dnewton3
Staff member
I have done much research into the topic of carry insurance (there are a few prominent companies out there such as USCCA, CCW Safe, US Law Shield, etc). All these are essentially memberships you buy into and get benefits such as training, swag stuff, and (most importantly) fiscal insurance coverage for various things such as legal defense, liability coverage, theft, etc. All these are based on unique offerings by each individual company and selected level of coverage. I think we're smart enough to understand these basic facts exist.
The topic most intriguing and concerning topic to me is that of claim denial ... when the insurance coverage backs out on you. At the core, these are insurance products, and so they most certainly come with caveats and exclusionary terms. I would encourage you to fully read and understand not only what is covered, but what is not covered in any product you are considering. There are some videos out there now on YT which indicate several instances of various brands denying coverage in seemingly covered events. I think the existing videos all have some manner of both truth and deceit/diversion in them, so I will leave you to your own conclusions in this regard.
If you know me, you understand I'm all about the details. I have emailed a few of the companies and asked for the raw data. I have asked each these exact questions, so that each can reply (apples to apples, so to speak):
Each company either did not respond, or responded in vague terms, citing "privacy" and "legal" reasons.
Yeah, right ...
I wasn't asking for detailed customer information or the outcome of any lawsuit. I was merely asking about the quantity of claims they receive and the quantity of claims denied by category. Yet I get nothing but muddy and evasive mumbo-jumbo. None of us are surprised at this, I hope.
The bottom line is that no insurance company (regardless of the product) wants to tell you how often they leave the customer twisting in the breeze alone. They don't want you to know diddly-squat about how badly they may screw you over.
I am not saying there are no happy customers in this product field. I believe there have been some good examples where coverage was fully extended. But I don't care about the successes; I want to understand the failures. THAT is what will help me understand the risks in terms of coverage applicability. But some of these companies (one in particular) have put out videos which claim people are "lying" about their product coverage, but when pressed for details, they say can't reveal that info. IOW, they want us to believe them, but not their competitors, based on pure blind faith. As if their counter-claim of coverage rate was somehow magically believable over the initial claim of claim denial examples.
* When it comes to vehicles, say trucks, we have lots of empirical data to use; fuel economy, tow ratings, HP and Torque figures. These all have mandated terms of standards for comparing and contrasting the products. Just because you buy an F150 doesn't mean you'll get the advertised 20mpg on the sticker, but at least you have a value of comparable magnitude to use when shopping. Etc ...
* When it comes to things like HVAC systems, we have SEER and AFUE standards which set performance criteria test standards so we can again compare apples-to-apples. Whereas your house may be slightly above or below a rated claim because of things like sun/shadows and ductwork, at least you have a tool for contrasting performance on a level field.
* When it comes to appliances, we can see energy efficiency consumption rates ...
* When it comes to tires, we can see traction and longevity ratings ...
* Etc ....
But insurance is a totally cloaked product line. They'll tell you what they will and will not cover, but leave you completely in the dark as to how often they deny coverage, which is probably one of the most important things we'd want to know. In summary, when it comes to carry insurance, not truer words were spoken ...... caveat emptor. Because none of them are going to be open/honest about how they may leave you stranded at the most vulnerable time in your life.
There are other options out there. I have chosen to put a law firm on retainer. There is no middle man; no underwriter or fiscal analyst to deny my claim for coverage. I pay up front for legal coverage and they are at my side with no third-party intervention. Note that this does not address the fiscal civil liability exposure; that's a different topic. But when it comes to legal defense, I'm good. I don't want to represent this as a perfect solution, but it's the right solution for my circumstances; it's part of an overall larger topic of legal and civil exposures I have addressed in my life.
The topic most intriguing and concerning topic to me is that of claim denial ... when the insurance coverage backs out on you. At the core, these are insurance products, and so they most certainly come with caveats and exclusionary terms. I would encourage you to fully read and understand not only what is covered, but what is not covered in any product you are considering. There are some videos out there now on YT which indicate several instances of various brands denying coverage in seemingly covered events. I think the existing videos all have some manner of both truth and deceit/diversion in them, so I will leave you to your own conclusions in this regard.
If you know me, you understand I'm all about the details. I have emailed a few of the companies and asked for the raw data. I have asked each these exact questions, so that each can reply (apples to apples, so to speak):
dnewton3 said:
Each company either did not respond, or responded in vague terms, citing "privacy" and "legal" reasons.
Yeah, right ...
I wasn't asking for detailed customer information or the outcome of any lawsuit. I was merely asking about the quantity of claims they receive and the quantity of claims denied by category. Yet I get nothing but muddy and evasive mumbo-jumbo. None of us are surprised at this, I hope.
The bottom line is that no insurance company (regardless of the product) wants to tell you how often they leave the customer twisting in the breeze alone. They don't want you to know diddly-squat about how badly they may screw you over.
I am not saying there are no happy customers in this product field. I believe there have been some good examples where coverage was fully extended. But I don't care about the successes; I want to understand the failures. THAT is what will help me understand the risks in terms of coverage applicability. But some of these companies (one in particular) have put out videos which claim people are "lying" about their product coverage, but when pressed for details, they say can't reveal that info. IOW, they want us to believe them, but not their competitors, based on pure blind faith. As if their counter-claim of coverage rate was somehow magically believable over the initial claim of claim denial examples.
* When it comes to vehicles, say trucks, we have lots of empirical data to use; fuel economy, tow ratings, HP and Torque figures. These all have mandated terms of standards for comparing and contrasting the products. Just because you buy an F150 doesn't mean you'll get the advertised 20mpg on the sticker, but at least you have a value of comparable magnitude to use when shopping. Etc ...
* When it comes to things like HVAC systems, we have SEER and AFUE standards which set performance criteria test standards so we can again compare apples-to-apples. Whereas your house may be slightly above or below a rated claim because of things like sun/shadows and ductwork, at least you have a tool for contrasting performance on a level field.
* When it comes to appliances, we can see energy efficiency consumption rates ...
* When it comes to tires, we can see traction and longevity ratings ...
* Etc ....
But insurance is a totally cloaked product line. They'll tell you what they will and will not cover, but leave you completely in the dark as to how often they deny coverage, which is probably one of the most important things we'd want to know. In summary, when it comes to carry insurance, not truer words were spoken ...... caveat emptor. Because none of them are going to be open/honest about how they may leave you stranded at the most vulnerable time in your life.
There are other options out there. I have chosen to put a law firm on retainer. There is no middle man; no underwriter or fiscal analyst to deny my claim for coverage. I pay up front for legal coverage and they are at my side with no third-party intervention. Note that this does not address the fiscal civil liability exposure; that's a different topic. But when it comes to legal defense, I'm good. I don't want to represent this as a perfect solution, but it's the right solution for my circumstances; it's part of an overall larger topic of legal and civil exposures I have addressed in my life.
