Should Gun Owners Have Insurance
Summary: If you're a gun owner, what else should you do to protect yourself?
here
is no perfect organizational structure for a law office staff manual. Generally
the manual reflects the personalities and procedures of the law firm. Some are
organized alphabetically by task, whereas others are divided into sections
based on the hierarchy of the firm. In putting together these sample sections
of a law office staff manual, we opted to use a hierarchical structure to
organize our issue into three sections based on who the content applies to: 1)
For all members of the firm—staff, associates, and partners; 2) For nonpartner
staff—associates, paralegals, and employees, and 3) For associates only. Then
each of these sections is subdivided into three or four general categories that
cover generally: (a) the law or rules of the firm, (b) employee conduct, and
(c) law office procedures and (d) law office management. We encourage you to
use or adapt these paragraphs to meet the needs of your firm.
This
first section covers the law firm mission statement or objective, legal
requirements and protections for all employees, acceptable behavior for all
employees, and law office procedures and management about which all staff need
to be aware. Asterisks between entries indicate optional paragraphs.
Disclaimer—No Employment Contract
This law office manual is designed to provide a written description of various
law-firm processes and procedures. It i
Insurance is a double
edged sword that offers protection even as it invites lawsuits. Every day in my
Tacoma law practice our associate attorneys and I decide which civil cases to
accept based simply on this bottom line: How much is the case worth, and how
likely are we to collect?
Insurance coverage
factors in heavily roughly 99% of the time as the insurance company’s pocket is
the only pocket from which we are likely to collect any money, especially if
the defendant can bankrupt out of any future judgment.
What does insurance
do? In certain cases the insurance contract obligates the insurance carrier to
defend the insured and indemnify, or pay damages for, the insured if a court so
orders. Incidentally, if your case actually makes it to trial, which is rare,
the jury will likely never hear about your insurance protection because there
are rules prohibiting mentioning your insurance and any prior claims by or
against you.
When I was on the
insurance defense side of the law, I would routinely ask the court to remind
the ambulance chaser across from me that he and his witnesses could not mention
insurance coverage in front of the jury. Again, very, very few cases ever make
it in front of a jury as most are settled by the insurance company and the
plaintiff well before trial.
Some insurance claims
have what’s referred to as “nuisance value,” which means that even if the
underlying case is weak, the carrier might just pay a token amount of money to
make a covered claim go away. Nuisance value is generally the minimum amount of
money that an insurance defense attorney would charge to defend a case. In
Washington State when I was on the defense side of the table in the late ’90s
the nuisance value of a typical car accident was about $2,500. This was because
of the fact that if I started working on a case, $2,500 was the minimum amount
of money that my firm would bill for my work.
Many weak, meaning
“defensible,” cases were settled for $2,500 just to make the plaintiff go away
because at the end of the day, that was probably the least expensive way of
getting rid of a case with the least amount of risk. Remember the grandma
burned by hot coffee who sued McDonald’s and got enough money to buy an Eastern
European country? So does the average insurance adjuster, and they’re still gun
shy about it.
If the carrier is paying a settlement on your behalf, life
is good because that generally ends the case against you.
Unfortunately, what insurance will not do is cover
intentional acts such as a self-defense shooting. That means they won’t defend
the shooter, and won’t pay even the nuisance value of a claim to protect him.
If you’re the shooter in a self-defense case, and you get sued, you’ll likely
have to pay for an attorney out of your own pocket.
Let’s start at the beginning with how my firm analyzes a
case, and what factors we think are important. Our lawyers basically consider
four questions along with the existence of insurance coverage to decide whether
to take on a case. If we can answer yes to each of these questions, we will
likely offer our representation.
1) Duty of Reasonable Care. Was there some reasonable Duty
of Care to the victim? The most obvious example of a duty is the duty to stop
at a stop sign. We have a duty to stop at a stop sign, and to avoid running
into other drivers, even accidentally, to the greatest extent possible. If
someone runs a stop sign and smashes into you, that driver has probably
violated a Duty of Reasonable Care, which simply means he didn’t do what a
“reasonable person” would have done to preserve your safety. As shooters, we
have a Duty of Reasonable Care to others that requires us to adhere to basic
safety standards (e.g. weapons are always considered loaded, don’t point at
anything you aren’t willing to destroy, finger off the trigger until you’re
ready to shoot, etc.). An accidental discharge (AD), for instance, that injures
another person, or damages property might be a breach of the Duty of Reasonable
Care.
2) Breach of Duty of Reasonable Care.
The breach of a Duty
of Reasonable Care occurs when someone has a Duty of Reasonable Care that he
knows about, or should know about, but fails to live up to that obligation the
same way a reasonable person would. Think of an AD following a shooter’s
failure to obey basic shooting safety principles that the rest of us obey. If
someone is injured as a result of these failures, and the victim was in a place
where he belonged and should have been reasonably safe, then there was probably
a breach of duty of care. In fact, the law might go so far as to label this
accidental shooting “Res Ipsa Loquitor,” which is Latin for
“the thing speaks for itself” meaning someone obviously screwed up, and that
that screw up obviously caused damage to an innocent person.
3) Damages. Was the
person damaged? To keep things simple we’ll just look at damages that include
medical bills, pain and suffering, and lost wages. Back to the AD example we
can safely predict some possible damages a victim might suffer. He will likely
have medical bills, pain and suffering, and lost wages. Medical bills and lost
wages are pretty easy to calculate, but pain and suffering can be a little
tougher. Obviously, the longer someone suffers, the greater the potential
damages, but there are a lot of variables here. The second most important
damages consideration is whether they are substantial enough to justify the
investment of my firm’s time. The most important part of damages, however, is
whether they were caused by the Breach of Duty of Reasonable Care.
4) Causation. Did the
breach of duty cause the damages at issue? In the AD scenario, the question is
whether being shot caused the damages complained of by the victim.
Things get muddled in real life, and cases are rarely
perfectly clear, so we sometimes have to spend some time and money figuring out
whether the damages were caused by the breach of duty at issue. In the shooting
scenario, imagine if the victim had a heart attack the day after the shooting,
and the heart attack required an expensive medical procedure. I could find an
expert witness to testify that the heart attack was more probably than not
related to the shooting and the medical bills should be paid for by the
accidental shooter. The other side could likewise find an expert who would
convincingly opine that there is absolutely no way to say with any degree of
medical certainty that the shooting and heart attack were related. Some
witnesses and some cases are obviously stronger than others.
So, let’s say that my personal injury attorneys and I have
analyzed the case and we think that the tortfeasor (person who caused damages)
had a duty to the victim, breached that duty, and that the breach directly
caused damages, what do we look at next? Money. What’s the case worth, and
who’s going to pay our client, and us? Although, we occasionally take pro bono
cases, that’s not a business model that will keep my lawyers and staff paid, so
we look for the “deep pockets” we can reach into to extract enough money to
make our client whole, and pay our staff for time worked on the case. We
describe reaching into deep pockets as performing a “cashectomy.” Insurance is
a vital component of almost all of our deep pocket cashectomies.
Deep pocket, incidentally, is an American slang term that
usually means “extensive financial wealth or resources.” In the personal injury
context it is usually used in reference to insurance coverage. Some
individuals, and/or businesses are deep pockets, but more often than not, those
people/businesses are not going to pay out of their own pockets in any event.
As I pointed out
above, even if a tortfeasor is reasonably financially successful, he still
might be able to avoid paying our client by filing for bankruptcy protection.
If, however, there is insurance, then my client will get paid even if the
tortfeasor files for bankruptcy protection. Obviously, we always want to see
insurance coverage for every defendant’s actions, so that we know our client
will be paid.
Interestingly,
however, insurance isn’t obligated to pay for all possible claims. Under an
insurance policy, which is a contract, the insurance carrier is only required
to defend, and pay damages on, very specific types of claims as outlined in the
policy. Within the firearms world, the most common coverage issue arises from
the “intentional act” exclusion.
Intentional Act
Exclusion. Insurance coverage is only triggered by certain non-intentional
acts. The exclusion of insurance coverage for intentional acts actually goes
back hundreds of years, so there’s nothing new here. As a result of this long
history, intentional shootings are generally excluded from insurance coverage.
An AD, however, would probably be covered by insurance even if the shooter was
doing something exceptionally stupid when the hammer dropped. Juggling loaded
Glocks with rounds chambered would be stupid, but it might still be covered
under a policy if the juggling resulted in injury to someone. If, however, a
shooter intends to put a round into a person, the shooter will almost certainly
not enjoy insurance coverage for that event. It is important to be very
familiar with your policy and ensure that it does not exclude coverage for all
firearms events. In other words, make sure your policy is gun friendly.
Here’s an example of a
shooter I defended after an insurance carrier refused to: A local business
owner was assaulted by a half dozen Crips gang members at his Tacoma business.
He ran to his van, Crips in pursuit with pool cues and God knows what else.
hings get muddled in real life, and cases are rarely
perfectly clear, so we sometimes have to spend some time and money figuring out
whether the damages were caused by the breach of duty at issue. In the shooting
scenario, imagine if the victim had a heart attack the day after the shooting,
and the heart attack required an expensive medical procedure. I could find an
expert witness to testify that the heart attack was more probably than not
related to the shooting and the medical bills should be paid for by the
accidental shooter. The other side could likewise find an expert who would
convincingly opine that there is absolutely no way to say with any degree of
medical certainty that the shooting and heart attack were related. Some
witnesses and some cases are obviously stronger than others.
So, let’s say that my personal injury attorneys and I have
analyzed the case and we think that the tortfeasor (person who caused damages)
had a duty to the victim, breached that duty, and that the breach directly
caused damages, what do we look at next? Money. What’s the case worth, and
who’s going to pay our client, and us? Although, we occasionally take pro bono
cases, that’s not a business model that will keep my lawyers and staff paid, so
we look for the “deep pockets” we can reach into to extract enough money to
make our client whole, and pay our staff for time worked on the case. We
describe reaching into deep pockets as performing a “cashectomy.” Insurance is
a vital component of almost all of our deep pocket cashectomies.
Deep pocket, incidentally, is an American slang term that
usually means “extensive financial wealth or resources.” In the personal injury
context it is usually used in reference to insurance coverage. Some
individuals, and/or businesses are deep pockets, but more often than not, those
people/businesses are not going to pay out of their own pockets in any event.
As I pointed out
above, even if a tortfeasor is reasonably financially successful, he still
might be able to avoid paying our client by filing for bankruptcy protection.
If, however, there is insurance, then my client will get paid even if the
tortfeasor files for bankruptcy protection. Obviously, we always want to see
insurance coverage for every defendant’s actions, so that we know our client
will be paid.
Interestingly,
however, insurance isn’t obligated to pay for all possible claims. Under an
insurance policy, which is a contract, the insurance carrier is only required
to defend, and pay damages on, very specific types of claims as outlined in the
policy. Within the firearms world, the most common coverage issue arises from
the “intentional act” exclusion.
Intentional Act
Exclusion. Insurance coverage is only triggered by certain non-intentional
acts. The exclusion of insurance coverage for intentional acts actually goes
back hundreds of years, so there’s nothing new here. As a result of this long
history, intentional shootings are generally excluded from insurance coverage.
An AD, however, would probably be covered by insurance even if the shooter was
doing something exceptionally stupid when the hammer dropped. Juggling loaded
Glocks with rounds chambered would be stupid, but it might still be covered
under a policy if the juggling resulted in injury to someone. If, however, a
shooter intends to put a round into a person, the shooter will almost certainly
not enjoy insurance coverage for that event. It is important to be very
familiar with your policy and ensure that it does not exclude coverage for all
firearms events. In other words, make sure your policy is gun friendly.
Here’s an example of a
shooter I defended after an insurance carrier refused to: A local business
owner was assaulted by a half dozen Crips gang members at his Tacoma business.
He ran to his van, Crips in pursuit with pool cues and God knows what else.
C) Negligent
Entrustment. Loaning a firearm to a person known to do stupid things with
firearms might expose you to liability for acts done by that person with your
gun. I don’t advocate entrusting a weapon to anyone even a degree less
responsible than you. If you’re giving lessons to kids, have a system in place
before you get to the range, follow the systems and the rules diligently, and
assume that the kid is going to do something stupid that you must prevent. Even
with all that, you might still be liable for something the kid does with your
firearm. As an aside, I’m curious to see what will happen with the nine year
old Arizona girl who accidentally shot her firearms instructor with an Uzi. I
suspect the range will have some liability for the kid’s emotional trauma as
the event arguably comes close to Res Ipsa Loquitor. Before
you all send me hate mail about this, I’m not passing judgment or blame.
This was a heart
breaking tragedy that has devastated two families. I’m only offering the
range’s potential liability as a possible example of negligence. You can be
assured that a slew of other attorneys are doing the same thing right now in
anticipation of potential litigation. If you are sued for negligently entrusting
a firearm to someone, your insurance might cover this claim.
D) Failure to Secure.
This is similar to Negligent Entrustment, except that instead of giving the
firearm to someone untrustworthy, you simply leave it where a known
untrustworthy person accesses it and does something stupid with it. You can
expect to see more criminal charges and more civil suits against parents who
leave a firearm accessible to a child who uses the weapon to accidentally
injure another person.
The gun grabbers love
these stories and they have allies in many prosecutors’ offices and law firms.
Nonetheless, insurance might cover this type of event.
E) Intentional
Assaults. As pointed out above, intentional assaults are not generally covered
by insurance policies. Nonetheless, if you are sued for any sort of offense,
your first task would be to speak with a lawyer before anyone else. Your second
task is to call your insurance carrier. Interestingly, if the attorney suing
you has any experience at all in such suits, he will allege facts that should
trigger insurance coverage by alleging that your acts were negligent, or
reckless instead of intentional. Like I said, we all want to be able to perform
a “cashectomy” on an insurance company because those are the deepest pockets to
pick.
There are as many
potential firearms issues as there are firearms owners, but the above
represents my experience as a Tacoma criminal attorney and personal injury
lawyer. Although, we generally won’t take a case unless there is insurance
coverage, I don’t want you to think that you are safer from a lawsuit without
insurance. You aren’t. The main reason for this is that there are a lot of
lawyers who are dumb enough to take a bad case, but smart enough to make your
life hell for quite a while. I’m insured and you should be, too.