CCW CCW insurance/attorney

[Mustang14]

Wanting to see what people are buying. I hear USCCA is going downhill with all the alegations and im aiming for AOR instead

what are you guys running with

I’m on AOR

 

[brokehands]

ccw safe. defender plan + civil liability up to $1 million.

 

[Chewy19]

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.

Actually, I dn't believe any plans are insurance per se, but some plan members and those plans are covered by actual insurance.

 

[raellic]

None of these plans are insurance, as such. They are all membership plans involving legal defense of members, which is perfectly legal. One example of insurance is "Legal insurance" under the law (Insurance Code sec. 119.6), which is a promise to pay legal bills. Actual legal insurance requires the provider to register with the Insurance Commissioner, have liquidity requirements met, and various other requirements, none of which these plans meet. My own plan is exempt as a lawyer's retainer agreement to a group of similarly situated individuals. This is the same exemption that Attorneys On Retainer uses. But eventually, legal insurance is the end goal because it is what this is intended to be.

 

[Chewy19]

None of these plans are insurance, as such. They are all membership plans involving legal defense of members, which is perfectly legal. One example of insurance is "Legal insurance" under the law (Insurance Code sec. 119.6), which is a promise to pay legal bills. Actual legal insurance requires the provider to register with the Insurance Commissioner, have liquidity requirements met, and various other requirements, none of which these plans meet. My own plan is exempt as a lawyer's retainer agreement to a group of similarly situated individuals. This is the same exemption that Attorneys On Retainer uses. But eventually, legal insurance is the end goal because it is what this is intended to be.

Both CCW Safe and USCCA purportedly cover civil damages per an article published back in 2019 by Concealedcarry.com:

Reviewing CCW Safe VS USCCA: Which is Our Number 1 Choice?​

I have read the current policy covering USCCA members but have not been able to obtain a copy of CCW Safe's. Have you seen it? Regardless, how do you figure thay don't cover civil damages for acts of self defense? There may be many pitfalls in coverage, but that does not mean there be none.

 

[Chewy19]

There is a question of whether CCW Safe is insurance. Per a response from it to my email, "CCW Safe is not an insurance company, nor does the company add members to an insurance policy."

The same reply included a limk to the terms and coditions of the CCW Safe plans that contain some civil liabilty provisions. I have copied a section of the In regard to the Liberty Plan it is provides:

"Civil Liability Coverage Acknowledgement:​

All Plan subscriptions include benefits for civil litigation attorney’s fees and litigation expenses. However, benefits for civil liability damages are only included in the Ultimate, Liberty and Freedom Plans, or with a Civil Liability Add-On Benefit (see chart below). Civil liability damages coverage provides benefits that financially cover the award of monetary damages assessed against a Covered Member as a result of civil litigation. Civil monetary judgments or fines arising from a Covered Self-Defense Use of Force Incident awarded or assessed against a Covered Member who has not subscribed to civil liability damages coverage will be the sole responsibility of the Covered Member.

Covered Member acknowledges that this is a Legal Services Subscription Plan and is not an insurance product. In order to receive civil liability benefits related to civil liability damages assessed against a Covered Member arising from a Covered Self-Defense Use of Force Incident, you must subscribe to a Plan or Add-On Benefit that includes a civil liability damages benefit. If a Covered Member has subscribed to a Plan or purchased an Add-On Benefit that includes civil liability damages benefits prior to the Covered Self-Defense Use of Force Incident, the Covered Member will receive Plan benefits related to civil liability damages up to $2,000,000, in accordance with selected Plan or Add-On Benefit, subject to coverage restrictions discussed below.

////////////////////////////////////////////////
////////////////////////////////////////////////
////////////////////////////////////////////////
///////////////////////////////////

Civil Liability Coverage Limitations: CCW Safe maintains an insurance policy, as detailed below, which provides insurance solely to the Company in the event the Company provides a Covered Member civil liability damage benefits related to a Covered Self-Defense Use of Force Incident. For purposes of this section “damages” means the total sum which the Covered Member becomes legally obligated to pay as civil damages, whether by reason of adjudication or settlement, because of “bodily injury” or “property damage” covered by CCW Safe’s policy but not covered by any other valid and collectible insurance, and shall not include expenses incurred by CCW Safe in the investigation, negotiation, settlement, and defense of any claim or suit seeking such damages. The Company’s insurance policy details are below:

Named Insured: CCW Safe, LLC – through Bold Lane Insurance, LLCDamages – Each Claim Limit: $2,000,000 Damages – Aggregate: $2,000,000 This is to certify that the policies of insurance referenced above have been issued to the Company, CCW Safe LLC, for the policy period indicated. Notwithstanding any requirement, term or condition of any contract or other document with respect to which the above referenced policies may be issued or may pertain, the Company’s insurance afforded by the above referenced policy is subject to all the terms, exclusions and conditions of such policy.

The Company’s civil liability policy provides coverage to the Company on a claims made and reported basis subject to the limits of liability terms and conditions detailed herein. The Company’s policy applies only to any claim first made by the Company on behalf of a Covered Member and reported to the insurer during the Company’s policy period or any extended reporting that may apply."
I will not opine as to whether or not CCW Safe is itself insuance nor whether a member is offered any protection by CCW Safe or an insurer covering CCW Safe. The key question is whether a member is protected from civil liability damages. Decide for yourself.

Folloqing posting the above I contactd CCW Safe and was advised that it has an insurance company providing CCW Safe with coverage, but that members are not entitled to a copy of nor are they insureds under that policy.

 

[Chewy19]

It's a neat trick. If I understand what is up, CCW Safe is not insurance and the company that insures it is a wholly owned subsidiary of CCW Safe. Again, that company does not insure members of CCW Safe. Assuming that a member can make a claim against CCW Safe if the need should arise, the question becomes whether CCW Safe and/or its insurer subsidiary is fiancially able to cover any crminal and/or civil litiagation costs and judgments. Does anyone know how to determine the financial health of CCW Safe or its captive insurer, Bold Lane Insurance LLC?

 

[raellic]

It's a neat trick. If I understand what is up, CCW Safe is not insurance and the company that insures it is a wholly owned subsidiary of CCW Safe. Again, that company does not insure members of CCW Safe. Assuming that a member can make a claim against CCW Safe if the need should arise, the question becomes whether CCW Safe and/or its insurer subsidiary is fiancially able to cover any crminal and/or civil litiagation costs and judgments. Does anyone know how to determine the financial health of CCW Safe or its captive insurer, Bold Lane Insurance LLC?

You have gone above and beyond the call here-- thanks for sharing. This makes sense because if you have a certain amount of cash, you can "self-insure" which this appears to be. In other words, their subsidiary has a $2 million reserve fund in the bank earmarked for this purpose, which is not surprising given the firehose of money that subscriptions create. This may not even be in their bank-- it may be pledged for some other obligation or be subject to restrictions. I still think the overall setup is not compliant with the law in California, which makes risk-sharing of this type insurance under the law, however it is defined or explained away in the terms of service of the plan. That's one reason I would recommend Attorneys On Retainer over CCW Safe. At least with AOR, you know who the responsible attorneys are.

 

[Chewy19]

Thanks, raeilic. Back when I was precticing, I wouldn't have the time to try to figure out who's on second. I would like to understand why USCCA and Cal Safe are organized differently.

BTW. Hastings is a nice CV entry. I just managed to get by at a local school; Southwestern, but then I was a high school drop out.

 

[NationMostWanted]

You have gone above and beyond the call here-- thanks for sharing. This makes sense because if you have a certain amount of cash, you can "self-insure" which this appears to be. In other words, their subsidiary has a $2 million reserve fund in the bank earmarked for this purpose, which is not surprising given the firehose of money that subscriptions create. This may not even be in their bank-- it may be pledged for some other obligation or be subject to restrictions. I still think the overall setup is not compliant with the law in California, which makes risk-sharing of this type insurance under the law, however it is defined or explained away in the terms of service of the plan. That's one reason I would recommend Attorneys On Retainer over CCW Safe. At least with AOR, you know who the responsible attorneys are.

I been with ccw safe for alot of years now, have they had cases where they defend someone before? When I first joined i never found anything but I just keep paying each year since then

 

[NorCalBusa]

Actually, I dn't believe any plans are insurance per se, but some plan members and those plans are covered by actual insurance.

Good post Thanksgiving chuckle, "actually...actual". Literally literal too?

 

[NorCalBusa]

I suspect the reason it has not been outed as not being insurance, by gun websites & consumer or trade magazines is money. They surely pay boatloads for their ads and nobody wants that valve to be closed. While I am anti-new law (for anything), I'd like to see states require a disclosure that gives folks pause to at least read a clear language disclosure.

 

[kentdiggler]

I recommend Attorneys On Retainer, which provides the most flexibility and coverage, and value. I don't have it myself only because I have my own law firm and will just defend any cases in-house or within my network. I tried offering an AOR-style program on a monthly legal plan for California residents, but unfortunately there were no signups even though the price was similar.

I’m interested, if you’re still offering.

 

[kentdiggler]

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’ll be number 1 of 20.

 

[Chewy19]

I wish I knew more insurance law and that a buddy (Harvard law grad) hadn't moved away. My interp[retation of the CCW policy is that its members are not named or additional insureds under the policy. So what of thrid party liability. It seems to be there for the benefit of members. This is differenct from an instance in which a policy insures against an insured's liability for unintentionallly injuring a third party. Here the polcy is taken out for the benefit of a third pary who (intentionally?) injures another party. I know little of it, but if a member has a contractual right against CCW Safe, may it not make a claim on the insurance should the need arise? I don't know the answer.

 

[1911-CV]

Both of the big guys have defended cases against their members. I'm sure their customer support would be glad to speak with you and provide examples.

 

[raellic]

@kentdiggler Thanks, I'm currently about 7 pledges into the 20 needed before I can actually start the program. You and anyone else interested can email me at andrew@watters.law with your information and I'll add you to the list. It may take through the end of this month to get the 20 pledges, and I need to start advertising it properly. Although not (yet) insurance, this is a better offering than AOR for California residents for the reasons I've indicated here and on the website. Among other reasons, we don't need to do pro hac vice or sponsor an out-of-state attorney, which is exactly what is needed for AOR to handle a case outside of Arizona.

 

[raellic]

I suspect the reason it has not been outed as not being insurance, by gun websites & consumer or trade magazines is money. They surely pay boatloads for their ads and nobody wants that valve to be closed. While I am anti-new law (for anything), I'd like to see states require a disclosure that gives folks pause to at least read a clear language disclosure.

This is the next avenue for state regulation, for sure. Assuming they have the budget, I think you're going to see an enforcement action by anti-2A Rob Bonta (California attorney general) against CCW Safe and similar plans for being covered by the Insurance Code and not complying with that particular set of laws. There probably should be a disclosure of some type for all of these plans as to their financial capacity to sustain the defense of their members, such as statistical data on how many members, how many incidents, cost, etc. The insurance industry has ratings for carriers that relate to how financially healthy they are, and so on. Admitted carriers (carriers licensed in California) are the healthiest and have the lowest risk of going bankrupt or being unable to cover a loss, which is why your rates are lower with admitted carriers than non-admitted carriers.

 

[Chewy19]

Raelic's pont about non-admitted and admitted insurers is a good one and it makes me more likely to go with USCCA than CCW Safe -that is if USCCA's insurer is admitted in Califonria and at this late hour I am not sure that it is or is it just that UCSSA has been determined by the Calfofnia Insurance Commisioner to be an insurance company. The last case I glanced at is State Farm v. Fricke. Some feel it would deny coverage. In most liability policies I agree, but that is because their terms limit coverage to an accidental event regardless of its outcome, whereas CCW policies include acts of self defense.

 

[Number9]

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>

If I ever win a lottery, you'll be among the first to call!