Owen Sparks said:
Even if you are wealthy a jury may hesitate to award a large amount of cash to a would be criminal. If insurance is paying for it they might be a lot more generous....
[1] Do you have any evidence to support this notion or is it just something you pulled out of the air?
[2] In any case, it would be rare for a jury to know for a fact (they might make assumptions) whether or not there's insurance to cover any judgment. Evidence of the presence or absence of insurance is generally not admissible in court.
[3] In any case, a primary issue is the cost of defense. One carries liability insurance in large part to finance one's defense if sued. The cost of defending a civil claim through the point of a jury verdict can run anywhere from $50,000 to $200,000, or even more, depending on how complex the case is. Without insurance, the defendant will have to cover that cost out of his own pocket even it he wins.
Owen Sparks said:
...My states Castle Doctrine includes civil immunity (you can’t be sued) if you are forced to defend yourself in accordance with the law. That is the way to handle this, not through insurance...
Kleanbore addressed this fallacy pretty well in post 12. I might add that all Castle Doctrine and civil immunity laws have a number of conditions that need to be satisfied for the protection of those laws to attach. So one can find himself in court to resolve disputes about whether those conditions were satisfied.
In addition, even if your State has a civil immunity law, don't you ever travel? And even if you don't, some people do; and someone might find himself having to defend himself in a State without a civil immunity law.
Owen Sparks said:
...Just look at what medical malpractice insurance has done to the cost of going to the doctor...
Except --
[1] Liability for professional negligence goes back a long time, is well settled base on Common Law principles, and exists even without insurance.
[2] So without medical malpractice insurance, physicians would be personally liable for the cost of any judgment. The risk of financial ruin might discourage people from pursuing a career in medicine (and at times when malpractice insurance became extremely difficult to get, or too expensive, many doctors left the practice). And of course, doctors would be personally responsible for the possibly staggering costs of defending against a malpractice claim. Reducing the supply of doctors also drives up the cost of medical care.
[3] And professional negligence does exist. Without malpractice insurance, someone injured by the negligence of a doctor might not be able to be properly compensated.
Nicky Santoro said:
Some people are of the opinion that if you are not there when the popo arrive you are not involved....
And why taking a powder is in general a truly lousy idea has been discussed at some length
here and
here.