CCW CCW insurance/attorney

[H. Bowman]

Interesting points. Definitely something work looking into more. I'll do some more research, maybe I should change my plan.

 

[governmentsucks1776]

FLP

 

[Toshiro Mifune]

I recall discussions on this 2 years ago and wonder if anything has changed. Is there a more recent side by side comparison from a reputable source that isn’t directly sponsored by one of the companies?

 

[alexs]

I have Right to Bear, and it seems pretty solid for what it is. I got it for free thanks to my range membership though, otherwise I would have chosen AOR as most of you have.

 

[H. Bowman]

I recall discussions on this 2 years ago and wonder if anything has changed. Is there a more recent side by side comparison from a reputable source that isn’t directly sponsored by one of the companies?

I tend to believe raeliic, the member here. He's an attorney and a shooter and likely knows more than most of us about the ins and outs of that particular legal field.

 

[raellic]

The problem with most of these plans is that there are a lot of exclusions. None of these are true "legal insurance" under the law. I really should do a side-by-side comparison with a chart, since I have read all of the plans-- thanks for the suggestion @Toshiro Mifune. I think Attorneys On Retainer is the best fit for actual legal defense, however, keep in mind that their lead attorneys are in Arizona and will have to be admitted "pro hac vice" in any case outside Arizona and sponsored by a local attorney. That can't happen more than once or twice before they have to take the bar exam in whatever state they have a case in. It's creative and entrepreneurial, but not (strictly speaking) fully compliant with the law and rules in California, and probably other states. They are capitalizing on the rarity of cases and basically have a firehose of money from their members, which is why I'm jealous and wanted to do my own plan. But it's still the best option because you're signing up with a law firm that is agreeing to handle your case and pay for it-- worth a lot considering that defending a civil or criminal case in a use of force incident is going to cost at least $100,000 or more. Civil cases can drag on for years and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in a major case. The $20,000 mentioned above on here is a typical retainer, which just starts the case. The thing I like most about AOR is that their legal services agreement is right on their website and it clearly spells out what they are agreeing to, and what you are agreeing to. This is a real law firm and not a membership program like the other offerings out there-- the membership programs like CCW Safe just go and hire a lawyer, anyway, so you might as well skip a step and be efficient, in my view.

 

[raellic]

P.S. If you are doing really well financially and have a lot to lose, you might not want to go with any of these plans. You may be better off getting a referral in your community to an expert civil or criminal trial attorney and simply getting their business card to keep in your wallet. Total cost: $0 until you actually need the services, in which case you can start a case for $15,000 to $20,000. In SoCal, obviously there's C.D. Michel. In NorCal, I would go with someone like Don Kilmer for a criminal case since he is a shooter and does criminal defense. For civil, there is no shortage of civil trial attorneys in the Bay Area, not as many who also shoot, though. Of course there is yours truly, and since I'm a vendor on here I can promote my services, but also consider someone like Hussein Saffouri. He went to Yale and is a generalist civil litigator-- I should note that I've never been so politely destroyed in court before, or since. All that matters is that your civil attorney has extensive experience and extensive trial experience-- they don't have to be a 2A enthusiast, although it can help since they understand the issues. It can also hurt, because your typical jury doesn't want to think the attorney is promoting the 2A cause (or any other cause) when the only actual issue for them to decide is the negligence of the defendant. So the primary qualifier for a use of force civil case is being an expert in civil trial advocacy and being able to assemble a case, including a use of force expert. Experts like that are in criminal defense attorneys' rolodexes, which a civil attorney can easily access with a phone call. Your civil lawyer ideally is connected in the area and knows people so that the best resources can be applied to your case. That is where something like Attorneys On Retainer will fall down-- they are nationwide, but they can't be everywhere, so like CCW Safe they are also just going to call the local 2A attorney or their panel counsel for connections in the community where the incident occurred. Another reason to have a local attorney's card in your wallet-- you go directly to someone who can help instead of someone in the next state who is not familiar with your community.</soapbox>

 

[cobian1984]

P.S. If you are doing really well financially and have a lot to lose, you might not want to go with any of these plans. You may be better off getting a referral in your community to an expert civil or criminal trial attorney and simply getting their business card to keep in your wallet. Total cost: $0 until you actually need the services, in which case you can start a case for $15,000 to $20,000. In SoCal, obviously there's C.D. Michel. In NorCal, I would go with someone like Don Kilmer for a criminal case since he is a shooter and does criminal defense. For civil, there is no shortage of civil trial attorneys in the Bay Area, not as many who also shoot, though. Of course there is yours truly, and since I'm a vendor on here I can promote my services, but also consider someone like Hussein Saffouri. He went to Yale and is a generalist civil litigator-- I should note that I've never been so politely destroyed in court before, or since. All that matters is that your civil attorney has extensive experience and extensive trial experience-- they don't have to be a 2A enthusiast, although it can help since they understand the issues. It can also hurt, because your typical jury doesn't want to think the attorney is promoting the 2A cause (or any other cause) when the only actual issue for them to decide is the negligence of the defendant. So the primary qualifier for a use of force civil case is being an expert in civil trial advocacy and being able to assemble a case, including a use of force expert. Experts like that are in criminal defense attorneys' rolodexes, which a civil attorney can easily access with a phone call. Your civil lawyer ideally is connected in the area and knows people so that the best resources can be applied to your case. That is where something like Attorneys On Retainer will fall down-- they are nationwide, but they can't be everywhere, so like CCW Safe they are also just going to call the local 2A attorney or their panel counsel for connections in the community where the incident occurred. Another reason to have a local attorney's card in your wallet-- you go directly to someone who can help instead of someone in the next state who is not familiar with your community.</soapbox>

Have you given any thought to trying to set up your own AOR-style plan again? Or is the value proposition just not there?

 

[raellic]

> Have you given any thought to trying to set up your own AOR-style plan again? Or is the value proposition just not there?

If there's enough demand, I will-- but I had my plan online for a year starting in Fall 2024, and there were simply no signups. It was a slick website, too.

I am a specialist in civil trials and litigation with 20 years in practice and 40+ trials, and my own small law firm. There are plenty of criminal defense lawyers in my network. I can handle cases all across California. If folks are willing to spend essentially the same as AOR and get an even better plan, I will offer it again.

Edit: here is a freebie that I did just for the hell of it. Solid gold, I have been told.

 

[raellic]

P.S. I ran the numbers and I would need at least 20 committed signups at $50/mo. ($600/yr.) before I could re-launch this. AOR is $520 for one year ($100 signup plus $35/mo.) and I offer a lot more for California residents, so I think it's a wash financially. If there are 20 folks on here who are ready to sign a plan agreement, I'll do it.

 

[Toshiro Mifune]

Thank you for breaking that down.

Nobody wants to use "insurance" but it is good peace of mind. I do have assets to protect but already paying a hefty amount already between multiple homes, vehicles etc. makes one more thing feel overwhelming.

I think what gave me the most pause was previous discussions about exclusions and recoup clauses. I have been leaning towards AOR but never pulled the trigger...

 

[Chewy19]

Here are a couple of things to look at on the question of intentional act coverage for self-defense incidents. I am not about to opine on the existence of coverage.

This article regarding Florida law is arguably a bit long in the tooth, which doesn't mean it isn't good law in Florida or that its thinking is not applicable in California. https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/the-intentional-acts-exclusion/

Especially see State Farm v Marshall where as "the Marshall court did note that the public policy concerns which usually preclude liability coverage for intentional acts are not implicated in self-defense cases. Thus, the court indicated that it would not invalidate a policy provision specifically granting coverage for intentional acts of the insured in self-defense.22

If you would peruse some more timely California law, this is hot off the press. https://frostbrowntodd.com/californ...uct-exclusion-in-insurance-policy-litigation/ Here the Fourth District decision turned on tha subject policy's definition of an "occurrence". We do not know how the Fourth would have held regarding Insurance Code section 533 since it expressly found no need to consider the section, due to the fact that coverage before it was limited by its policy's definition of an occurrence. This is not terribly helpful in forecasting how Califonria would rule on a policy, such as the one covering the USCAA. That policy expressly includes acts of self-defense in the definition of an occurrence.

It might be helpful to look into the appellate briefs argued in State Farm Fire and Casualty Company v. Diblin, 114 Cal.App.4th 1245; 337 Cal.Rptr.3d 688 (2025). Where did I put the link to Court Listener?

 

[H. Bowman]

P.S. I ran the numbers and I would need at least 20 committed signups at $50/mo. ($600/yr.) before I could re-launch this. AOR is $520 for one year ($100 signup plus $35/mo.) and I offer a lot more for California residents, so I think it's a wash financially. If there are 20 folks on here who are ready to sign a plan agreement, I'll do it.

I'm surprised there aren't enough folks interested, especially considering the numbers of people who have been able to be issued CCW's in California over the last several years. I hope enough commitments come to you that you start it back up again, and that it takes off with way more than 20 signing up. You can make money and law abiding citizens can be better protected from malicious prosecution.

 

[cobian1984]

P.S. I ran the numbers and I would need at least 20 committed signups at $50/mo. ($600/yr.) before I could re-launch this. AOR is $520 for one year ($100 signup plus $35/mo.) and I offer a lot more for California residents, so I think it's a wash financially. If there are 20 folks on here who are ready to sign a plan agreement, I'll do it.

I would certainly take you up on that offer if you’re able to garner enough commitments to relaunch the plan. Currently with AOR, but would feel much better aligning with a firm domiciled within the state for all the reasons you’ve stated.

 

[raellic]

So far I have two potential signups (one private message and one post in this thread). I need 18 more. Otherwise, it's simply too much risk for my law firm to take on due to the high cost of civil litigation. If you're interested, either post in this thread, email me at andrew@watters.law, or DM me on here. Once I have the 20 signups pledged, I can actually do it. If it's less than 20, I will need to charge everyone more than I indicated in order to make it economical. How about an early adopter Platinum Tier that includes additional services as a promo/incentive?

I think I'm going to call it Carry California (CarryCA.com was available). Here is the draft website on my law firm page for now: https://www.watters.law/CarryCA/

We like?

 

[H. Bowman]

I would advertise far and wide. I can't imagine it would be hard to get 20 people but I doubt you'll get twenty from this thread.

 

[H. Bowman]

Draft website looks good so far.

 

[Chewy19]

California Insurance Code section 533 provides that “An insurer is not liable for a loss caused by the willful act of the insured; but he is not exonerated by the negligence of the insured, or of the insured’s agents or others.” “Section 533 is an “implied exclusionary clause which by statute is to be read into all insurance policies.” United Talent Agency, LLC v. Markel American Ins. Co. “(D)iscerning whether an allegedly wrongful act is “willful” under the statute can be challenging at times. But, as a recent case illustrates, the standard generally continues to require both an intent to perform the liability-producing act and an intent to cause, or an expectation of causing, harm.” See this. Lastly, Markel tells us that where a policy provides for recoupment, an insured has no claim for breach of the duty to defend conduct for which indemnification is barred by section 533.

The elephant in the room is whether the public policy for denying indemnification of wilfull acts demands that acts of self-defense of oneself or others be held to be uninsureable. I think not, but the outcome of any situation would be very fact specific.

 

[ikeo1]

Please get your 728x90 banner up and a solid landing page. It comes with your vendor account here at no additional cost. This is more of how you market this.

 

[NorCalBusa]

California Insurance Code section 533 provides that “An insurer is not liable for a loss caused by the willful act of the insured; but he is not exonerated by the negligence of the insured, or of the insured’s agents or others.” “Section 533 is an “implied exclusionary clause which by statute is to be read into all insurance policies.” United Talent Agency, LLC v. Markel American Ins. Co. “(D)iscerning whether an allegedly wrongful act is “willful” under the statute can be challenging at times. But, as a recent case illustrates, the standard generally continues to require both an intent to perform the liability-producing act and an intent to cause, or an expectation of causing, harm.” See this. Lastly, Markel tells us that where a policy provides for recoupment, an insured has no claim for breach of the duty to defend conduct for which indemnification is barred by section 533.

The elephant in the room is whether the public policy for denying indemnification of wilfull acts demands that acts of self-defense of oneself or others be held to be uninsureable. I think not, but the outcome of any situation would be very fact specific.

As I've said many times, "CCW Insurance" is NOT insurance- not at all. It is Prepaid Legal Expense and not under the purview of various regulatory codes, guidelines or supervision.

The thread title on here should be corrected, it perpetuates the myth.