• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

So.... USCCA is pretty crap.

Bonesinium said:

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=p13X9mIEKS0&pp=ygUQdXNjY2EgYWxhbiBjb2xpZQ%3D%3D
Click to expand...

This is good, but still doesn't give the entire story.

this is what I know from the OPs video and ZERO context:

- some guy was allegedly screwed over by USCCA.
- USCCA made a video and talked sh*t about some other guy.
- this other guy got pissed and made a video talking sh*t about USCCA. (This is the video the OP posted).

What is missing is what happened that triggered all this.

All I see are two b*things videos.

@Agnotology
 
Last edited:
Broc said:
Time for NES favorite sport, mental gymnastics ...

Maybe if you are a CT resident standing on the border with NY Statate, someone on the NY side tries to attack you so you shoot him across State lines and in NY from CT.

LOL ... don't even know if that would be a thing. Might be like dividing by zero.
Click to expand...
You'd need a GOOD lawyer in that specific case. You'd want juris-my-diction in CT, not NY, at least I think you would, don't know CT self defense law or NY for that matter.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
Borders on the old "We won't take that clause out but don't worry, we will never enforce it" line.
Click to expand...
I've heard that for the last 40-some-odd years. Used it myself back when I was the customer instead of the supplier. Had to go all the way to "No, we won't sign that, and we'll pass on doing the work if it stays in" with some clients since I switched to the other side of the table.
 
meh said:
with the woman convicted of killing her husband who received $50K from them before they cut her off. The Colie case seems so far to have been a "ignore it and it
Click to expand...
They cut her off while she was still presumed innocent and facing charges. In other words, they basically said "We will not assist you in asserting your self-defense defense to the charges because we have determined you are guilty".

And the insult was the federal court rules "USCCA owes nothing because she was convicted".

The CEO of USCCA could have resolved this with "We are modifying our contract to define "self defense case" as any case in which the defense has indicated it will use "self defense" as a defense to criminal charges. Instead, he offers words that change nothing.
 
Last edited:
meh said:
Meh, not shocked. I've had to consider whether to drop them and may at my next renewal. I was annoyed by the CEOs response to the situation, and I don't like the company if he's any indication of their character. But business is business, and I have to figure out whether I think what happened in either of the two cases I know about might happen to me. I'm not convinced that it would.

Anyway, there's a clause that says they have the right to seek reimbursement, but they claim never to have done so. It's not hard to believe them. Lawyers draw up these things to protect the company. It is apparently not something that definitely will happen, rather something that could happen. I don't think they even did that with the woman convicted of killing her husband who received $50K from them before they cut her off. The Colie case seems so far to have been a "ignore it and it might go away" strategy rather than a denial, or they might have just dropped the ball. Not that these cases aren't troubling enough, but are these exceptions or the rule? Surely if it's the rule, there are dozens of other examples where coverage was denied when it was needed.
Click to expand...
Wasn't that woman a weird case, like she got the insurance and the day after shot her husband or something like that?
 
safetyfirst2125 said:
I have USCCA.

I am not watching 4 hours of videos to understand wtf happened here.

If anyone can summarize I’d appreciate it.

If not, I’ll keep paying USCCA.
Click to expand...
In two different cases, a member of USCCA was involved in a shooting, claimed self defense, and USCCA refused to pay for their defense. USCCA has received a lot of criticism and the waffling and prevarication in the response by the USCCA CEO was rather pathetic.
 
Last edited:
M1911 said:
In two different cases, a member of USCCA was involved in a shooting, claimed self defense, and USCCA refused to pay for their defense. USCCA has received a lot of criticixm and the waffling and prevarication in the response by the USCCA CEO was rather pathetic.
Click to expand...
I would be interested to know how many cases they pay out on vs these 2
 
Broc said:
This is good, but still doesn't give the entire story.

this is what I know from the OPs video and ZERO context:

- some guy was Allegedly screwed over by USCCA.
- USCCA made a video and talked sh*t about some other guy.
- this other guy got pissed and made a video talking sh*t about USCCA. (This is the video the OP posted).

What is missing is what happened that triggered all this.

All I see are two b*things videos.
Click to expand...
This happened in two separate cases. The response from the USCCA CEO is basically that USCCA reserves the right to not pay for your self defense legal fees for reasons.
 
I've gotten calls from uscca as a referral lawyer. In one instance the guy was refused coverage for a alleged road rage incident. On its face it did seem the guy's conduct was pretty wrongful and uscca denied coverage. But it did occur to me that in any instance of criminal charges the police report is going to read pretty poorly for the defendant.
 
nstassel said:
I've gotten calls from uscca as a referral lawyer. In one instance the guy was refused coverage for a alleged road rage incident. On its face it did seem the guy's conduct was pretty wrongful and uscca denied coverage. But it did occur to me that in any instance of criminal charges the police report is going to read pretty poorly for the defendant.
Click to expand...
Do you have any experience on how they are to deal with as the payer?

As far as the police report goes. Does the uscca go on any other details other than the report? If not i could see them denying coverage quite a bit
 
67ray said:
Most shocking thing I just heard about USCCA:
If you lose your criminal case, you have to REIMBURSE them for legal fees!!! After they are the ones who defended you
Talk about adding insult to injury
Click to expand...
Sounds like motivation to make sure the lawyer defending you sucks. That's just the kind of service I want to have my back!
 
nstassel said:
I've gotten calls from uscca as a referral lawyer. In one instance the guy was refused coverage for a alleged road rage incident. On its face it did seem the guy's conduct was pretty wrongful and uscca denied coverage. But it did occur to me that in any instance of criminal charges the police report is going to read pretty poorly for the defendant.
Click to expand...
This suggests that the two highly publicized cases may just be the tip of the iceberg.
 
nstassel said:
In one instance the guy was refused coverage for a alleged road rage incident
Click to expand...
so, just from the legal side of things - how any specifics of the factual incident are relevant to the subject of the insurance itself?
what language do they have there to disqualify the terms?
 
s&w3913 said:
Could you imagine this in Massachusetts.

I had CCW Safe I dropped my coverage.

At the gun shows they have perfectly voluptuous thick women with ample bosom and rear. Usually in leggings and open carrying.. they sell the “gun self defense insurance”. Sometimes open carrying some “exotic competition gun”.

Now gun theft insurance would be more reasonable… many people in NC make their cars a place to store their truck gun. And sometimes they get broken into.

My homeowners insurance covers my guns in the house.
Click to expand...
Does your policy have a limit on coverage for guns?
 
nstassel said:
I've gotten calls from uscca as a referral lawyer. In one instance the guy was refused coverage for a alleged road rage incident. On its face it did seem the guy's conduct was pretty wrongful and uscca denied coverage. But it did occur to me that in any instance of criminal charges the police report is going to read pretty poorly for the defendant.
Click to expand...

You are my contact for USCCA. So, if they call for me, please answer.
 
Broc said:
This is good, but still doesn't give the entire story.

this is what I know from the OPs video and ZERO context:

- some guy was Allegedly screwed over by USCCA.
- USCCA made a video and talked sh*t about some other guy.
- this other guy got pissed and made a video talking sh*t about USCCA. (This is the video the OP posted).

What is missing is what happened that triggered all this.

All I see are two b*things videos.
Click to expand...

This is the incident. He was acquitted of the serious charge but convicted of a nonsense unlawful discharge in a building charge or something like that. He’s now appealing the conviction and now USCCA is saying they’re representing him for said appeal, where at the trial he was stuck with a public defender and stuck in jail for 8 months.


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3vnPUh_u58s&pp=ygUUYWxhbiBjb2xpZSBzaG9vdGluZyA%3D
 
safetyfirst2125 said:
I have USCCA.

I am not watching 4 hours of videos to understand wtf happened here.

If anyone can summarize I’d appreciate it.

If not, I’ll keep paying USCCA.
Click to expand...
Basically, USCCA is an insurance policy. It is not a guarantee of legal representation.
As such, they are prohibited by law of providing coverage for any criminal act. Some of that is common sense, like the case they mentioned where the woman was convicted of murder in a pretty clear cut case.. no coverage.

But... the kid that shot the douchebag prankster at the mall.... well, it was illegal for him to have that gun in a mall. It doesn't matter if the shooting was self defense. He was a criminal before he drew his gun. A lawyer doesn't give a shit. An insurance company can not pay that guy anything, by law.

So... how could this screw YOU. Bad guy breaks into your house to do bad things. You have an illegal hi cap magazine in your Glock. No coverage for you.
You shoot him with your AR-15... with a telescoping stock... No lawyer for you.
Or maybe it was New Years eve and you were wasted. They could deny coverage.

But for me, the biggest issue is that they will deny you any benefit if you take any plea. You shoot someone in self defense, prosecution offers to reduce the charge from say manslaughter to some pissant misdemeanor. If you take it, they can not only deny benefits (likely) they can ask for what ever they spent to be reimbursed. (likelihood undetermined)
At least, that is my take. I am sure one of our resident attorneys can correct me if I am mistaken.
 
Bonesinium said:
This is the incident. He was acquitted of the serious charge but convicted of a nonsense unlawful discharge in a building charge or something like that. He’s now appealing the conviction and now USCCA is saying they’re representing him for said appeal, where at the trial he was stuck with a public defender and stuck in jail for 8 months.


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3vnPUh_u58s&pp=ygUUYWxhbiBjb2xpZSBzaG9vdGluZyA%3D
Click to expand...

Not my monkey not my fight but I wouldn’t have drawn in that situation
 
paul73 said:
so, just from the legal side of things - how any specifics of the factual incident are relevant to the subject of the insurance itself?
what language do they have there to disqualify the terms?
Click to expand...
They cover "self defense" cases, and retain the right to make the judgement as to whether or not a case is "self defense" before the courts adjudicate the claim.
 
safetyfirst2125 said:
Not my monkey not my fight but I wouldn’t have drawn in that situation
Click to expand...
I agree, I think he shouldn’t have drawn in that situation.

However that shooting wasn't clearly criminal — there was an argument that it was self defense and it appears that nevertheless USCCA refused to cover his defense. This was one of those gray zone self defense cases, where an articulate argument can be made for and against. It isn’t clear why USCCA refused to cover his self defense case because USCCA won’t address the question which is the elephant in the room.

Which leads to the import question concerning USCCA — will they cover me if I need them? We all like to think that we are the good guy and any situation that I’m involved in will be a clear cut case of self defense. But if it is that clear cut, chances are you won’t get charged in the first place. When would you need USCCA insurance? You would need the coverage when you get charged, which is more likely if the situation isn’t clear cut, which is when it is more likely that USCCA will deny coverage.

In other words, it appears that USCCA is acting like many insurance companies — they are eager to accept your premiums but when you make a claim they try to find a way to not pay.
 
fencer said:
Basically, USCCA is an insurance policy. It is not a guarantee of legal representation.
As such, they are prohibited by law of providing coverage for any criminal act. Some of that is common sense, like the case they mentioned where the woman was convicted of murder in a pretty clear cut case.. no coverage.

But... the kid that shot the douchebag prankster at the mall.... well, it was illegal for him to have that gun in a mall. It doesn't matter if the shooting was self defense. He was a criminal before he drew his gun. A lawyer doesn't give a shit. An insurance company can not pay that guy anything, by law.

So... how could this screw YOU. Bad guy breaks into your house to do bad things. You have an illegal hi cap magazine in your Glock. No coverage for you.
You shoot him with your AR-15... with a telescoping stock... No lawyer for you.
Or maybe it was New Years eve and you were wasted. They could deny coverage.

But for me, the biggest issue is that they will deny you any benefit if you take any plea. You shoot someone in self defense, prosecution offers to reduce the charge from say manslaughter to some pissant misdemeanor. If you take it, they can not only deny benefits (likely) they can ask for what ever they spent to be reimbursed. (likelihood undetermined)
At least, that is my take. I am sure one of our resident attorneys can correct me if I am mistaken.
Click to expand...
This is good detail.
If it was illegal to have a gun there, it changes things.

People can't be bothered to provide the details.
 
M1911 said:
I agree, I think he shouldn’t have drawn in that situation.

However that shooting wasn't clearly criminal — there was an argument that it was self defense and it appears that nevertheless USCCA refused to cover his defense. This was one of those gray zone self defense cases, where an articulate argument can be made for and against. It isn’t clear why USCCA refused to cover his self defense case because USCCA won’t address the question which is the elephant in the room.

Which leads to the import question concerning USCCA — will they cover me if I need them? We all like to think that we are the good guy and any situation that I’m involved in will be a clear cut case of self defense. But if it is that clear cut, chances are you won’t get charged in the first place. When would you need USCCA insurance? You would need the coverage when you get charged, which is more likely if the situation isn’t clear cut, which is when it is more likely that USCCA will deny coverage.

In other words, it appears that USCCA is acting like many insurance companies — they are eager to accept your premiums but when you make a claim they try to find a way to not pay.
Click to expand...
You need USCCA from the second the cops show up. At least that is what they say, call the USCCA number and do whatever the cops ask.
 
fencer said:
As such, they are prohibited by law of providing coverage for any criminal act. Some of that is common sense, like the case they mentioned where the woman was convicted of murder in a pretty clear cut case.. no coverage.

But... the kid that shot the douchebag prankster at the mall.... well, it was illegal for him to have that gun in a mall. It doesn't matter if the shooting was self defense. He was a criminal before he drew his gun. A lawyer doesn't give a shit. An insurance company can not pay that guy anything, by law.
Click to expand...
1) The prohibition on "coverage for a criminal act" generally refers to insurance paying the defendant's penalties, not legal representation. NY has outlawed insurance covering self defense legal fees since the legislature decided that such fees are a punishment for being accused but absent such a law, legal coverage is allowed. Also, there is the issue of adjudication - who would decide, before trial, if someone was guilty for coverage purposes?

2) The woman in the spouse case, and the mall shooter, were presumed innocent at the time the claim was filed. Insurance against a criminal act refers to things like a policy that will pay your fines. By claiming to "Fund a defense", USCCA is making a representation they they will pay even if the government has declared your action to not be self defense. The successful USCCA strategy was to keep the claim tied up in court until it could use the conviction as a justification not to pay. In some cases, this strategy could actually increase the chances of the person being convicted.

3) Was it a violation of law for the guy in the mall to have a gun, or a violation of mall policy? According to handgunlaw.us, Virginia does not have a binding signage law so, if true, the person was not in violation of a law by carrying.

Insurance can and does provide some coverage for criminal acts. If one is convicted of DUI, the insurance still pays the claim for damages to your vehicle, as well as to the other party. If a person is shot while committing armed robbery, their health insurance will still pay for medical treatment. But, insurance carriers could not issue a policy that covered any fine assessed for either of these criminal acts.
 

Similar threads

F*ck the USCCA with a rusty stick
2 3 4
Replies
114
Views
3K
PappyM3
PappyM3
Is there a reason.......
2 3
Replies
66
Views
2K
CMEBoston
CMEBoston
Groton is next in line
2
Replies
37
Views
1K
Asaltweapon
Asaltweapon
Facebook is insane.
2
Replies
43
Views
953
HARRYM
H
Nevada Supreme Court Upholds Ban on So-Called ‘Ghost Guns’
Replies
4
Views
192
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
Back
Top Bottom