USCCA Sued in Federal Court: Refused to Cover Platinum Member

Status
Not open for further replies.
Not all insurance companies work the same way. Specifically, mutual self-insurance organizations have substantial differences from for-profit corporations. Those for-profit corporations work in the interest of shareholders. But mutual self-insurance or inter-insurance exchanges are not corporations, but rather where the members are simultaneously insured by each other and, as a group, own all the exchange's assets. Profits are returned to members. USAA is the biggest example of such.

While USAA does not offer insurance for legal expenses, I believe the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network is similar in that rather than being a for-profit corporation with the goal of profiting off subscriber's premiums or the investment thereof, it is a union of members who themselves own all the assets. This is not meant to imply an endorsement or recommendation of ACLDN, just to call attention to the distinction of what it is in contrast to insurance corporations.
 
The insurance company agrees to cover the litigation costs that most of us could never afford in even relatively minor cases.

I'm not convinced of that. I'm not convinced that our legal system works only for the insured or those who have an exhorbitant amount of liquid assets to pay attorneys. There is certainly evidence that money can help fund a defense that a person without it cannot reasonably expect. People like Robert Kraft or OJ Simpson can afford a costly but effective legal defense that most people simply cannot expect to afford, but that does not mean that a defendant in any case, major or minor, cannot hope to afford the costs of litigation without similar fortunes or insurance. We have extreme examples like George Zimmerman that disprove this. More importantly, we have a justice system that is intended to serve not just the rich and famous or those who've had the fortune of securing their attorney's help, but also the person who cannot afford the most expensive attorneys or millions of dollars in litigation, even those who cannot afford an attorney at all.

Look at the example of Joseph Roh. He could not have possibly hoped for a better legal defense from the most expensive and famous attorneys in the nation, and yet he does not seem to have any special means by which he secured that defense at exorbitant cost. Indeed, there is no reason to believe that "most of us" could not afford what he must have paid.

A good attorney is almost certainly essential to a successful legal defense. I am not convinced that large sums of insurance money guarantee a good attorney's help at all. I started a thread a while ago inquiring how to find a good attorney, but I don't think my question was answered satisfactorily. Some of the best attorney work I've seen done, was done for a pittance. Having deep pockets seems just as likely to attract an attorney who will help you spend it. I would be wary of any insurance scheme that promises to cover big litigation costs, but requires that you use their attorney. I would also be wary of paying for an insurance scheme while having not the faintest clue exactly who I would enlist for legal defense should the need arise. My advice is to find the good attorney first (and before you need them). Then determine how you would pay for them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top