How much legal liability insurance is enough for carry and for ranges?

[cclaxton]

Now that I am running an ammunition business, I had to purchase a liability policy in order to do business with certain customers. The NRA-endorsed policy maxes out at $1M per incident and $2M accumulated. But some recent lawsuits were filed asking for $10 million for a firearms incident. As it was explained to me by a knowledgeable insurance attorney: personal liability only protects you for your own actions, but doesn't protect you in your role as a safety officer or staff at a range or event. The insurance policy for the venue/company must protect you. But most of those policies are also limited to $2M, with only one company insuring above that, and my understanding is that is limited to $5M.

So the question of this poll is: How much legal liability is enough?

FYI: Waivers do not fix the problem, because no waiver can guarantee it will not go to trial, so take waivers out of the equation for this question.

CC

[Tamara]

When you say "How much legal liability insurance is enough for carry", do you mean just John or Jane Q. Public toting a pistol on their day-to-day rounds in a non-commercial capacity?

[cclaxton]

When you say "How much legal liability insurance is enough for carry", do you mean just John or Jane Q. Public toting a pistol on their day-to-day rounds in a non-commercial capacity?

Correct, or attending shooting events, such as IDPA/USPA/3-Gun as a shooter. (Ranges will not normally cover attendees, but only staff/SO's.) And, of course, not including LE On-Duty or Armed Safety Officers On-Duty, Active Military, etc.

CC

[ToddG]

So the question of this poll is: How much legal liability is enough?

The industry standard is $1M/2M as you stated. Beyond "hearing" about someone asking for more, what makes you think that is inadequate? Do you understand how settlement negotiations work?


FYI: Waivers do not fix the problem

I hate to sound snide but is this based on your legal education or your years of experience dealing with liability law? Because there's a reason why waivers are so prevalent in our society. It's not just for fun. There are quite a few organizations that have successfully shielded themselves from lawsuits with well designed waivers.

Some things cannot be "signed away" with a waiver. If you plant a bomb in a case of ammo and murder one of your customers, no waiver in the world is going to get you out of that.

As for your personality liability insurance, I suggest you talk to the agent who wrote your policy.

[joshs]

Correct, or attending shooting events, such as IDPA/USPA/3-Gun as a shooter. (Ranges will not normally cover attendees, but only staff/SO's.) And, of course, not including LE On-Duty or Armed Safety Officers On-Duty, Active Military, etc.

CC

For either just carrying a gun or competing in a match, I personally do not think insurance is necessary.

If you injure someone with your carry gun, it will likely be intentional, so traditional insurance (not the insurance specifically meant to cover attorneys' fees) would not cover any damages.

At a match (run under USPSA or IDPA rules, 3 gun rule sets obviously vary, but I'd leave if I saw any potential safety issues), I have a hard time seeing how you could injure someone else in a way that you would be personally liable. Your medical insurance should cover any injuries you negligently inflict on yourself at a match.

This is not legal advice. If you have a specific legal question, you should contact an attorney licensed to practice law in your jurisdiction.

[joshs]

I hate to sound snide but is this based on your legal education or your years of experience dealing with liability law? Because there's a reason why waivers are so prevalent in our society. It's not just for fun. There are quite a few organizations that have successfully shielded themselves from lawsuits with well designed waivers.

Some things cannot be "signed away" with a waiver. If you plant a bomb in a case of ammo and murder one of your customers, no waiver in the world is going to get you out of that.

I think the simplest explanation for what waivers can and cannot accomplish is that you cannot waive future negligence. But, they are certainly useful for informing someone of the inherent risks of a product or activity. Since we are talking about a product (ammo), waivers are usually discussed as warnings. Warnings absolutely do work as a shield from liability. There is an entire field of products liability law based on giving inadequate warnings (usually called "failure to warn").

[cclaxton]

The industry standard is $1M/2M as you stated. Beyond "hearing" about someone asking for more, what makes you think that is inadequate? Do you understand how settlement negotiations work?
I hate to sound snide but is this based on your legal education or your years of experience dealing with liability law? Because there's a reason why waivers are so prevalent in our society. It's not just for fun. There are quite a few organizations that have successfully shielded themselves from lawsuits with well designed waivers.
Some things cannot be "signed away" with a waiver. If you plant a bomb in a case of ammo and murder one of your customers, no waiver in the world is going to get you out of that.
As for your personality liability insurance, I suggest you talk to the agent who wrote your policy.
1) Yes, of course I know about settlement negotiations...unless it goes to trial. The problem is the unpredictability of juries.
2) I have been looking into personal liability for concealed carry, such as Second Call. I talked to an attorney for them and asked a number of questions, some of them about being an SO in IDPA and other events. (Recent rules changes in IDPA has me trying to understand my liability as an SO under the new rules). This guy was very knowledgeable (or seemed to be) about the current state of the law and his view is that while Waivers do help in some states and some times, they are not a prevention. Any judge can say, "Let's let the jury decide that." Also, because of the ammo business, I have to purchase insurance and I asked the NRA Business Insurance company a lot of questions about where we are with lawsuits. They only have a policy that goes to $1/2M, so he was skeptical about having more. But he did say there was another company that would go up to $5M that he knew of. Sharpshooters requires $5M in liability insurance for them to sell my ammo there. I am a consumer of these services and trying to figure out the best and most affordable protection, and of course, HOW MUCH protection to have.
3) I am all for waivers and writing the best, most impregnable as possible. But different states handle them differently according to a legal expert I consulted. According to him Virginia doesn't enforce waivers. See http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/enforceability-of-waivers-of-prospective-62679/. In Maryland, ironically, Waivers are generally enforceable under their laws, so the waiver must be reviewed and considered by the court before a trial is convened. In Pennsylvania, the Waiver is enforceable only IF it follows a strict formula for construction. But none of these waivers will, as you noted, protect someone/range from willful harming or gross negligence.

One of the problems is that our society has become more risk averse. In the 1950's, if you went to the store for a gallon of milk and the child fell off the balcony and died, it was a tragic accident. Today, it is parental negligence, for instance. Combine that with juries that may not understand firearms or shooting sports and inconsistent judges, and you have uneven justice.

I am just asking the question to see where professionals stand on the question of how much insurance is enough?

Thanks,
CC

[cclaxton]

I think the simplest explanation for what waivers can and cannot accomplish is that you cannot waive future negligence. But, they are certainly useful for informing someone of the inherent risks of a product or activity. Since we are talking about a product (ammo), waivers are usually discussed as warnings. Warnings absolutely do work as a shield from liability. There is an entire field of products liability law based on giving inadequate warnings (usually called "failure to warn").

Yes, agreed, and can be used to reduce awards or exonerate you...but at TRIAL. And, we all saw what happened with Zimmerman. According to the guy at SecondCall, Zimmerman would have never gone to trial if he had SecondCall services and was represented from the beginning.

Another thing: SecondCall, and personal liability only protects YOU injuring or shooting someone at a match, but doesn't protect you in your role as safety officer. It is the Range/Operator of the event that must ensure you as a SO. So if you are running a COF and someone shoots someone else because they violated a muzzle rule and the Plaintiff complains that the SO should have prevented the shooter from muzzling/shooting the victim, you would not be able to use your personal liability protection. That would have to be provided by the insurance associated with the range or operator.

CC

[joshs]

And, we all saw what happened with Zimmerman. According to the guy at SecondCall, Zimmerman would have never gone to trial if he had SecondCall services and was represented from the beginning.

That's a pretty bold statement considering the decision to go to trial is not within their control.

[LittleLebowski]

According to the guy at SecondCall, Zimmerman would have never gone to trial if he had SecondCall services and was represented from the beginning.


Are you saying that you believe that?

[joshs]

See http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/enforceability-of-waivers-of-prospective-62679/.

This article notes that waivers can be helpful in establishing that a plaintiff knew the inherent risks of a dangerous activity. In a jurisdiction that still applies assumption of risk, this can be very helpful in avoiding liability.

[cclaxton]

That's a pretty bold statement considering the decision to go to trial is not within their control.
What he told me is that a competent attorney would have demanded that the Prosecutor take the allegations before the Grand Jury before he was publicly charged. He was confident that the Grand Jury would have not returned an indictment and the trial would have never occurred. And, Grand Jury deliberations are sealed.

I am just the messenger here.

CC

[cclaxton]

Are you saying that you believe that?

See comment to Josh on Grand Jury. I don't know, but it sounds feasable to me.
This guy's point is that when you have the right kind of representation from the beginning, they can prevent things from developing further, and developing into a jury trial, and I do believe that.

The only variable in Zimmerman's case is whether the witch hunt could have overcome the legal maneuvering.

CC

[joshs]

This guy's point is that when you have the right kind of representation from the beginning, they can prevent things from developing further, and developing into a jury trial, and I do believe that.

I don't dispute that point, but I fail to see what it has to do with having insurance.

[cclaxton]

I don't dispute that point, but I fail to see what it has to do with having insurance.

Under Second Call the two are tied together: http://www.secondcalldefense.org/plans-and-pricing

Just so everyone is aware, I am not promoting their service. I am considering signing up for it.

Thanks,
CC

[5pins]

What he told me is that a competent attorney would have demanded that the Prosecutor take the allegations before the Grand Jury before he was publicly charged. He was confident that the Grand Jury would have not returned an indictment and the trial would have never occurred. And, Grand Jury deliberations are sealed.

I am just the messenger here.

CC

IIRC the prosecutor did not take it to the grand jury.

[tremiles]

The first step in determining how much liability insurance you need is determining the value of your assets.

[ToddG]

And, we all saw what happened with Zimmerman. According to the guy at SecondCall, Zimmerman would have never gone to trial if he had SecondCall services and was represented from the beginning.

Wow. That's about all I need to hear to know I'd never use their services.

The decision to go to trial is always going to be out of your hands whether it's negligence or criminal. How "SecondCall" thinks it could have changed the way the special prosecutor behaved when she was specifically sent to bulldog Zimmerman into court no matter what is beyond me.

As for waivers, I'm not going to debate the issue with you. If you think they're inadequate for your purposes, so be it. I'm sure if you look around hard enough you can find a company that will write a custom policy for you for whatever amount you wish as long as you're willing to pay for it.

[cclaxton]

Wow. That's about all I need to hear to know I'd never use their services.
The decision to go to trial is always going to be out of your hands whether it's negligence or criminal. How "SecondCall" thinks it could have changed the way the special prosecutor behaved when she was specifically sent to bulldog Zimmerman into court no matter what is beyond me.
As for waivers, I'm not going to debate the issue with you. If you think they're inadequate for your purposes, so be it. I'm sure if you look around hard enough you can find a company that will write a custom policy for you for whatever amount you wish as long as you're willing to pay for it.

So, Todd, it sounds like you think the $1M/2M liability insurance combined with use of a good waiver is adequate?....not asking for legal advice, just your view.

FYI, I agree with you about the "bulldog Zimmerman into court" statement because it became a witch hunt. But it is possible that with the right legal tactics, the Attorney General could have been prevented from prosecuting the case. It may have been a witch hunt in the media and a civil action may have gone forward instead.

But, for sure, I would want a top notch, gun-rights attorney to be there at the very beginning. SecondCall will at least immediately assign you an attorney, pay your bail, and start working for you. That is well worth the $430/year for their top service. $430 wouldn't buy you one hour of a top notch attorney.

SecondCall may not be able to guarantee that I get exonerated without a trial, but if they assign an attorney to me immediately who will protect me from the moment the police arrive....that is well worth $430. Just my analysis.

Waivers is a whole other topic which I am very interested in understanding. I shoot matches in at least 7 different states and a dozen different clubs. As I become a certified SO for IDPA, I want to understand my liability, the club's coverages and the strength of their waivers and ensure I am protected as much as possible without bankrupting me. Supposedly the NSSF has the best team for assessing liability and writing waivers. I sent them an email to ask more about it.

CC

[Tamara]

One thing that jumps out at me about this thread is that the guy from SecondCall is trying to sell you something, while Todd and Josh aren't. This would weight their respective opinions accordingly in my book.

[ToddG]

So, Todd, it sounds like you think the $1M/2M liability insurance combined with use of a good waiver is adequate?....not asking for legal advice, just your view.

That's what I use when I teach and it's what every other instructor I know uses (at least, those who have insurance). Does it magically make me immune from some crazy worst case scenario where a jury decides someone deserves $100M from me? No. But it covers my assets pretty well given the exposure I might suffer through my LLC, etc.


FYI, I agree with you about the "bulldog Zimmerman into court" statement because it became a witch hunt. But it is possible that with the right legal tactics, the Attorney General could have been prevented from prosecuting the case.

It's possible that someone would MK-Ultra the Governor into holding a parade for Zimmerman. But I think it's unprofessional and utterly unfounded for any attorney to claim that he could have somehow represented Zimmerman's interests in a way that would have changed how Corey handled the case. People in the prosecutor's office tried to get her to take it to a grand jury and she refused. She refused because she never would have got an indictment. So what you're suggesting -- or the Second Call guy is suggesting, I suppose, in fairness to you -- is that somehow their lawyers would have changed Corey's mind and convinced her to drop the case essentially. Because if she went to a grand jury, that was what was going to happen.

I don't buy it. And as I said, I think it's offensive that an attorney would try to drum up business that way. Alternatively, perhaps he's just utterly unfamiliar with the actual events of the case... which would also be a big warning sign for me. How can you be involved in a business that is about providing legal assistance to people who've been forced into a self defense situation but be that clueless about the biggest, most high profile self defense case in years?

FAIL or FAIL. You pick.

(nothing in this post is intended to serve as legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship with any person or entity; you should always consult a licensed attorney in the appropriate jurisdiction with any questions about laws that may affect you)

[cclaxton]

One thing that jumps out at me about this thread is that the guy from SecondCall is trying to sell you something, while Todd and Josh aren't. This would weight their respective opinions accordingly in my book.
Oh, I agree with you Tamara. That is one of the reasons I like this forum. Nothing is held back here ...:rolleyes:

It is a difficult to assess, but after talking to this guy for 15 minutes, I would say he is the most knowledgeable of anyone I have met in the world of gun-related liabilities. Also, lawyers often disagree about how to best attack a case, and they can both be right.

I, for one, would rather have an attorney that has that kind of confidence and assertiveness than one who is going to engage "country club style". At least he THINKS he could have stopped it...I like that.

CC

[JV_]

It is a difficult to assess, but after talking to this guy for 15 minutes, I would say he is the most knowledgeable of anyone I have met in the world of gun-related liabilities.IME, it's easy to be tricked in to thinking someone is highly skilled and has a mastery of something when you're on the outside - looking in. It's another thing to be recognized by someone's peers as a master. I'm not saying that's the case here, but it's an easy trap to fall in to.


I, for one, would rather have an attorney that has that kind of confidence and assertiveness than one who is going to engage "country club style". At least he THINKS he could have stopped it...I like that.You can have your confident lawyer, I'll take the one that's conservative in what he says publicly, and is correct.


Good luck in finding the information and insurance.

[cclaxton]

I haven't heard any suggestions for a better alternative.
Any suggestions?
CC

[LittleLebowski]

I haven't heard any suggestions for a better alternative.
Any suggestions?
CC

On lawyers? Mine trains actively, shoots competitively and is libertarian/conservative. He's done over 700 jury trials and successfully litigated my ND gunshot wound. He also doesn't sell himself in a flashy way but his actions spoke loudly.

[ToddG]

At least he THINKS he could have stopped it...I like that.

I get the feeling that the lawyer who's sure he could have won a theoretical case will get a lot of membership fees from gun owners who are sure they can win a theoretical gunfight.

[Mr_White]

I get the feeling that the lawyer who's sure he could have won a theoretical case will get a lot of membership fees from gun owners who are sure they can win a theoretical gunfight.

Pow!