Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Firearms Forum' started by KathySue, Oct 21, 2020.
anyone have experience with US LawShield?
^I’m a member but so far my experience has been limited to paying and webinars
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Like I said, other people live in different situations and might need it. One of the people here said he was quoted $400 a year for a family plan. But even $192 a year would be a waste for me, and a waste for a lot of people. If it wasn't these companies would be out of business.
Do you feel the same about other insurance?
Actually, the odds of me needing a doctor, my house burning down, my dog biting someone, or a motorcycle/car accident are a LOT higher than me wrongfully shooting someone. I actually use my other insurance.
One thing to remember is that you can be 100% in the right and justified. These insurance companies also protect against civil claims. Any distant family member of the criminal can go find an ambulance chaser to sue the good guy and the family member pays nothing out of pocket. That to me is far more important that the criminal aspect of a self defense shooting.
You can be in the right and be prosecuted. We are witnessing that with the people who defended their home during the riots.
I am not saying nobody needs CCW insurance. I'm saying I don't feel the need.
Interesting post. Either the instructor was misinformed, or USCCA has done a 180-degree about-face since I joined. I don't know which at the moment.
Before I went with them, I phoned them and asked some questions, and I read their fine print along with the fine print of several other providers. AFAIK, USCCA does pay up front and you don't have to repay anything they already paid even if you lose; a person answers their hotline 24/7; you don't have to wait until charges are filed (one of their selling points at the time and made clear in their member testimonial ads at the time), etc., etc. Had it been the opposite, I would not have chosen them. I didn't like any of the others I considered, so I probably would not have chosen any of them.
This was a couple of years ago, so I don't know whether it's changed, but it will be interesting to find out when I have the time and inclination. If all that is true, they may be losing a member, but not on just an instructor's word as he might be genuinely misinformed.
Again as I said in my earlier post, I would encourage anyone considering this kind of coverage to read the fine print before making a decision. Make phone calls if things aren't clear. There are (or were when I was researching them) significant differences between providers.
As for lawsuits against USCCA, I've read about only one, and in that one the member was saying USCCA did not pay the full limit of benefits, and USCCA was saying they had already paid the policy limits and did not owe any additional expenses above that. It wasn't about refusing to pay anything at all. I don't know how the suit turned out or if it's been settled yet, or if there are any others or not.
On another note, I know my chances of ever needing this type of coverage are (thankfully) very, very small, probably even smaller than most of yours, but I'm willing to pay the small fee to have the basic coverage and resources, especially having a phone number to call as the first step if I were ever taken into custody (something I can hardly even imagine happening. What, little old lady, ME??). I enjoy some of the magazine articles and online materials. Additionally, and call me crazy if you want, I like supporting the organization in today's political climate. They promote gun ownership, concealed carry, and training. I just don't mind sending them my $13 right now, and I can stop anytime I want. It was a personal decision.
Google USCCA and Washington State. Things have changed. They aren't the premier service anymore.
Thanks. I just did a quick search and found this:
Actually, from that article it appears that Washington sued USCCA because it said they were illegally insuring members for committing criminal acts. (Guess Washington state thinks self-defense is a criminal act??) If that's true, in no way does that imply that USCCA wouldn't pay up, actually the opposite. From that article it appears that Washington just doesn't like self-defense insurance, the same problem the NRA coverage had in a few states.
It's my understanding USCCA's Delta Defense coverage is headquartered in South Carolina and is governed by their laws, but don't hold me to that. In any case, I live in Georgia so not being able to sell in Washington state doesn't directly affect me, and Washington's reason for kicking them out doesn't put USCCA in a bad light imo, if the article is correct.
If you keep digging you will see that USCCA didn't tell Washington State members about the fact that they no longer had coverage and continued to charge them and refused refunds when it came to light.
They've also been sued in federal court in LA if I recall.
Loop holes will prevent payouts. Read the fine print. I'm sure criminal charges factor into whether they pay out. The fact that there is minimal true experience with these policies is an indicator that few have had actual real experience-- ie no payouts.
My feeling about insurance is this: If you are high risk, they would not insure you for cheap. They only insure you if they can easily make money on the risk. If it is cheap, then your risk is low. If it is expensive, then your risk is balanced to the deductible. These companies are not going to lose on betting on you.
Owning a gun does not mean you can be stupid or emboldened by it.
It would be better to read the policies as opposed to guessing about them.