Tennessee Firearms Assoc. Inc.

I assume that if I am involved in a personal defense action, involving my firearm, that I may be liable to the person or the persons family in the event that they live or die. I believe that a Civil Suit could be filed and the chances of a verdict in favor of the plaintiff is better than 50/50.

Should a person with a HCP have Personal Liability Insurance? If so how much? Where can a person find insurance? How much should it cost?

I've recently read about situations involving a firearm for personal defense which resulted in a law suit, conviction, fine and jail time.

Castle Doctrine

"Today, Tuesday, May 22, Governor Phil Bredesen (D) signed House Bill 1907, the “Castle Doctrine” self-defense bill, into law.

HB 1907, sponsored by State Representative Randy Rinks (D-71), would allow an individual to use deadly force to protect him or herself wherever they have a legal right to be. The bill also provides civil immunity for those who defend themselves from criminal attack."

The 2007 castle doctrine has many traps in it. It was poorly written and should not have been adopted. Attempts to bring this to the attention of the legislature and get it changed have not been successful so far.

How did this happen? They adopted a pretty much "standard" bill from another state.

Thanks to both of your for your reply. I guess it's still not clear to me if I should pursue personal liability insurance or not. Now I always hate "what if" questions but I travel a lot, what if I were in a state that did not offer any protection?

I promise I won't ask any more "what if" questions. I'm just concerned about loosing everything I've worked for just because someone needs a fix a tries to get me to fund it.

I suggest that you speak with your insurance agent about an "umbrella policy".

If you have your homeowner's (or renter's) policy coupled with vehicle coverage from the same carrier you can usually get what is called an umbrella policy from that carrier as well that is a general "liability" policy...a one or two million dollar policy is generally quite inexpensive and much of the cost can be covered by "savings" received by lowering your "liability" coverage on your homeowner's and vehicle policies (because the umbrella policy fills that "gap:).

Now, I don't know for certain if such a policy will cover you in the event of a civil suit brought about because you used a firearm to protect yourself/someone else but it's certainly worth asking.

Hope that helps some.

Generally an umbrella policy only expands the coverage limits of the underlying primary policy.

Most primary policies will not cover incidents involving firearms because the discharge of a firearm is considered an "intentional act" and liability policies general do not provide coverage for "intentional acts"

If you seek out insurance, make sure that it specifically covers liability arising from the intentional and/or accidential discharge of a firearm. I think the NRA has such a policy available.

They are not terribly expensive but people generally do not take out this insurance.

One benefit to the insurance is that if you are involved in a shooting and sued in civil court, the insurance will ordinarily provide the coverage to hire an attorney.

I am not aware of any insurance that will defend you in the criminal court if you are charged in a case that might be self-defense. Last one of those that I handled cost the individual over $50,000 if I recall correctly and that was several years ago.

I guess it’s obvious that the best solution here is to change the law so that a person who is simply trying to protect life/property shouldn’t have to then lose his life/freedom/property because the criminal who invaded the person’s home (or some surviving family member) sues you or some overreaching district attorney is looking to make a name for him/her self.

I’m all for punishing those who would use their firearms inappropriately but that is where the punishment should end.

Robert,

We did pass a "good Samaritan" provision a few years ago that provides a defense if you justifiably use the weapon in self-defense vis-a-vis the aggressor. However, consider the following:

- the injured aggressor can still sue claiming "excessive force" just as in law enforcement cases. You may win with a statute such as you suggest, but you or an insurance company are going to have to pay the defense costs to find out.

- alternatively, consider a situation where you justifiably use self-defense but a bystander is injured by you or the original aggressor. The injured party claims you were reckless is using "that kind" of weapon, "that kind" of ammo, and/or for escalating the situation causing the aggressor to fire when he/she likely would not have done so otherwise. Once again, someone has to pay the defense costs.

As a litigator for 26 years, I can assure you almost any scenario you can develop and any statutory scheme that can be proposed can be circumvented one way or another.

Thanks everyone for your comments. I'll follow up with my insurance agent and the NRA. For now I believe I'll just take my chances, odds are I'll never need the insurance.