No person in the state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting by any reasonable means necessary, himself or herself, his or her family, or his or her real or personal property, or for coming to the aid of another who is in imminent danger of or the victim of assault, robbery, kidnapping, arson, burglary, rape, murder, or any other violent crime as defined in RCW 9.94A.030.
Thus, even assuming that RCW 9A.16.110 can be read to favor insurance coverage for acts committed in self-defense, we will not invoke public policy to override the clear language of the intentional acts exclusion in an insurance policy.
Sorry, Hawker, but you're mistaken on both counts.
In fact, a righteous self-defense shooter in Washington is statutorily protected from ALL legal liability. See RCW 9A.16.110, which says (in part):
Which is a damn good thing, because in Allstate Ins. Co. v. Bauer, 96 Wash.App. 11 (Div. 2, 1999), the Court of Appeals determined that:
In other words, when you act in self-defense, it's not an "accident" under your insurance policy but rather an intentional act--which is almost certainly excluded from your coverage.
So, frotz, it's all good news for you: You are immune from civil suit and you now know better than to waste a bunch of money on premiums for an insurance rider that won't pay off anyway. Cheers!
My lawyer and I looked at that for a little while today, and couldn't come up with a definite conclusion regarding 9A.16.110. There was a big question about what "legal jeopardy"
Looking up the case and reading the summary
I'd like to see the case law that backs that up.
You should get a new lawyer. First, it's not just "legal jeopardy," the statute states "legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever." Ask your lawyer what the Washington State Supreme Court says about statutory interpretation. Something about plain meaning....
You should read the whole case. You are correct that it deals with an intentional acts exclusion, but it was in an umbrella policy (if I recall correctly. There may have been a second case I didn't cite that was an umbrella). Either way, doesn't your policy have an intentional acts exclusion?
Think about it for a minute. You go to your agent and say "I want insurance coverage for intentional acts." You think you're going get a policy for that??
Google for news coverage of the Gerlach shooting in Spokane. The case isn't on Westlaw because it was Superior Court only--no appeal. Mr. Gerlach hasn't been sued by the family--because they can't. Sometimes there's no case law because there are no lawsuits possible. Conversely, in the history of the State of Washington, if it was possible for a criminal's family to sue over a righteous shoot, don't you think there would be caselaw on that??