I understand all that… my point is that it could have been a good self-defencse, but prosecutors who are willing to ignore facts and charge you and then put you in front of 12 of HIS peers can still get a conviction. If is is a true criminal act, then, of coarse USCCA shouldn’t pay. And the language says nothing about any of this…
Here is the reply I got from customer “service”:
It is true that the Self-Defense Liability Policy issued to and held by the USCCA includes a condition allowing for Recovery and Recoupment. It also specifically excludes coverage for criminal acts. The recovery and recoupment provision gives the insurance company the ability to recoup amounts paid in the event an insured was convicted of a criminal act.
Why? Because insurers are generally prohibited from providing coverage for intentional criminal acts. Thus, the insurance company cannot and will not provide coverage for criminal acts.
I think all responsibly armed Americans would agree that if what was initially presented as a lawful act of self-defense turned out to be a black and white first-degree murder, the insurance company should be able to recoup payments.
I hope this helps, and if you have any further questions, please let me know. Have a great day and thanks for being part of the USCCA.
Customer Engagement Manager
I think this, too, is a weak answer.