It’s not, though.
You don’t have to like it, but covering an obvious murderer is not in the line of business. And that won’t change.
If you commit a pre planned murder like Kayla Giles did, I would not expect to have coverage (she did get $50k in legal fees that were not recovered, still).
No, self defense cannot be considered a criminal act if they please. That is not how the membership benefits are set up.
It is not something that can be decided on a whim.
Something I was taught a long time ago: One unsatisfied customer (or in this case bad news story) can do more damage than ten satisfied customers can repair or make up for.
Whoever is responsible for making what actually happened known to be true should have been on top of this the instant it came out known. Reassuring the members we have your back. Right now you’re the only person besides a very late video to proclaim it. No offense to you but who are you to me and how do I know you aren’t some PR jockey? You and I don’t see eye to eye on most things in our conversations.
It’s not typical for people to know, from Delta Defense/the USCCA, information on the coverage status of a member involved in an incident.
Thousands of members have been covered to the tune of tens of millions of dollars…I don’t think there were ever press announcements, as those cases were ongoing, announcing to the world the coverage status of the member. That’s just not how it works.
The video we have is from the CEO/President of Delta Defense/USCCA. It doesn’t get any higher than that, you don’t need me to tell you Alan was not denied coverage, Tim Schmidt told you that
How about we all calm down, and wait for everything to settle, and then we can get some answers.
USCCA keeps EVERYTHING CONFIDENTIAL!
They do that to protect the privacy of our members.
I would think for a situation like Alan Colin he’d be denied coverage, as at least I don’t believe he acted in self defense, but he didn’t have malicious intent either.
I’ve heard all about good cases with USCCA, and all the bad cases with USCCA I can never get the details of.
That is not what we are saying that the insurance company did. What we are saying is that the insurance company in Kayla Giles’ case made a unilateral decision that she was guilty of premeditated murder. They chose to pull coverage. The company’s analysis was contrary to her lawyer’s and the judge’s evaluation, that she had a valid claim for self-defense. As we all know, defendants in criminal cases don’t just get to claim self-defense whenever they want. They have to convince the court beforehand, that there is evidence for their claim of self-defense. Otherwise, the court will bar them from claiming self-defense. Like I said earlier, Giles’ lawyer and the judge both agreed she had a valid claim of self-defense.
Kayla Giles committed pre planned murder, yes. Once that became clear, she was no longer covered.
This is the way it is going to be, obvious murders are not going to be covered by the membership benefits.
Kayla Giles committed pre planned murder. Plain and simple.
The jury determined she was guilty of murder not the insurance company. The insurance company determined this was not self defense.
BIG DIFFERENCE!
Because of their business model, insurance companies evaluate every claim with one question in mind: Can we deny this claim? They pay claims they have to pay.
Correct, they pay claims they have to pay.
And if it is a lawful act of self defense not otherwise excluded, it is paid (by UFCIC).
You can think of the policy members are additional insureds on sort of like a contractual obligation by UFCIC to pay what they have to pay.
This has been the case for thousands of USCCA members.
This is not Kayla Giles (although she did get $50k before enough evidence made the premeditated murder more clear)
Her lawyer and the judge felt differently. They disagreed with the insurance company. The issue here is not whether Kayla Giles was or wasn’t a murderer. The issue is whether or not USCCA/Delta Defense keeps its commitments to its members. We all signed up with the understanding that if we get involved in a self-defense incident, they will pay money up front for a lawyer and even pay bail and lost wages that arise out of the self-defense case. USCCA claims Alan Colie was not denied his claim, yet he had to go to court with a public defender and he spent six months in jail. We don’t even know if Colie’s lost wages were paid. The big question on the minds of every USCCA member is: can the same thing happen to me?
Which is why Kayla Giles doesn’t qualify, that wasn’t self defense
And Alan Coloie?
[Alan Colie] Was not denied coverage and my understanding is his case is currently being appealed with a USCCA member benefit paid attorney.
So you’re telling me that if someone were to shoot up a school and say it was self defense, we should all assume that the children of that school somehow lured the killer there and attacked him/her? Or that the person that knocked over the 7/11, and shot the attendant was acting in self defense? That the man that tracks down and kills someone when he finds his wife cheating on him, was defending himself? If all the evidence clearly shows you are a murderer, you’re a murderer. When the terms of the insurance clearly state that “criminal acts” are not covered by the policy, why expect murder to be covered?
No. You are comparing apples to oranges. In all of those scenarios, the court would bar the defendant from claiming self-defense, because it clearly is not self-defense.
Technically, the defense could still claim self defense in 2 of those scenarios…what if the attendant or the affair partner "jumped out of the bushes saying "I’m going to kill you “”? Also, even if that happened and the court didn’t bar the person from a self defense claim, was the attendant not currently breaking the law by robbing the store? Could you not say he was there to rob the store after watching the video evidence? Could you not say the man was hunting the affair partner after seeing evidence from his phone, and security footage of him breaking into the affair partner’s house? I don’t understand why only a judge can assume guilt or innocence. Prosecutors and defense attorneys do it. Private investigators do it. Attorneys have droppped clients after evidence is revealed. Why can’t an Delta Defense?
Look if you acted unlawfully during a “self defense” incident, USCCA isn’t going to help you, Attorneys on Retainer isn’t going to help you, and a lawyer you pay with your own funds isn’t going to help you. You’re screwed.
I would say all bets are off if you are say, committing a burglary and the homeowner surprises you and you kill him. I’m with USCCA and its carrier on that one. You do have something on the cheating scenario, though. I seem to recall a case out of Texas where a man was at his girlfriend’s house by invitation while she was out of town. He was there to feed her cat. The woman was estranged from her husband, who showed up at the house and let himself in. The husband confronted the boyfriend who ran into a closet and found a gun. He fired through the door because he feared for his life and killed the husband. In that case, the boyfriend claimed self-defense and was convicted but subsequently exonerated on appeal.
From my understanding, Delta Defense/USCCA has your back if you weren’t committing a crime during self defense. If evidence clearly shows you are a murderer, you are not covered by Delta Defense. It doesn’t take a judge to realize murder from something like a video. In the case you mentioned, i would assume that Delta/USCCA would have backed the man in court, as he was there legally, and allegedly in fear of great bodily harm or death. It is my understanding that USCCA is there to an unappealable conviction, if there is one, if you were righteous in your actions. At the end of the day, Delta Defense is a business, but I’d like to think that the benefits of my membership will be there for me if, God forbid, I ever need them. Call it whatever you want, but after research, USCCA is best for me personally. I’m not trying to convince anyone to stay with USCCA…i don’t get anything from someone staying. Everyone do their own research and decide what’s best for them. When it comes to dropping coverage over alleged murder or another illegal activity, I’m just surprised how quickly people hit the panic button when someone isn’t covered by Delta Defense/USCCA… do you think US Law Shield, or NRA Carry Guard wouldnt ever do/ hasn’t ever done that?
You have made that clear. But what does NOT BEING DENIED COVERAGE look like to you? you said Colie was not denied coverage, yet we know that he spent six months in jail, which I assume, for whatever reason, he was not bailed out. Colie was represented by a public defender, not a private attorney. Luckily for him, Colie’s public defender turned out to be a rock star in court. In their marketing campaign, USCCA pointed out how financially devastating a self-defense incident is. They say they will provide its members money up front to qualified lawyers; they will provide up to $50,000 bail (cash or bond); They say they will pay their members up to $750 per day of lost wages due to the self-defense case. Alan Colie was not denied coverage, yet it does not appear he received all of those benefits. The question on the minds of every person who pays for their USCCA membership is: Can I count on USCCA to deliver all the benefits they claim to offer if I have to go to them due to a self-defense incident?