Engaging in an act of self defense will involve two separate and distinct legal processes - criminal procedures and civil actions. These are two different areas of law and specialized to the extent that many criminal lawyers will not take civil work and visa versa.

If you are involved in shooting another person, make no mistake, you will probably be detained and your weapon might be confiscated. The time involved to establish your innocence will vary from a few hours to months or even years. A criminal lawyer should be retained as quickly as possible and this will involve legal fees and retainers. YOUR HOMEOWNERS POLICY OR YOUR UMBRELLA POLICY WILL NOT RESPOND TO ANY OF THESE EXPENSES. You are on your own. With a favorable result in your criminal defense, our policy will reimburse this expense to the limit of our liability on the policy. (Note that this reimbursement will be twice or five times what the NRA policy will reimburse depending on the limit your choose.)

If you do injure or kill your adversary in an act of self defense you will be sued by some interested party. Even if your state has a castle doctrine, you will still be sued and will have to go through the legal process of defending this suit until it is dismissed in court. It is doubtful that your homeowners policy will respond to these suits due to the definition of occurrence in those policies which includes the requirement that the occurrence be "accidental' and also because of the intentional acts exclusion. Once again, our policy will respond unequivocally in defense and payment of these suits up to our limit of liability.

YOU WILL INCUR LEGAL COSTS REGARDLESS OF YOUR STATE LAWS OR THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF THE SHOOTING. Estimates that we have seen vary between $100,000 and $250,000 for a righteous shoot (varies by state). Can you afford that kind of out of pocket expense?

"The chances of this happening are so remote that I don't need insurance." If the chances are so remote of being involved in a self defense situation, why do you bother to carry a concealed weapon at all? The chances of your house burning are about the same, but you wouldn't consider not insuring your house.

"This insurance is written on a surplus lines basis and accordingly must be expensive for what your get." Surplus lines carriers write coverages that are not available in the standard market. Standard companies will generally not insure any liability exposures that involve firearms - ammunition manufacturers, gunsmiths, ranges, shooting clubs and instructors are all written on a surplus lines basis. The liability coverages involving firearms offered by the NRA are all written on a surplus lines basis. Rates in the surplus lines market are established in the open market and are in a lot of cases much more flexible than standard lines rates which must be filed with each individual state.

"The policy is redundant with my other insurance - homeowners, personal liability, umbrella." None of the liability policies you currently carry will respond to any expenses on the criminal side of the equation, which can be expensive even if it is a righteous shooting.
"And most exclude coverage for intentional acts.  They'll argue that shooting an attacker is intentional, even if legal, and thus outside of their duty to defend you." -David Hardy, Supreme Court Attorney and scholar

"My state has a castle doctrine and I can't be sued for an act of self defense." First, your act of self defense must be legally determined to be a lawful act of self defense before it would fall under the castle doctrine. Secondly, anyone can sue anyone for anything and accordingly you will be sued castle doctrine or not. A defense of this civil suit must be mounted until the court decides that your case falls under the provisions of your castle doctrine. Thirdly, in most cases, the castle doctrine only applies within your own residence and does not apply to acts outside of your own premises.
"No, you can be sued and even prosecuted.  Even when the castle doctrine applies (generally meaning you were in your home when someone forcibly entered it) it means only that you have a much better chance on winning--after spending tens of thousands of dollars for legal fees.  It creates a presumption that you were in the right, and that's no barrier to charging or suing you with a claim that the evidence against you is sufficient, despite the presumption."-David Hardy, Supreme Court Attorney and scholar

Rate your risk of serious assault:
https://secure.moses.com/www.rateyourrisk.org/beaten.html

Massad Ayoob - The Graham/Chambers Shooting
American Handgunner - March/April, 2010

"On a side note, in the state of Texas all shootings have to go before a grand jury. Even if dropped there as a justified shooting I've had attorneys quote the cost in the 20k - 50k range."
danprkr
Member
Join Date: April 26, 2009
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=502217

Why You Need CCW Insurance
http://www.softgreenglow.com/wp/?p=8332#comments

Harold Fish is Free!
http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2009/07/23/harold-fish-is-free/

Jim Burleson Case, Tucumcari, NM (starting at 34:31)
http://www.atsn.tv/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=355:mark-walters-&catid=17:daily-show&Itemid=63

CCW Violation: My experience and trial in a court of law.
http://ohioliberty.blogspot.com/2009/07/ccw-violation-my-experience-and-trial.html

After the Shooting Stops: Dealing with the Aftermath of a Lethal Encounter
http://www.usconcealedcarry.com/public/227.cfm

Aftermath of a Shooting
http://www.neshooters.com/miranda.pdf

After a shooting, What to reveal
http://www.tactical-life.com/online/combat-handguns/after-a-shooting-what-to-reveal/

Self defense or Unjustified Shooting?
http://law.jrank.org/pages/10128/Self-Defense.html

Homeowners Policies and Acts of Self Defense
http://www.irmi.com/expert/articles/2006/cooper01.aspx

"Reasonable Actions to Protect Persons or Property"

…In the case of Cooperative Fire Insurance Association of Vermont v. Bizon et al., 693 A.2d 722 (1997), the superior court held that even though the insured's shooting and killing an intruder may have been done to protect his property, the policy contained an unambiguous intentional acts exclusion and there was no question but that the action was intentional. And in the case of AutoOwners Insurance Company v. Harrington et al., 565 N.W.2d 839 (1997) the supreme court of Michigan held that "to except injurious action taken in self-defense from an intentional acts exclusion would impermissible disregard the clear language of the exclusion…"
Homeowners Coverage Guide, Interpretation and Analysis by Diane W. Richardson

This policy will respond without ambiguity and without having to file litigation against your other insurance companies when they deny cover (with a good chance of losing that litigation).