CCWSafe is my recommendation. I've been with them for a couple years now after doing my due diligence and comparing several plans for what they offer, gotchas, and extent of coverage (and limitations).
(Previously I'd been with ACLDN and FEDS which provided a combination of civil and criminal liability coverage but I no longer need two plans as I get everything under one umbrella now with more extensive coverage at a better price.)
Last edited by blues; 12-02-2019 at 12:14 PM.
There's nothing civil about this war.
I would not use Delta Defense or anything underwritten by United Specialty Insurance Company:
https://www.kalb.com/content/news/In...565487312.html
The ‘Platinum Member' policy Giles purchased provides $1 million and an additional $150,000 in legal fees. However, after receiving $50,000 of legal fees, the lawsuit claims that the companies have 'refused further payment, despite amicable demand that they do so.'
In response to the lawsuit filed in the U.S. Western District Court of Louisiana, the United Specialty Insurance Company provides several defenses, with the most important defense saying that, in the fine print of the policy, it is stated that “USIC has no obligation to provide a defense...in connection with the investigation or defense of any criminal charge or criminal proceeding against the insured” like the second-degree murder charge Giles is facing. This means that the company is not required to make payments to Giles because she is facing criminal charges.
@blues, what was the predominant factor in selecting CCW Safe vs ACLDN? Was it just being able to get civil and criminal liability coverage in one spot? If you don't mind sharing I'd also like to know what plan you picked. If you selected the LE/MIL plan did you add anything to it? Thanks for your thoughts.
Or USCCA?Originally Posted by Mike C
David S.
Whoa, you gave up FEDS? What services are they offering that FEDS was lacking?
Will they dump you if you happened to have sought legal advice from an outside entity regarding an event (such as FLEOA's legal counsel), even before consulting/retaining CCWSafe's services?
You also don't get coverage in US territories, so you're out of pocket if something happens while travelling in Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, etc.
Their entire plan seems like a bunch of "gotchas" to me because of how they're specifically labelling what they will cover you for, as opposed to FEDS' policy which covers anything/everything related to criminal proceedings until you're found guilty.
Who do they have retained to represent you?
"Are you ready? Okay. Let's roll."- Last words of Todd Beamer
Mike, there were a few reasons. I'll have to backtrack a little to put my decision making in context.
Originally I had FEDS for LEOSA, Civil and Criminal coverage. I was familiar with the FEDS brand from my time as an LEO in the federal system. The coverage amounts were not comprehensive enough so I bolstered them with a membership in ACLDN.
ACLDN provided some breathing room on the criminal coverage side but does not cover civil. Also, ACLDN's coverage is limited by the amount they have in the kitty. Unless things have changed, that meant that a given member had access to up to half of the available balance held by the organization. Since a protracted trial, expert witnesses and potential appeals could run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, I felt that I'd prefer to have coverage which wouldn't put my hard earned money, retirement and my wife's future financial security at risk. Under a potential set of unfortunate circumstances, I worried that ACLDN might not have the necessary financial resources to cover multiple legal actions on behalf of members simultaneously.
Also, when reading the "fine print" on many of the various providers of such coverage, CCW Safe just seemed to be the most comprehensive with the least number of avenues for potential gotchas or disqualifications and they impose no limit on the cost of trials, experts, etc. (Civil liability is capped, however.)
The cost of the coverage comes in under what I paid for the combination of FEDS and ACLDN and provides much more coverage, both criminally and civilly than I had previously.
I currently have the HR 218 plan which I switched to when I renewed some months back. Before that I had the "Protector" plan with added civil liability coverage.
(My LEOSA specific legal concerns are addressed via my membership since 1983 in FLEOA, an organization representing the interest of federal LEOs, both active and retired.)
Hope that helps flesh things out.
And finally, here are the "Terms of Service" for CCW Safe and is something which should be read by anyone considering electing one of their plans.
There's nothing civil about this war.
Just a cautionary tale on general purpose insurance policies like homeowners and umbrella: read your policy carefully, and/or research the law in your locale. Some exclude 'intentional acts' including the proverbial good shoot (and some don't!):
https://www.irmi.com/articles/expert...f-self-defense
I haven't researched their stuff in a few years. At the time there were some concerns on my part with their business model and coverage. I'm not up to date and am not prepared to do an analysis of one to the other.
T, the LEOSA plan for retirees is a lot less comprehensive than that available for active feds. The level of financial coverage is also greatly diminished.
I've had occasion to speak with the head of FEDS for an opinion on a LEOSA related matter (before traveling up to NYC and NJ for family matters) and I was aware of the firm they used for representation at the time. (A very good firm based in D.C. That said, any matters outside of D.C. like in my neck of the woods, could be farmed out to local counsel depending on who was licensed to practice locally.)
I have read all the terms of service that FEDS' LEOSA policy offered, including the various gotchas in their coverage.
Anyway, I made the decision that made the most sense for me. Everyone will have to do what they feel is best for themselves. If FEDS offered a more comprehensive LEOSA plan for retirees with a higher level of criminal and civil coverage, I might have continued with them.
Last edited by blues; 12-02-2019 at 01:59 PM.
There's nothing civil about this war.
I've researched the umbrella policy of my insurer and actually found (exception) clauses that would appear to indicate that an act of self-defense would not fall under the exclusions. I spoke to a rep (attorney) on the phone about my reading of the exception to the exclusions and she agreed with my take. However, her opinion during the phone conversation is not legally binding.
I don't know what the differences are between umbrella policies between one company and another, only what I happened to read in my own...and that's going back a couple of years now.
Offered for what it's worth.
There's nothing civil about this war.
Hands down CCWSAFE!! They are the only company to have successfully defend against a murder charge on a member. I know several of the employees and they are as good as you can get!!
Full discloser I am a affiliate with them, and you can sign up on my website below. having said that even if I wasn't Id still recommend them.
Founder Of Keepers Concealment and Lead trainer. Affiliate of CCW Safe, Use discount code ( KC10off )Sign up here https://ccwsafe.com/ref/B65241653
Reply With Quote