Thread: Homeowners Liability Insurance won't cover self defense??

Originally Posted by ChrisL

The other thing, Bob. I'm no legal expert by any stretch, but I would bet that unless the District Attorney, based on the particulars of the case (e.g. intruder breaks into your home and kills one of your family and you in turn kill the intruder as he's coming after you) said outright he/she would not press charges, in any other case, the homeowner would be going to trial and also would have been arrested. That's just a guess on my part.

ChrisL

Yea, no legal beagle here either just a healthy mistrust of insurance companies and our legal system up here to provide "justice". I could also depend on what State/Province/legal jurisdiction you are in at the time.

Bob

Is that exclusion language the entire cite? If it is that's legal gobbledygook which they can use for anything.

The issue is how is that exclusion interpreted. You need the company's official opinion in plain language. You can't assume anything.

Besides it's all elementary anyway. If someone breaks in and you have a weapon you won't be thinking of being sued or prosecuted.

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

Is that exclusion language the entire cite? If it is that's legal gobbledygook which they can use for anything.

The issue is how is that exclusion interpreted. You need the company's official opinion in plain language. You can't assume anything.

Besides it's all elementary anyway. If someone breaks in and you have a weapon you won't be thinking of being sued or prosecuted.

Yes, that's the entire exclusion language for that category. My experience would be that you would not be successful preemptively asking the insurance carrier for their "opinion" on their interpretation of that exclusion. They'd wait until such a claim was initiated to decide who they would want to argue its interpretation. A verbal opinion, which is what you can get sometimes from a claim rep, claims dept manager, etc asking for theoretical interpretation of policy language means nothing unfortunately.

Can an insurance carrier choose to pay a claim that they could most likely argue, based on policy language, that the claim should be denied? Certainly. It's their money. That's not a concern of mine.

ChrisL

I can tell you one thing for sure !! they are tricky !!
my parents found out a few years ago when drain tile froze up and we had a major thaw in the winter ... a 20x18 room and 2 bedrooms flooded, ended up with about 2" of water in them , the insurance company said since the water came in from the foundation and not the roof or wall that nothing was covered as a foundation level flood was a diff policy ..lol
so I imagine there are tons of things that we may think we have in our policy that we really dont

Originally Posted by gooser

I can tell you one thing for sure !! they are tricky !!
my parents found out a few years ago when drain tile froze up and we had a major thaw in the winter ... a 20x18 room and 2 bedrooms flooded, ended up with about 2" of water in them , the insurance company said since the water came in from the foundation and not the roof or wall that nothing was covered as a foundation level flood was a diff policy ..lol
so I imagine there are tons of things that we may think we have in our policy that we really dont

You're correct. If water comes in from the outside (e.g. basement windows, seepage from foundation, etc.) it's considered flood with any insurance company. If, however, water were to come up from a floor drain, toilet, etc.; that is, coming up from the inside, SOME policies will pay if the policy includes "water/sewer backup or if the insured pays extra for water/sewer backup coverage. Flood coverage requires purchase of a separate flood policy which is backed by FEMA. Flood coverage is a governmental program. Every policy of every kind in the world has conditions, limitations and exclusions including a flood policy. Read your policies! They're an education unto themselves.

ChrisL

Not unusual. Not all that many years ago, a fair number of business insurance policies did not cover things like sexual harassment lawsuits because they were deemed to be "intentional acts" even if committed by employees or those who could be deemed as in a "constructive employee" or other such nonsense. The good news is that the insurer's obligation to defend you in a lawsuit is MUCH higher than its duty to pay damages. If it fails to defend, it could, in theory, be on the hook for legal fees AND the damages that it would not have otherwise been obligated to pay under some kind of "bad faith" theory.
As for self defense, the trick is to move to a state with an absolute "castle doctrine" law on the books. In those states. if you are cleared in the criminal case, the "victim" or his heirs and assigns are barred as a matter of law from suing you for wrongful death or injury even though the normal standard/burden of proof for such a civil action is MUCH lower than for a criminal matter.

well I will just quote someone else, better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6, yes every state is different as are insurance policies ,, so read your policy and ask questions , or change policies. But I,m not going to worry about litigation when threatened. Great thread. Thanks Chrisl. Tc

It's good to know your insurance policy that's for sure. It's better to know your local sheriff in this case. A phone call won't do, you need to ask this type of question face to face. If you know where the line is and don't cross it, you won't need insurance. It is also advised to keep your mouth shut after stating " I felt my life was in danger ". Anything more can and will be used against you.

As a side note. My insurance guy told me that a wounded person is a real pain to defend yourself against in court. A dead guy can not be crossed examined.

yes ,, if your the only one alive , there is only one story to tell,, and besides If you pull you don't do it for wounding purposes tc

A dead man tells no tale....... I think in most states..... Well in South Carolina I was told if you feared for your life, you have a right to defend yourself and household by whatever means necessary. I think you will be charged with murder anyways, BUT a jury of your peers will not convict you (most would do the same thing....BANG!). And that also clears you of any wrongful death civil suites later down the road. Unless that has changed. I know here in Canada, we are not supposed to defend ourselves. Let the intruder take what they want and so forth...... The RCMP do not want Canadians to own firearms period...... The intruder can not help the way "it" is and is just being a rotten apple doing what "it" knows. I shake my head at this logic....... Someone breaks in..... I hate it for em.