Carry Two Insurance Policies

[gmerkt]

There are a number of questions in my mind about this kind of insurance coverage.

1. There is a very low order of probability that it will ever be needed.

2. There are many circumstances involved in defensive shootings. Some of which may invoke exclusionary clauses in the insurance policy. Always read the fine print in the policy before signing.

3. You are buying legal representation with these policies. You are buying it in advance on an insurance basis, not on an as-needed retainer basis from an attorney. Insurance companies are known to cut corners and sleaze out when it comes to paying out on a policy. Which causes me to wonder what level of representational competence the insurance company is going to provide and at what depth?

The entire basis for this thread was a perceived need for two policies for such coverage based on questionable performance of the insurer. Which tells me the element of doubt in the value of the coverage is profound.

The following is only my opinion. People of substance fear lawsuit. Some fear it overly. I don't think it should be a ruling factor in how you live your life. Yes, there is real danger from threats to your substance. You need to assess how likely these threats are. I think car insurance is way, way, way more important than firearm carry insurance, for example. Considering the low order of need for carry insurance, I'd think that you are better advised to skip it. Then in the unlikely event that the situation arises, use some of your substance to hire legal counsel on an as-needed basis. Final thought, it's only my opinion, but I think there is a bit of fear mongering involved in marketing firearm carry insurance.

 

[Nosferatu]

From what I've seen, USCCA and similar 'CCW insurance' companies are mostly a scam.

You'd be better off having a single generic umbrella policy that covers legal defense through a reputable insurance company.

 

[dangerranger60]

The question to ask,[ and I am not qualified to answer it] is can you pile on coverage? you will need a lawyer to answer that question. In CA, If I tried to bill two insurance companies for the same claim I would be committing a crime. however, other states have other laws.
There are a few types of SD insurance the standard is a plan that covers costs involved in defending someone who is involved in a shooting. the hitch is these types on coverage require that if you are convicted they can require you to pay them back. The reason for this is most states have laws against having insurance that pays for a crime. some states consider this Murder insurance. so these plans all have some kind of exclusion to tap dance around this.
The newest kind of CCW coverage is Attorneys on Retainer. they get around the Murder insurance by only providing an attorney just as if you had retained their services. But up until very recently this was called Pre Paid Legal Services and was only legal in two states. They are currently selling this in all 50 states. and have seemed to find a way to make this work. The only hitch is its so new that its untested in all the states. I want to see them handle a few cases before I can be sure. I would like to see them defend a couple in CA, NY, NJ, Il, etc...
Good Luck with this. DR

 

[gmerkt]

can you pile on coverage?

I don't know how it would work with this kind of insurance, considering the loss is not material. Normally, loss is only covered to the extent of its value. Meaning, if two companies have provided coverage for the same loss, you can't take a full payout from each one. They will split the loss only to the extent of its totality. This is an insurance company thing, it will be in the fine print.

But as to doubling up on insurance that provides representation, I don't know how two insurers would share that coverage. I suppose they could split the legal fees? Or maybe their fine print prevents dual policies.

Car insurance can get weird in this way. I once had three cars insured with one firm, another insured by a different one. For one reason or another, firm no. 1 found out about it, they were unhappy. They said they had a policy of requiring their insureds to have all their business under one roof. They threatened to end the several discounts that I was supposedly getting. For a different reason, I left firm no. 1. But lesson learned, never disclose your insurance business to another company. It's bad enough that they have computers that link all kinds of data together to learn about your situation and your past.

 

[NOC]

There's another issue I've never seen addressed, I've been dealing with insurers for over 40 years in the context of defending tort defendant's (not criminal defense, technically it's illegal to insure against criminal acts). When there's overlapping or duplicative coverage insurers will fight over which policy is primary ( hint: neither side wants to be primary!)

You might want to consult with someone to determine how such policies would interact. I might want to investigate "excess" or umbrella coverage so you can pay for more and actually get more and avoid insurers fumbling to avoid the check...

 

[Nosferatu]

There's another issue I've never seen addressed, I've been dealing with insurers for over 40 years in the context of defending tort defendant's (not criminal defense, technically it's illegal to insure against criminal acts). When there's overlapping or duplicative coverage insurers will fight over which policy is primary ( hint: neither side wants to be primary!)

You might want to consult with someone to determine how such policies would interact. I might want to investigate "excess" or umbrella coverage so you can pay for more and actually get more and avoid insurers fumbling to avoid the check...

Sounds complicated.

I think I'll just stick with my excavator and remote property in the mountains policy.

 

[NOC]

Sounds complicated.

I think I'll just stick with my excavator and remote property in the mountains policy.

It is! Remote property and an excavator seems like a valid risk management strategy!

 

[Xmark1]

Seal yourself in a bomb shelter and never leave. Problem solved.

"Life" is a gamble.
The second you are born, someone or something is gonna try to eat you.
This is a universal law.

P.S. Have a nice day!

 

[coreymet]

I agree with monkeybutler. It is entirely possible that each company insist they are secondary. You could have a huge fight just to get one of them to step up first.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

I agree with monkeybutler.

Wow, someone doesn't have him on their ignore list?

 

[HamerMonaco05]

Hello,
Looking for thoughts or anyone who actually carries two polocies. I currently am a member of USCCA, and wondering if it is a good idea and or practice to carry two, such as adding on CCW. I just firgure we do dual coverage with our personal property, why not with a carry. I am not worried of the cost, just looking for the optimal coverage.

Thank you JR

I had USCCA for a long while. I recently cancelled it and replaced it with AOR (Attorneys on Retainer). The thing with USCCA is it's basically like an insurance policy with loop holes where they could drop your coverage. I'm much more comfortable with AOR; because it is a law firm.

 

[bradsteen]

Carrying two insurance policies?
Val Kilmer approves.

View: https://youtu.be/6HfATR3SNvY?si=9gOFVfivQ-Wast8v

 

[TTSX]

I suppose you could just make sure to kill two people so each murder insurance provider can tackle one apiece. Makes things uncomplicated real fast

 

[Nstocker]

My boss on the job this summer doing road work for gas lines, he always carried an ankle pistol as well as a springfield hellcat. He worked across the country in sometimes shady areas and would say "stay strapped or get clapped."