This issue of a hunter shooting a PH has had me wondering.

From a legal perspective and insurance concern, if I am hunting in the USA and the hunter shoots the guide.

What is the liability? I guess my question is since I don't know much about insurance.

I don't think I have any insurance that would cover the medical expenses or any expenses for this mistake?

I don't think my homeowner's policy would cover it since it did not happen at my home?

Just thinking what options there would be in such a situation in the USA. Not asking about Africa as I am sure 100% of the time things are different.

I am not asking for a debate but for some information of a risk and what if anything can be done to help cover both parties in this case.

Please don't respond with comments like don't shoot your guide is the first step.

I am hoping this would be informative for me and others. Definitely not my area of expertise.

Justin

You need an Umbrella Liability Policy. Buy them for $1MM and up to supplement your Homeowners Policy. Most folks who have a decent size net worth carry them because of our lawsuit loving society.

In the UK you can't hunt without a liability policy and you have to join a hunting club to access them, at least I did when I hunted Scotland a few years back.

And I am not an insurance agent so I am not an expert... just have an Umbrella Policy.

An umbrella policy provides additional liability limits on top of the liability limits of your homeowners policy. If you're HO policy doesn't cover it (which it doesn't), the excess liability (umbrella) won't either.

You'd need to consult an attorney in the state in which you hunt (or wherever the event might occur). A HO policy might provide coverage - look at the policy. The event doesn't necessarily have to occur at your home (read your particular policy). In addition to the HO policy, an excess or umbrella is also a possibility. As with the HO, you'd have to read the excess policy for potential coverage. This is not legal advice, just a suggestion as to where to start looking for your answer.

My homeowner's liabiltiy policy will cover an accidental shooting anywhere in the world, even on a paid hunt in Africa. Confirmed it recently with my insurance company.

If you can, buy at least a $1,000,000 umbrella policy.

All of what is said here is true. However, let me caution you. A personal policy will never cover these acts if they were business related. A booking agent and/or TV personality filming/hunting with clients is on business. It is highly unlikely that a personal policy would cover an incident. On the other hand, if one were just a hunter on vacation (like me for example) I should have coverage.

quote:

Originally posted by JGRaider:
An umbrella policy provides additional liability limits on top of the liability limits of your homeowners policy. If you're HO policy doesn't cover it (which it doesn't), the excess liability (umbrella) won't either.

Incorrect. I know first hand of a guy who accidentally (negligently) shot another hunting. the shooters homeowners insurance paid out up to the liability amount in the policy. They did not cover medical. The victim was uninsured so we paid for it through medicaid.

Yep, like Mike and Lechwe, my umbrella policy would cover a shooting accident in the field. I guess it depends on your policy.

Justin I hope you don't mind if I asked this here...let me know and I will remove but I was curious...

Since it is so difficult for Africa's PH's to afford insurance coverage...would it be in THEIR best interest to make it mandatory for their hunters to carry X-$$$$$$$$'s of insurance for those PH's that choose to do so...Just curious if that might help them?

They might get less clients because of this but at least they know their arse's are covered...Again, don't know just curious if anyone had an answer to this?

Thanks!

As soon as Tim reported this accident/incident, I called my HO insurance carrier & ask what I could do to cover something like this. He told me an umbrella policy for 1 million was not that expensive (don't remember how much) so I added it right then.
Hopefully it never ever gets used!
As for legal liability, that is probably a state by state issue.

quote:

From a legal perspective and insurance concern, if I am hunting in the USA and the hunter shoots the guide.

I am sorry folks, it has been a long two weeks, and I really should not make this comment, but my God told me if I didn't, he was gonna send me straight to hell.

But if a client shoots an American guide, he had better be ready to put in a finisher because if the guide ain't dead he is gonna start shooting back.

Sorry, I know this is a serious discussion. I do not know how a situation like this would be handled. I really guess I put too much faith in my clients having their head screwed on straight, and because of that I don't pay as much attention as I should when a client is behind me with a loaded firearm.

From the several shooting incident articles I've read about.
Insurance is going to be one of the least concerns you'll have. The laws will burn you long before the insurance subject comes up.

Negligent discharge is likely a manslaughter type situation. A few yrs back a couple hunters stopped to eat and one handled his rifle and it went off and shot his buddy. I'm not sure if it killed him or not, but, the shooter got at least ten yrs in the state pen over it. This happened about 90mi west of here.

George

In the UK you can't hunt without a liability policy and you have to join a hunting club to access them, at least I did when I hunted Scotland a few years back[/QUOTE]

If you hunt in the UK with a club, the membership fee will include insurance, to cover your social hunting for example B.A.S.C.
A home poliy wont be acceptable. The club will keep insurance tight under one umbrella policy for all their members.

When you hunt with a Gillie or a Keeper, who is employed by an estate, the estate will almost certainlly want you covered by their insurance and your insurance. Any incidents/accident happens, then the insuance companies will fight it out, to see who is liable for for said accident/incident.

If you earn a living, say as a pest controller, using firearms,your social insurance will not cover it. You must have liabillity insurance, usually to cover £5,000,000, my insurance for this pupose is £350.00 to £400.00 per year. Who you are doing the work for will demand it or they wont hire you.
On the otherhand someone hunting/shooting as a hobby/social as an independant person is not forced to carry insurance. But if they have an incident/accident they are toast.

Especially if the accident involves an American citizen. .

As an aside, imho, and thats all it is. Tim will have no say in how his employer's/ or his Company insurance handles the case . He will have been told to stfu, and get on with his life, and probably with his future TV work on the line. An old sinic like me might even think that the insurers are sitting on their hands to see just what the PH's final disability will be.jc

Tim will care for the final outcome,the insurers wont give a shit.jc

Question?

Do NRA members have some sort of coverage as a benefit of membership?

quote:

Originally posted by John Chalmers:

As an aside, imho, and thats all it is. Tim will have no say in how his employer's/ or his Company insurance handles the case . He will have been told to stfu, and get on with his life, and probably with his future TV work on the line. An old sinic like me might even think that the insurers are sitting on their hands to see just what the PH's final disability will be.jc

Tim will care for the final outcome,the insurers wont give a shit.jc

John,
You are probably 100% correct. What most don't realize is that insurance underwriters look at the insured as a commodity...nothing more! Their accountants are hired to maximize what is coming in and minimize what is going out...WITHOUT EMOTION.

You can bet your last dollar that the insurance company is going to spend as little as "legally" possible on Stu...100% guaranteed.

Several years ago the prosecuting attorney, in Pike County, Missouri charged a deer hunter with Involuntary Manslaughter for negligently shooting his hunting partner. I spoke to the prosecutor and inquired as to the specifics surrounding the incident. IIRC he told me that the shooter was firing through thick brush without any ability to see the deer. Evidently the partner was on the other side and it was impossible to see through the brush. Did not follow the outcome, though. Guess one needs to be cognizant of the criminal aspect as well.

Dutch

As a career prosecutor (twenty years in the district attorney's office, where I am sitting right now instead of reading about a sexual assault case) I can tell you that an accidental shooting in my state would almost certainly result in some sort of criminal liability. Depending on the circumstances (such as how serious the injury is, whether alcohol was involved, etc) the person doing the shooting could be looking at anything from a misdemeanor punishable by up to nine months in the county jail (negligent handling of a dangerous weapon) to a felony punishable by up to 65 years in prison (first degree reckless homocide while armed with a dangerous weapon.)
So, yes, insurance and civil liability would very likely be the least of your worries.

Wow!

Dutch44 and SDIRKS I think an accidental shooting in the field should be investigated as a crime. Too many incidents of silliness or stupidity that border on criminal actions. Although I am required to carry liability insurance as a hunter in Germany I am still responsible for my actions AND those of my hunting clients in the field.

And people wonder WTF happened to the USA...Damm...the F@#&ing law makers, enforcers, and attorneys are what is wrong...Dam...and I have been shot...so I get the priviledge saying this.

Sorry you feel that way, Ledvm, but there really is such a thing as criminal stupidity. If someone is drinking and accidentally shoots someone while hunting, I would have zero hesitation with prosecuting them for their actions. Likewise if they fire a rifle blindly into the brush at a "deer" and instead shoot their Uncle Joe. Those are not accidents. Those are acts of criminal negligence or recklessness.

quote:

Originally posted by sdirks:
Sorry you feel that way, Ledvm, but there really is such a thing as criminal stupidity. If someone is drinking and accidentally shoots someone while hunting, I would have zero hesitation with prosecuting them for their actions. Likewise if they fire a rifle blindly into the brush at a "deer" and instead shoot their Uncle Joe. Those are not accidents. Those are acts of criminal negligence or recklessness.

I rest my case...no wonder the USA is developing into such a sorry place to live. I disagree totally with you on all aspects...except the alchol.

And again...I pack lead so I get the right to say it...dam...what is the world coming too.

I guess there is a good reason I live in "Texas where common sense still prevails"...at least most of the time.

Well, common sense is fine, but just because it is a gun used in a stupid/illegal act doesn't mean someone should get a pass IMO.

Change the "sound shot" into someone driving a car who ignores a stop sign, smashes into your family vehicle and kills you wife. Do you think the driver of the stop sign runner should have no legal liability?

Is some dumb SOB shot and killed my son or anyone's son, taking a "sound" shot, then I think he should do some time. Just because an act involves a gun doesn't mean there should be no consequences.

The reasonable and forseeable consequence of firing a rifle into the brush where the shooter knows, or should know, other people might be, and ends up shooting someone as a result is at least negligence and probably recklessness. If somebody gets hurt as a result of a preventable shooting like that, the shooter should be held responsible. How can you reasonably say otherwise??

quote:

Originally posted by sdirks:
As a career prosecutor (twenty years in the district attorney's office, where I am sitting right now instead of reading about a sexual assault case) I can tell you that an accidental shooting in my state would almost certainly result in some sort of criminal liability. Depending on the circumstances (such as how serious the injury is, whether alcohol was involved, etc) the person doing the shooting could be looking at anything from a misdemeanor punishable by up to nine months in the county jail (negligent handling of a dangerous weapon) to a felony punishable by up to 65 years in prison (first degree reckless homocide while armed with a dangerous weapon.)
So, yes, insurance and civil liability would very likely be the least of your worries.

You guys are changing the scenario. Read SDirks quote.

An accidental shooting is not a "sound shot" or "shooting while drinking" or "shooting towards someone". An accidental shooting is when one gets shot with the shooter not having any knowledge or control of the incident.

SDikrks quote is what I say is BS. He says "almost certainly an accidental shooting would result in prosecution. I say that is BS...certainly some negligent or reckless onses should...but you are starting to walk a fine line there sir.

I suppose I should have been more precise. An unintentional shooting would almost certainly result in criminal liability. And I would hope that any responsible law enforcement agency would investigate any unintentional shooting and turn the results of that investigation over to someone like me to determine whether criminal liability should attach. In my experience, the vast majority of unintentional shootings are easily preventable and therefore criminal.

quote:

Originally posted by lechwe:

quote:

Originally posted by JGRaider:
An umbrella policy provides additional liability limits on top of the liability limits of your homeowners policy. If you're HO policy doesn't cover it (which it doesn't), the excess liability (umbrella) won't either.

Incorrect. I know first hand of a guy who accidentally (negligently) shot another hunting. the shooters homeowners insurance paid out up to the liability amount in the policy. They did not cover medical. The victim was uninsured so we paid for it through medicaid.

Depends on who your insurance company is. Also, it may cover it on your premises, but not halfway around the world. Gotta check to make sure.

quote:

An accidental shooting is not a "sound shot" or "shooting while drinking" or "shooting towards someone". An accidental shooting is when one gets shot with the shooter not having any knowledge or control of the incident.

I see your issue, but, in fact, the only "accidental shootings" IMO is when, say a sear breaks, or some other mechanical issue on the gun malfunctions and fires it without any actions on the gun handler/user's part. Even then, in a huge percentage of those type ADs, which are EXTREMELY rare to begin with, proper gun handling, meaning muzzle control, would negate most injuries.

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo: proper gun handling, meaning muzzle control, would negate most injuries.

+1

quote:

Originally posted by sdirks:
I suppose I should have been more precise. An unintentional shooting would almost certainly result in criminal liability. And I would hope that any responsible law enforcement agency would investigate any unintentional shooting and turn the results of that investigation over to someone like me to determine whether criminal liability should attach. In my experience, the vast majority of unintentional shootings are easily preventable and therefore criminal.

I just hope there are NOT that many prosecutors out there that think like you do.

As someone who has been shot...I think you are way to eager to want to press charges.

Certainly they should be investigated and looked at and if "malice" is in question brought to a Grand Jury.

But...I disagree that most hunting accidents warrant prosecution. With a country FILLED with drug crime and child molestation...prosecutors should spend their time where it is actually useful...protecting the innocent...our children.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by John Chalmers:

As an aside, imho, and thats all it is. Tim will have no say in how his employer's/ or his Company insurance handles the case . He will have been told to stfu, and get on with his life, and probably with his future TV work on the line. An old sinic like me might even think that the insurers are sitting on their hands to see just what the PH's final disability will be.jc

Tim will care for the final outcome,the insurers wont give a shit.jc

John,
You are probably 100% correct. What most don't realize is that insurance underwriters look at the insured as a commodity...nothing more! Their accountants are hired to maximize what is coming in and minimize what is going out...WITHOUT EMOTION.

You can bet your last dollar that the insurance company is going to spend as little as "legally" possible on Stu...100% guaranteed.

With this thread some good can be had for the PH and perhaps speed a settlement.

If some of you guys in the know can help identify Tim's employer/company insurers,TO ASK WHY IT IS TAKING SO LONG FOR AN OUTCOME, a pay out to Mr Taylor is way better than bad publicity leading to loss of business.

How would YOU feel if you found out its your insurance company thats dragging their feet to a fellow hunter/PH.

Just ask Jeff Blair how many hunters, who know about his shenanigans, have given him any business in the last couple of years.

A friend once said to me, "why do I never see you advertising" (my very small engineering shop)I replied, because I look after my customers and they do it for me.

As gatogordo says, NEVER BOOK A HUNT WITH JEFF BRAIR WORLDWIDE. And I wont. jc

Edited my previously last post to say what I really was thinking.

quote:

I see your issue, but, in fact, the only "accidental shootings" IMO is when, say a sear breaks, or some other mechanical issue on the gun malfunctions and fires it without any actions on the gun handler/user's part. Even then, in a huge percentage of those type ADs, which are EXTREMELY rare to begin with, proper gun handling, meaning muzzle control, would negate most injuries.

Plus 1000. I have been in three incidents, where had the muzzle of the firearms not been pointed as they were, I would not be here today to add my two cents.

Amigo,regardless of right or wrong,you will be incarcerated.You will have your piece taken,maybe forever.If justifiable (in the eyes of the court)you will still many legal issuses + you may expect to spend several thousand dollars in your defense.Sad affair but then look where our country is today. If you want to verify my dismal thoughts check with Massad Ayoob on his website. Best of luck to you my friend because as we all knowledge is power.

That's what we as a Nation get for letting the over zealous prosecutors and legislators take over our country.

When I was a kid LEO's and prosecutors had sense. At that time it was safe for me to walk around at night as a kid in most towns. We walked to school. Played baseball at the ballpark and walked home after dark perfectly safe.

Now...I don't dare let my kid ride his bike down the county road for fear of some meth maker/user/seller killing him or some depraved sex offender abducting him.

The country has gone crazy with crime all around us. Prosecutors should be working day and night making our country safe again and they want to tell me they are going to waste time AND TAX PAYER $'s ruining some poor soles life (which has already been ruined by the guilt of the accident) over an accident...DAM...no wonder we are in the shape we are in. Kind of like the speed trap municipalities...abusing private citizens just out hustling to make a living to provide the government with revenue...dam!

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
It seems a lot of our American friends are applying the same rules they have in America to what happens in other countries.

America has become such a lawyers paradise, that everyone wants to sue someone else for anything.

To the extent that international insurance companies, who will cover you anywhere in the world, have to have a separate policy or an expensive add on to cover you in America.

Also, many people here seem to assume things which we are not privy to between Tim and Stu.

How do we know what Tim is paying Stu?

Non of us have any idea about it.

Tim might be trying to get as much money for Stu as he possibly can get, from himself and others who wish to help a fellow hunter in need.

How many of those posting here have donated money to Stu?

How many of those who did donate sizeable amounts said anything about it?

Is Tim supposed to give up his work, and give all his life savings to Stu?

How do we know that because he is paying Stu, he has to work to earn his money?

This was an accident, pure and simple.

And it could happen to any of us who do hunt.

From the Stu/Tim thread in Africa Hunting.

Sdirks,
Even other people who watch our country see the same trends as I see.

quote:

Originally posted by sdirks:
I suppose I should have been more precise. An unintentional shooting would almost certainly result in criminal liability. And I would hope that any responsible law enforcement agency would investigate any unintentional shooting and turn the results of that investigation over to someone like me to determine whether criminal liability should attach. In my experience, the vast majority of unintentional shootings are easily preventable and therefore criminal.

I'm not sure "someone like you" deserves that amount of decision-making power. Sounds to me like you have decided before the event. If we are to define a preventable accident (of any kind) as a criminal event, then we'd better start building prisons on a massive scale. The fact that it is a firearm and not some other piece of machinery or tool should be irrelevant in the application of the law. Not to mention, that is precisley why we have civil and criminal systems; to punish actions in civil court that do not rise to the level of criminal.

quote:

Originally posted by JGRaider:

quote:

Originally posted by lechwe:

quote:

Originally posted by JGRaider:
An umbrella policy provides additional liability limits on top of the liability limits of your homeowners policy. If you're HO policy doesn't cover it (which it doesn't), the excess liability (umbrella) won't either.

Incorrect. I know first hand of a guy who accidentally (negligently) shot another hunting. the shooters homeowners insurance paid out up to the liability amount in the policy. They did not cover medical. The victim was uninsured so we paid for it through medicaid.

Depends on who your insurance company is. Also, it may cover it on your premises, but not halfway around the world. Gotta check to make sure.

Which goes to the larger point of most people not reading their policies closely enough, if at all. I'll bet 80% or more of hunter/shooters have no specific knowlege of their actual coverage and exclusions.

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE TO ANYONE

About 80% of my practice is insurance coverage litigation in the context of third-party insurance claims. (Someone sued my client's (the insurance company) insured alleging the insured was negligent and there is a question about whether the policy covers it). I represent insurance companies and deal with insurance policies every day. Very little of my practice involves homeowner's policies, but I am familiar with them and they are relatively easy because they are all regulated.

Homeowners' policies generally do cover you away from home. DO BUY umbrella coverage; it's cheap.

What you really want is a defense. Attorneys' fees could bankrupt your if you have to pay them yourself. Get a homeowner's policy. Get umbrella coverage.

The issue in a shooting case is generally whether it was an "accident" - a term not defined in most policies. In Texas, at least, "accident" is determined from the standpoint of the insured. Court's aren't completely stupid however (well, sometimes). You can't claim something was an "accident" just because you claim you couldn't foresee what any sane, non-retarded individual on the face of the earth could have foreseen. Disputes occur when the insured meant to shoot someone, but didn't mean to shoot who they shot.

IMPORTANTLY - that liability policy won't cover you for criminal liability or defense. BUT, there is coverage available that will. Check out Texas Law Shield. No, I don't represent them or sell their coverage. Just think it's a good deal and bought it for myself. I understand there are companies offering it in other states.