What happens when your membership base loses their trust of their org to do what they said the org would do for them? They leave and I’m on the edge of it. I love this community but that isn’t why I joined. I joined for the insurance benefits which I pay for.
Yes loose lips sinks ships that is why there should be an official press representative. The lawyers can get together, decide what can be said and what can’t. As I posted as simple statement of yes the person in question is covered and repeated when the question is asked again with any updates. Those statements should be made in threads asking the question.
Imagine all the bad news stories that would come from the anti self defense news media if it was found out that the USCCA insurance paid millions to defend a person who clearly committed premeditated murder.
Kayla Giles tried to sue the USCCA for the eventual termination of coverage and her case was dismissed by the judge with prejudice. Meaning the judge felt she clearly had no case. From the facts I have seen there are not many clearer cases of premeditated murder. She got her day in court and was found guilty. I’m glad my monthly fees were no longer contributing to her case once the insurance company determined she was clearly guilty
The Colie case was much grayer with some argument for self defense but to my eye even stronger argument that he overreacted. Yet it appears the USCCA insurance policy is covering him.
Based on these two cases and the fact that none of their competitors can come up with any better examples than these of the USCCA not covering members, I feel pretty confident that as long as I don’t intentionally commit a premeditated crime that I have a very high probability of being covered.
I have written to national chain stores and have gotten responses to the poor service I received at the store. Regional mangers have called me to rebuild my trust. They have sent me discounts to encourage me to return again.
Why should the USCCA be held to a different standard?
Notice how that happened. It went to court and was decided in court. I never said it would be or is easy to defend. This is what our society has become, a litigious one where others seek to retire because another made a mistake. This is a reality every business in America has to live with to stay in business. We all want to think that shouldn’t be with our beloved organizations but it is unfortunately.
And that can be stated in the press release. Police do it all the time: we can’t talk about that right now.
How quickly would the USCCA and their insurer go out of business if they were required to unconditionally cover (throughout the entire appeal process) every member who clearly decided to commit premeditated murder and claim self defense?
If criminals figured out they could get the best legal coverage available to try to get out of their crimes for $30 or so a month many of them would likely be flooding in to join our little community. There needs to be some method for weeding out the premeditated criminals. These two cases show me that there is and that it appears to be getting fairly applied.
Obviously you joined for the benefits. Didn’t we all? Was that store involved in actve criminal court? All im saying is that there may be a reason we haven’t heard anything. We’ll find out eventually, im sure. If it bothers you so much that you can’t stand to wait, why not drop your membership if you are truly dissatisfied with your service?
Notice Im not advocating for “the whole” process. Once that person has been found guilty in a lower court USCCA has every right to drop said person and to seek reparations for their expenses. It’s ducked up all the way around. I’m not saying anything different than that just saying the org took a change with their eyes wide open and wasn’t forced to create this org/business. It’s ducked up all the way around. I’m just saying it out loud.
Since when has our legal system been justice to all evenly? Never….
Not really. The definition of conviction per policy on which members are additional insureds is “final non-appealable” conviction. For a covered act of self defense, that coverage would not be dropped (and recoupment could not be sought) based on the first, still-appealable, conviction
And we don’t want a clear murderer (or clearly not lawful self defense, anyway) to be covered all the way through that first trial court conviction, anyway. That whole grossly mis-characterization of “Murder insurance” would risk being an apt name if that were the case. That’s why Kayla Giles.
Police often but not always release information especially when they can do it in a way to try and protect their department’s image. Their officers also enjoy significant additional legal protections giving them more leeway in what information the do or don’t share. But defense attorneys for civilians usually seem much more guarded in what information they release to the public when cases are ongoing.
I don’t trust insurers any more than I trust our legal system. Many insurers have a long history of weaseling out of coverage when their customers need them the most. But from all the evidence I am seeing being presented by the USCCA’s highly biased competitors it seems to me that the USCCA’s insurer has been acting in good faith so far.
It would be nice if the USCCA could get more info out there on some of the likely many cases they have successfully defended to counterbalance all this marketing based negative publicity being generated by their competitors. But I respect that they are respecting the privacy of their clients. I personally wouldn’t want any additional attention drawn my way if I was involved in a self defense incident.
That’s just it, Im dissatisfied with their communication not with the base services of the org. I also don’t want to see it go away but poor communication with customers can and will drive ppl away. I don’t like the silent treatment from our gubment, police, friends, my wife or any org I’m participating in. It makes me think they know better than me just because they are “the organization “. That’s disrespectful and I don’t like it.
Thank you Nathan! That clears up one question. While I have my own opinion of the judge’s decision to deny Alan Colie bail, I’m convinced the bail issue is a closed matter as far as USCCA/Delta Defense is concerned. They were powerless to step in on Alan Colie’s behalf. I would like to publicly apologize to Tim Schmidt for doubting him on that issue.
Now I have to say on the Alan Colie case, I’m no judge and no lawyer, but I thoroughly disagree with the judge’s decision to deny bail to Colie. And to claim he’s a danger to the public?? Clearly, he did not see the video. Colie kept retreating while that kid kept pursuing him. It looked to me like Colie tried to avoid having to shoot the kid.
Timely for this thread is a video from defense attorney Tom Grieve, posted mid-December 2023. WhIle he has a relationship with USCCA, he is not an employee. He discusses four major aspects to consider when deciding on a plan, and compares those items for only four competitors in this market: USCCA, CCW Safe, US Law Shield, and AOR. Overall, USCCA sounds pretty solid, CCW Safe and Law Shield have a couple of question marks because he did not have full information from them, and AOR sounds like it has some shortcoming, at least using the four criteria he addressed; Defense Attorney Reviews Self Defense Coverage + Insurance Options USCCA Law Shield CCW Safe AoR
I don’t want to quarterback anyone’s situation but I observed one thing: My only comment about the above mentioned incident is that the man went from hands and verbal commands straight to lethal force. There was no in between. That’s why I carry pepper spray. His case might have ended up different if he could show he tried several options before using his gun.