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

I live in Minnesota. To preface, I'm an insurance agent dealing almost exclusively with commercial insurance and I've had my own personal insurance including homeowners insurance with the same insurance company for 10+ years.

I read an article this weekend that prompted me to review the liability section of my own homeowners policy to see if my insurance company would exclude liability coverage in the event I, the insured, would cause bodily injury to an aggressor in defense of my life or the life of someone else. It turns out.......my insurance company appears to exclude liability coverage for such a scenario!! Liability exclusion in the policy reads:

Exclusion (12) "to bodily injury or property damage reasonably expected or intended by the insured. This exclusion applies even if thebodily injury or property damage is of a different kind or degree, or is sustained by a different person or property, than that reasonably expected or intended."

Not cool.

I did check the policies of three other personal lines insurance companies we represent and those three others have a nearly identical exclusion but add the following wording: "However, this exclusion does not apply to “bodily injury” or “property damage” that arises out of the use of reasonable force by an “insured” to protect people or property."

It looks like I'll be moving my insurance to one of our other companies.

Three companies that added back the coverage for instances of self defense were:

Travelers
Selective
North Star Mutual

The company that excludes self defense is:

Auto Owners Insurance


Why is this relevant?

Bottom line: An aggressor breaks into your home and you inflict harm or death to the aggressor as a result of believing your life is in peril and are then sued by the aggressor or his survivors; if your homeowners company excludes coverage, you're on your own to pay for defense costs (hiring an attorney). One could reasonably assume in the above scenario that the lawsuit would hopefully be thrown out of court or a jury would side with the homeowner. However, paying for legal defense out of your own pocket rather than your insurance company picking up the tab would easily be in the tens of thousands.

I recommend that everyone check their policies! Simply asking your agent may not be sufficient since they may assume you'd have coverage in such a common sense scenario. Confirming this you'd have to view the page under Liability Exclusions that speaks specifically to "Intentional Acts" or similar wording.

I would be curious to find out if others find out their homeowners company does or does not provide the coverage. I have a friend that has his insurance with State Farm and will be checking on that with his agent.

ChrisL

Thanks Chris.. Will be looking at mine

Glen:

Let me know the name of your company either here or PM whether they give or exclude coverage for self defense. I want to know if it seems to be more common to give or exclude that coverage among insurance companies. I know there are separate "self defense" liability policies that a person can purchase in the U.S. that gives such coverage, but from what I've seen those policies give pretty low limits (e.g. $100,000 or $300,000) whereas a homeowners policy liability limit can commonly be $500,000 or $1,000,000.

I've also read, depending on where a person lives (jurisdictional norms, etc) that it can a normal course of action for the homeowner to be arrested if they killed someone in self defense on their own property to hopefully be exonerated at a later date!! I assume this varies based on state law "Castle Doctrine", etc.

ChrisL

Originally Posted by ChrisL

I did check the policies of three other personal lines insurance companies we represent and those three others have a nearly identical exclusion but add the following wording: "[FONT=arial]However, this exclusion does not apply to “bodily injury” or “property damage” that arises out of the use of reasonable force by an “insured” to protect people or property."ChrisL

Call me a pessimist but they may have plenty of wiggle room to get out from under it with the inclusion of the words "use of reasonable force". It depends on what they deem to be "reasonable force" and whether they deem that you have used "reasonable force"

Bob.

Originally Posted by BobH

Call me a pessimist but they may have plenty of wiggle room to get out from under it with the inclusion of the words "use of reasonable force". It depends on what they deem to be "reasonable force" and whether they deem that you have used "reasonable force"

Bob.

True. I would assume, however, if legally, the insured's use of force in the circumstance was found to be reasonable, then the insurance company would I would think have a hard time raising an argument that the use of force was not reasonable to the insurance company if that same use of force was reasonable to the state.

ChrisL

Originally Posted by ChrisL

True. I would assume, however, if legally, the insured's use of force in the circumstance was found to be reasonable, then the insurance company would I would think have a hard time raising an argument that the use of force was not reasonable to the insurance company if that same use of force was reasonable to the state.

ChrisL

Yes, you would hope so but you'd have to go to trial to find out if a judge or jury thought you'd used reasonable force. My definition of reasonable force may be different from yours and the legal systems definition different yet again. Still better than nothing though.

Bob

hhhmmmm... so what your saying is just keep a pre-dug hole , a few bags of lime and save yourself a headache ???


this thread is probably something not many has ever thought about !! for sure something to look into !!

Originally Posted by BobH

Yes, you would hope so but you'd have to go to trial to find out if a judge or jury thought you'd used reasonable force. My definition of reasonable force may be different from yours and the legal systems definition different yet again. Still better than nothing though.

Bob

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

Well, I'm not an attorney, and even if I were you know the value of FREE advice, but here goes, keeping in mind that I live in North Carolina, which is a fairly gun friendly state: If someone breaks into my house, and I am in fear for my life or serious bodily injury, or for a threat o the life or serious bodily injury of a family member and I use Force, even deadly force, my understanding of the law here is that I am well within the my rights under the law. There is no requirement to "retreat" in NC, which here is in some states. That being the case, it would be hard for the family (or probably) survivors of the perpetrator to prevail in a civil law suit. True, it would cost me for a lawyer, but that is why I have separate insurance through another carrier for use of a legally owned firearm.

Accident on a range, I'd expect to have my tail sued off. Defending my home and family, not so much.

still thinking about this .. i know here in OH i know they passed the "Castle Doctrine Law" a few years ago that i assumed protected he/she from liability and lawsuits in such instances , therefore not leading to charges also !! but i think if you are charged then there is gonna be a pretty good reason and your gonna have to lawyer up anyway and better transfer anything in your name to someone else and file bankruptcy cause a civil suit is sure to follow , but again if your not charged i believe this doctrine protects from lawsuit and i also think CCW holders are also now protected as long as you don't hit a innocent (but don't hold me to that )


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine