lose the lawsuit. In most types of insurance the insurer does, up to policy limits.

The most common type of retainer is a deposit made to keep the lawyer available to perform services for the client, and the lawyer bills against the deposit. When the lawyer earns the entire deposit and keeps working, the client gets additional bills.

But the retainer payment (deposit) is not an insurance premium because the lawyer is charging by the hour to perform the work you need, not charging in return for taking a risk off of your shoulders.

Typical insurance policies only require the insured to pay the premium and if a defense is necessary, the insured does not pay anything toward the defense fees (other than the self-insured retention or deductible).
Makes sense
Thanks for your excellent explanation.:s0155:
 
And I should add that although my opinions in this thread sound gloomy, that's because my honest opinion is that these companies need a license. They charge a price (which they don't call a premium) and when a specified situation happens (you get arrested or charged for a self defense act, or however the documents define it) they provide financial funding for your defense. I applaud these companies that are trying to provide a valuable service to the lawful citizens who carry to protect themselves from crime, they are promoting a patriotic business for the benefit of the average gun owner. But I think they should reevaluate their compliance framework, and come back stronger in a more defensible position. I hope they don't give up.
 
Anti private gun-ownership advocates do, indeed, mischaracterize this type of insurance as "murder insurance".

They also squawk incessantly about the need for a federal law requiring insurance for all gun owners.

They laud our "highly trained" professional LEOs as the only people qualified to carry firearms and call simple range trips "murder practice"... especially when you take a youngster.

There is little-to-no point in arguing with them... they are too GD stupid to see their own inconsistency and laughable nature of their ideology. They speak from a place of hate and intolerance with no break or quarter given to irony or logic.

We fight them at every turn with 0 compromised. Assault and carry through, pursue and exploit the enemy til the end of hostilities.

The above is the tack I've taken, usually after toying with an anti for a bit... cat with a mouse. Easily ended, but let's have some fun (for educational purposes) first. Show them how wrong and hypocritical their positions are and, just when they're about to tap-out due to informational fatigue, let em know that they are in for a fight no matter what their opinion is.

THIS!!!
 
First 1234, thank you for your respected opinion. This is a good discussion and exchange of ideas...how we learn.

I agree about the content of the letter but from what I understand, none of the insurance companies try to obtain licensing because of step two in his / their agenda, see quote I posted above now below:

""We made two things very clear to USCCA," Kreidler said. "Insurers must be authorized to sell in our state, and policies can't cover illegal activity. These law violations are fixable, if the company wishes to do business in Washington state."

The lie is they are never "fixable" in their mind. As I pointed out before, sexual misconduct insurance for school distract still pays even if there is a crime. Yet this is legal but they will not rule SD insurance is as well.

I think all 37 posts agree on how it should work

Respectfully,
 
I lost my "Insurance" from the USCCA because of this but I did find that "U.S. Law Shield" is still legal here. (so far). I believe it is because it is structured differently in that you are not paying for insurance but a contract for legal assistance in the event of having to protect yourself with a firearm. It is worth looking into.
 
I lost my "Insurance" from the USCCA because of this but I did find that "U.S. Law Shield" is still legal here. (so far). I believe it is because it is structured differently in that you are not paying for insurance but a contract for legal assistance in the event of having to protect yourself with a firearm. It is worth looking into.

That's basically how they all work. So far I've been with USCCA and then ACLDN and so I may as well try USLS but I expect that they too will be out of the game soon enough.
 
I lost my "Insurance" from the USCCA because of this but I did find that "U.S. Law Shield" is still legal here. (so far). I believe it is because it is structured differently in that you are not paying for insurance but a contract for legal assistance in the event of having to protect yourself with a firearm. It is worth looking into.

This is what ACLDN is as well so expect USLS to be gone next. They work in the same manner essentially.
 
Has anyone tried suing the state over this instead of just rolling over and surrendering? I figure it is because of the fact that like most insurance providers they don't want to spend the money instead of actually taking a stand. They are not activists even if they try to make themselves appear that way.
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top