Civil prosecution immunity?

[HoosierLife]

Was reading on another forum about insurance and programs for paying for attorneys after a justified shooting. Most don't cover civil actions even after a justified shoot. I read that in some states folks are immune from civil prosecution of the shoot was justified.

What are Indiana's law in regards to civil prosecution for justified shootings?

If we are not immune, are there any programs/insurance policies you can recommend?

 

[mcjon77]

I would like to know this too. I know that Illinois has civil immunity if the shooting is ruled self defense, but that immunity is only from being sued by your attacker and his next of kin. For example, if I am being robbed and I shoot my attacker and kill him, his family can't sue me for any reason. However, if during that same incident one of my bullets misses or over-penetrates and hits a bystander, that bystander (or his next of kin) CAN sue me, even if it was self-defense.

 

[Denny347]

Indiana law IC35-41-3-2 spells it out. From what lawyers have told me, this means only CRIMINAL protection and not civil. The term "legal jeopardy" seems to refer to criminal proceedings as civil trials are not referred to as "legal proceedings".

(c) A person is justified in using reasonable force against any other
person to protect the person or a third person from what the person
reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force.
However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to
prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the
commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be
placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the
person or a third person by reasonable means necessary

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I read that in some states folks are immune from civil prosecution of the shoot was justified.

Other states do, you are quite correct. Be ware of Kirk's First Law of the Internet.

What are Indiana's law in regards to civil prosecution for justified shootings?

That's an extremely broad question, do you mean "do we have civil immunity in Indiana?" If so, that answer is no.

If we are not immune, are there any programs/insurance policies you can recommend?

1. Live a life of peace. Hang around with good people.

2. If you want to scare someone, put on a rubber mask.

3. Don't get in fights, especially gunfights.

4. Turn your outside house lights on and lock your doors.

5. Above seek training. The more training you have, the less likely you will need to use it.

As to specific insurance programs that cover intentional acts, I am unfamiliar and sorry that I cannot help.

 

[mcjon77]

Just to add:

There are several companies offering concealed carry/self defense insurance. Some (as HoosierLife mentioned) ONLY cover expenses during a criminal trial. However, some do provide civil damages insurance as well. I was looking at the USCCA's insurance plan and it seems that they also cover civil damages. Their silver plan covers up to $250K in damages, while their platinum plan covers up to $1,000,000. https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/uscca-membership/Members_Persuade.asp?ID=3steps&SID=Homepage_2015

There is an interesting article about chosing the right self defense insurance here: How to Choose Concealed Carry Insurance - Guns & Ammo

In addition to the point about some folks not needing civil damages protection due to their state's civil immunity statutes, they also bring up the fact that many times the damages may be covered under the defendant's homeowner's insurance, IF the event happened in their home/on their property.

I am reminded of a case with one of James Yeager's students that got into a DGU with some hostile neighbors. The neighbors told the police that the confrontation/shooting happened on the street/sidewalk. However when it was time for a civil suit, they changed their tune and said that the confrontation/shooting occurred in the defendant's driveway, allowing them to collect off of his homeowner's insurance policy.

 

[2A_Tom]

Indiana law IC35-41-3-2 spells it out. From what lawyers have told me, this means only CRIMINAL protection and not civil. The term "legal jeopardy" seems to refer to criminal proceedings as civil trials are not referred to as "legal proceedings".

(c) A person is justified in using reasonable force against any other
person to protect the person or a third person from what the person
reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force.
However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to
prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the
commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be
placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the
person or a third person by reasonable means necessary

Other states do, you are quite correct. Be ware of Kirk's First Law of the Internet.



That's an extremely broad question, do you mean "do we have civil immunity in Indiana?" If so, that answer is no.



1. Live a life of peace. Hang around with good people.

2. If you want to scare someone, put on a rubber mask.

3. Don't get in fights, especially gunfights.

4. Turn your outside house lights on and lock your doors.

5. Above seek training. The more training you have, the less likely you will need to use it.

As to specific insurance programs that cover intentional acts, I am unfamiliar and sorry that I cannot help.

This is the first time that I have read this. Maybe I missed another thread, but I'm glad that finally got the correct information. I've always read the IC as covering civil liability also.

That is why we need to keep coming back. Thanks Denny and Kirk.

 

[singlesix]

Not my quote, "every bullet that leaves your gun has a lawyer attached to it"

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Understand that self-defense is still a defense in civil tort, and a strong one at that, in Indiana.

Not my quote, "every bullet that leave your gun has a lawyer attached to it"

That is Heidi Smith.

 

[romad7]

These two will cover civil suits to different degrees. I have both but am leaning towards CCWSafe as my primary.

Comparison - CCW Safe vs. Second Call Defense

 

[HoosierLife]

These two will cover civil suits to different degrees. I have both but am leaning towards CCWSafe as my primary.

Comparison - CCW Safe vs. Second Call Defense

I thought ccwsafe did not include coverage for civil. Or just attorney's fees. I thought there was some catch?

 

[TheSpark]

IANAL.

If you shoot someone in self defense the odds are you will not be ruled against in a civil or criminal case in Indiana. Of course, there is a good chance you will face a civil case even if a prosecutor does not press charges. Just as it is in criminal court, self defense is a defense in civil court. However, anything can happen in both civil and criminal cases so be prepared.

Also, your life is more important that anything you own (property and/or money) which is all they can take from you in civil court. I will take the risk of losing such items any day over the prospect of losing my life.

 

[HoughMade]

Criminal prosecution or not, you may be sued. The suing type...the ones who are money hungry, aren't likely to be "satisfied" with a criminal prosecution. There's no money in it for them.

There are no guarantees of being sued or not being sued. Sometimes it happens, sometimes it doesn't.

Anyhoo,

How does this supposed "immunity" work other places. Are you "immune" if you used reasonable force to defend yourself? If so....that's not immunity. Most kinds of "immunity" may require a court case or even a trial to see whether they apply, so the advantage is......?

 

[Expat]

Criminal prosecution or not, you may be sued. The suing type...the ones who are money hungry, aren't likely to be "satisfied" with a criminal prosecution. There's no money in it for them.

There are no guarantees of being sued or not being sued. Sometimes it happens, sometimes it doesn't.

Anyhoo,

How does this supposed "immunity" work other places. Are you "immune" if you used reasonable force to defend yourself? If so....that's not immunity. Most kinds of "immunity" may require a court case or even a trial to see whether they apply, so the advantage is......?

I read an article on Texas talking about the civil immunity under the Stand your Ground protections. You can request a pretrial conference with the judge requesting immunity. He is supposed to grant it if it appears applicable.

 

[Alamo]

I read an article on Texas talking about the civil immunity under the Stand your Ground protections. You can request a pretrial conference with the judge requesting immunity. He is supposed to grant it if it appears applicable.

Oh damn. When Kirk brought up the First Law of the Internet, I was in the back of the classroom waving my hand wildly, but someone else got there first. Sigh.

Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code
CH. 83. USE OF DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON
§ 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY.
A defendant who uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9, Penal Code, is immune
from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant's use of force or deadly force, as applicable.

There are some anecdotal reports that Texans who have shot someone in self-defense have been sued in civil court, but so far I have not run across an actual case where I can point to a reference.

That said, here is probably the best summary of what protection Texas's civil immunity provision provides: TexasCHLforum.com ? View topic - Civil immunity issues at CHL renewal. The guy who wrote that post has long been a civil practice attorney, as well as a stalwart of advancing the 2A in Texas, and I believe he was also a peace officer in his younger days. He probably has a pretty good handle on it.

The short course is while you can still be sued, because bringing a complaint to court is considered a right, you can reach an early termination of the case in your favor if you can show the judge right up front that it was a good self-defense shooting. Having a "no-bill" from the grand jury or letter of intent not to prosecute from the DA in your hand is strong medicine in this case. The practical effect seems to be that attorneys don't want to take on a "good" SD shooting.

Not even Joe Horn got sued and he danced pretty darn close to the line. If there was a chance of a civil suit succeeding I would have thought that one of the anti-gun groups would have picked it up and run with it against him to use as publicity to try to kill "stand your ground" and "castle doctrine" and whatever else gets their panties in a knot, but...crickets.

 

[romad7]

I thought ccwsafe did not include coverage for civil. Or just attorney's fees. I thought there was some catch?

The second section in that link says they cover everything. The only catch is that it has to be a justified use of force and the member must have a carry permit. Other than that it looks pretty comprehensive, even covers non-firearm weapons if you can't get to your gun.

 

[Tactically Fat]

Another good reason for us to contact our insurance company and price out umbrella insurance coverage.

And don't brag about it. To anyone. Not even your low-life brother-in-law that comes over and drinks your beer. Because if he finds out that you've got a million bucks in liability coverage, I bet he'll somehow figure out a way to injure himself pretty badly while helping you move your gun safe. And then trip on a broken sidewalk on the way to his car. Stupid low-life brother-in-law. Sheesh.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

How does this supposed "immunity" work other places. Are you "immune" if you used reasonable force to defend yourself? If so....that's not immunity. Most kinds of "immunity" may require a court case or even a trial to see whether they apply, so the advantage is......?

A guaranteed Summary Judgment hearing?

It's a distinction without difference. Things done for political reasons that have very little practical impact.

Analogous to the hysteria over codifying Indiana's existing "no duty to retreat" rule. The Indiana Supreme Court abolished the duty to retreat 150 years ago yet as soon as Florida changed their rule, everyone set their hair on fire and ran around the conference room table.

 

[HoughMade]

If I have evidence....like a client's testimony and other admissible evidence, that a shooting was justified as proper self-defense, I'll file my MSJ statute or no.

The Texas statute cited above, "A defendant who uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9...." Someone has to decide if the force was justified. That determination doesn't fall out of the sky. If there are no "genuine issues of material fact", that is, no disputed evidence that the force was justified, you get your MSJ granted and the case goes away. If there is disputed evidence, you buy yourself a trial. Either way, this so-called "immunity" doesn't stop you from being sued. It adds something to the defense, but not that much.

 

[SteveM4A1]

Another good reason for us to contact our insurance company and price out umbrella insurance coverage.

Be sure to check under the exclusions for intentional acts, same goes for your homeowners. But for the extra $20-40 a month, umbrella policies are definitely worth the piece of mind.

 

[HoughMade]

Be sure to check under the exclusions for intentional acts, same goes for your homeowners. But for the extra $20-40 a month, umbrella policies are definitely worth the piece of mind.

Certainly, check the the policy, but almost all standard policies have the "intentional act" exclusion, which is why there is firearms specific insuance.