I regularly hold USCCA up against their competition. None of the others even come close. I checked one based on an ad in Guns & Ammo (I think that was the magazine) the other day. Their web site boasts about having a $2,500,000 defense fund. Let that sink in a moment. They cover one lawsuit and they’re out of business, leaving their customers without coverage.
nowhere did I or the terms in that section say anything about criminal acts. It talks about taking a plea bargain or being found guilty.
When I signed the contract back in 2015 and paid in full for said contract, that contract changed, it seems to have evolved with the times. That being said, are there any changes being made to assist legal, law abiding citizens?
I hope I’m not being as vague as some contracts can be.
where I signed up there were literally dozens and dozens who signed up because of TRUST-- no copies of the terms were offered. I have since read the terms, now that I know where to find them To me there wasn’t full disclosure.
and why the nasty tone?
I think you are being vague. What, specifically, changed?
How did you pay in full? My Elite membership is month-to-month. I’ve been a member since 2014.
I agree that USCCA appears to be the best, but this clause should give us all something to worry about.
Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network is, in my opinion, the 2nd best-- they don’t have this clause.
I’ve never had any trouble finding the terms.
I fully agree.
Recovery and Recoupment section. Page 11 section I (eye) in PDF form
It’s missing in the 2015 hard copy version I still have.
It doesn’t talk about committing a crime… that is another section, this is talking about TAKING A PLEA BARGAIN OR BEING FOUND GUILTY!!!11
I pay yearly each year
It looks like you are referring to the self-defense liability policy, and not the main membership terms. So what? The policy allows USCCA to chase after payments made that were ultimately determined to not be covered. Any insurance company has that right.
That is a sorry answer. It could have very well been a lawful act, but a biased prosecutor and jury may just not like you defending yourself with a firearm.
I agree that no company should pay for criminal acts, but there are 1000s of people in jail for NO criminal acts, just anti-gun bias.
You seem to have a different definition of “paid in full.”
I do have a few things to say about this post and what is/has been happening over the past several months.
First, with respect to Attorneys On Retainer. When you join their “Self Protection Option” you are basically purchasing a prepaid legal program for self defense in Arizona and Hawaii. You will not pay any legal fees for your defense “where self defense is reasonably claimed”, however, you will be responsible for all other costs, expenses and fees, including expert fees and for paying your bail bond. Is it a good deal? Maybe. Just remember, other costs and fees can meet or exceed your attorney fees depending on the actual case. And, assuming you win or take a plea, you will still be facing the civil suit against you at the their low rate of not more than $175 an hour, along with additional costs, expenses and fees and no indemnification should you lose or decide to settle. Here is the actual policy language in question:
I. Recovery or Recoupment
We shall have the right to seek recovery or recoupment from an “insured” the amount of any payments made
to, for , or on behalf of the “insured”, including payments made to third parties, when any of the following
- The “occurrence” or “covered legal liability” that gave rise to a “claim” results in the “conviction” of
the “insured” who alleged an “act of self-defense”; or
- We paid “defense expenses” on behalf of an “insured” for the defense or investigation of a “law
enforcement inquiry” or legal proceeding in which no “claim” for “damages” is made against the
“insured” when such inquiry or proceeding arises from an “occurrence” or “covered legal liability” and
such “law enforcement inquiry” or legal proceeding results in the conviction of the “insured”; or
- It is determined that we made payments to, for, or on behalf of the “insured” for matters not covered
by this Policy or are otherwise prohibited by applicable law.
Second, at some point this year, between April 29, 2020, and the last month or so, the “self defense protection” was moved from the member agreement and was replaced with the current “self defense liability coverage form” underwritten by Universal Fire and Casualty Insurance Company. My assumption is that an insurance company is being utilized to resolve issues with several states, including Washington and New York, that have accused USCCA of being an insurer not authorized by those states to sell or offer insurance products.
Based on the language, I agree that we need to inquire as to what would cause the company to seek recoupment. As mentioned in the video, taking a plea of disorderly conduct in place of a capital murder would be hard for anyone to resist, and almost every attorney would likely recommend accepting such an offer. I do not know if that would trigger recoupment or not.
What I can say with relative certainty, insurance companies are generally reluctant to seek recoupment from their insured, although every insurance policy I have ever read, and I have read many, have some type of recoupment clause. Companies are worried that their efforts to recoup will be counter productive because of the bad press they receive and they also realize that trying to get that $1,000,000 that was spent in defending and paying a judgment is near impossible.
Just my 2 cents!
Better answer that USCCA’s above. But I want to hear Tim Schmitt say it.
Great break down and easy to understand thanks Mike you are a great asset to this community
Friends, we are debating things that might happen if things go sideways. We aren’t paying like having a lawyer on standby we are paying in case a narrow set of circumstance happen and we are forced to decided to defend ourselves. If what USCCA offers doesn’t fit your lifestyle no one says you cannot change to one of the others. Just realize there are drawbacks to others as well. If there weren’t USCCA wouldn’t be in the top part of most every search on best CCW coverage. Most of us pray we never have to use self defense coverage. If we do we pray we picked the one that works best for us.
And just as an aside, if there is a riot and I am not covered from assault to me and my family it will not change my decision for one second on if I will defend my family.
We aren’t talking about riots! or invasion. We are talking about defending yourself and firing 5 shots instead of 2… so the prosecutor and jury decide that 5 was too many… none of whom were there.
From my understanding the mcclusky’s in St Louis and Kyle Rittenhouse in Wisconsin neither one would have been covered with uscca