Here is the response from “customer service” when I asked for a response from Tim Schmitt (clear as mud):
Hello Danny,
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.
Mike P
Customer Engagement Manager
Support@uscca.com
877-677-1919
This is the response from our resident attorney, @MikeBKY:
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
occurs:
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!
