Welcome to today’s Law of Self Defense Members-only content!
The case of Kayla Giles is back in the news, particularly her lawsuit in Federal court against USCCA for its purported breach of its obligations to cover her self-defense legal expenses as a Platinum-level member in good standing, because her defense attorney last week filed a motion requesting that the civil suit by Giles against USCCA be suspended while the criminal case for which Giles’ needs her Platinum-level benefits proceeds to a conclusion.
CCW Safe: Our Sponsor
Now before we jump into the substance of today’s show, I do, of course, need to mention today’s sponsor, CCW Safe, a provider of legal service memberships, what many people mistakenly call self-defense insurance. They in effect promise to pay their member’s legal expenses if their member is involved in a use of force event.
There are several companies out there that offer similar services. I’ve looked at all of them, as you might imagine, and I found that CCW Safe is the best fit for me personally. I’m personally a member of CCW Safe, my wife Emily is personally a member of CCW Safe.
Whether they’re the best fit for you is something only you can decide. But I do encourage you to take a look at what they have to offer by clicking the image or link below:
http://lawofselfdefense.com/ccwsafe
And if you do decide to become a member of CCW Safe, you can save 10% off your membership at that URL http://lawofselfdefense.com/ccwsafe, using the discount code LOSD10.
Now, back to the Kayla Giles case, and her lawyer’s motion for a stay in her civil suit against USCCA, while the criminal case against her proceeds.
In fact, little progress appears to have been made in this Federal civil suit against USCCA in months, with the arguable exception of the many motions filed by USCCA to seal the records of the case, a move hardly consistent with transparency.
This most recent motion by Giles for a stay is embedded at the end of this blog post.
For those not familiar with this case, here’s a 30,000-foot overview of the facts.
During the last week of August 2018 Kayla Giles bought pistol, a Ruger LCP .380 pistol, from a Dallas-area Academy Sports.
It is noteworthy that the Ruger LCP .380 is perhaps one of the most common guns purchased for personal protection, especially by women who might have smaller hands and be more sensitive to recoil.
At the time she made the purchase Giles was in the process of going through a difficult divorce with her estranged husband, Thomas Coutee Jr., with whom she shared minor children.
At the same time that Giles purchased the gun, she also enrolled as a Platinum-level Member of USCCA, one of the most prominent of the companies that market “self-defense insurance.” (A major competitor to USCCA is CCW Safe, which is sponsor of some Law of Self Defense content.)
It is noteworthy that USCCA markets its “self-defense insurance” product in terms of the company “having the back” of members who are criminally charged in the aftermath of a use-of-force event.
Specifically, the company purports to promise Platinum-level members, like Giles, up to $1,000,000 million in civil liability coverage and $150,000 in criminal defense coverage for such use-of-force events.
On September 8, 2018, just under two weeks after having purchased her Ruger LCP .380 pistol and USCCA Platinum-level Membership, Giles met with her estranged husband Coutee in a Louisiana Walmart parking lot to do a child custody exchange.
By the end of that meeting Giles will have shot Coutee dead.
Giles would be charged by the state of Louisiana with second-degree murder over the killing, in violation of Louisiana statute 14:30.1.
Her legal defense was self-defense, per Louisiana statute 14:20 “Justifiable Homicide.”
More particularly, she claims self-defense under paragraph (4)(a) of that statute, which includes special provisions for the use of deadly defensive force in the context of highly-defensible property.
Specifically, paragraph (4)(a) creates a legal presumption that a defender in highly-defensible property had a reasonable fear of deadly force harm from an aggressor making an unlawful entry into that highly-defensible property.
Under Louisiana law one’s occupied motor vehicle qualifies as highly-defensible property, and in this case the shooting of Coutee occurred in the context of Giles’ vehicle. Presumably Giles is claiming that Coutee was making an unlawful entry into her vehicle.
If so, Giles was arguably entitled to the legal presumption that she had a reasonable fear that he intended Giles or their children deadly force harm, therefore justifying her use of deadly force upon him.
In seeking to finance her legal defense, which in a second-degree murder trial is sure to be enormously costly, Giles sought “coverage” under her USCCA Platinum-level “self-defense insurance.” She was initially provided with up to $50,000 in funds for her legal defense, but then USCCA abruptly cut off further funds.
Giles then sued in Federal court for the balance of her Platinum-level membership benefits, specifically in the context of coverage for her legal defense.
I’m going to note, for purposes of technical correctness, that the business entities being sued by Giles are Delta Defense LLC (the parent company of USCCA) and United Specialty Insurance Company, rather than USCCA, because it is Delta Defense and USIC who are technically the claimed guarantors of the benefits Giles is seeking. You’ll see this to be the case in the court documents filed in Giles’ civil suit, some of which I’ve embedded later in this post.
I expect it’s the case, however, that the people buying the same “Platinum-level membership” as did Giles generally have the impression that they are purchasing the program from USCCA, and have little if any knowledge of Delta Defense or USIC, because the large majority of the promotional, marketing, and sales activities associated with obtaining one of these memberships is conducted through USCCA.
To illustrate this point, the following image was captured from the USCCA web site as I typed this blog post:
The only mention of Delta Defense LLC in that rather extensive marketing web page for Platinum Membership is found in what might be called the fine print in the very footer of the page:
Further, there’s no mention of USIC, at all, where a prospective member of this Platinum-level Program might come across it.
For purposes of not confusing discussion of this case with too many technicalities, then, throughout this post I’ll simply refer to the Platinum-level policy purchased by Giles as her “USCCA Platinum-level membership,” or some version of that language., rather than continually reference Delta Defense or USIC.
I would imagine that the way most USCCA Platinum-level Members imagine making use of their member legal expense benefits is that, first, they’re a USCCA Platinum-level Member in good standing, second, they’re involved in a use-of-force event, third, they incur legal expenses in justifying that use of force as self-defense, and fourth, USCCA provides funding to cover those legal expenses incurred in arguing self-defense.
In the case of Giles, however, she was a USCCA Platinum-level member in good standing (a fact not disputed by USCCA or Delta Defense, or USIC), she was involved in a use-of-force event, she incurred well over $100,000 in legal expenses in justifying her use-of-force as self-defense—but USCCA cut off her funding as a Platinum-level member after covering only $50,000 of those legal expenses.
So, why is USCCA denying Giles’ her Platinum-level benefits?
Many might speculate that USCCA is denying Giles her Platinum-level benefits because her claim of self-defense in the shooting of her estranged husband Coutee appears sketchy. After all, for all we know Giles simply pre-meditated the cold-blooded murder of Coutee, bought the gun for the purpose of committing that murder, and enrolled in the USCCA Platinum program so that she’d have funding for her anticipated legal defense after being charged in Coutee’s death.
On an emotional level, if one believed those facts to be true, nobody would want to be on the hook for funding the legal defense of a cold-blooded killer.
On the other hand, we can equally speculate that Giles had reason to fear for her life, and the life of her children, from her estranged husband Coutee, that she purchased the gun in order to defend herself and her children against any unlawful life-threatening attack by Coutee, that she purchased the USCCA Platinum-level membership for precisely the reasons USCCA urges people to purchase the membership—to quote the USCCA Platinum Member marketing web page “USCCA Membership Empowers You To Confidently Protect Your Love Ones”—and sure enough her fears came to pass and she was compelled to use her pistol in deadly force defense of herself and her children against Coutee’s attack.
If one believed those facts to be true, certainly it would seem that Giles is entitled to the Platinum-level Membership benefits that the program says she’s entitled to: the $1,000,000 in civil liability coverage and $150,000 in criminal defense costs coverage.
And there we have the core issue in the case—which was it? Did Giles commit cold-blooded murder, or in killing Coutee did she act in lawful defense of herself and her children?
Well, in an absolute sense, none of us can ever really know. After all, we weren’t there. Even if we had been there, even eyewitness testimony is well known to be less than 100% reliable. And this lack of absolute certainty about what happened necessarily applies to all of us who are not Kayla Giles.
In particular, the responding police don’t know what happened with absolute certainty. The investigative officers don’t know what happened with absolute certainty. The prosecutor doesn’t know what happened with absolute certainty, nor does the defense attorney. The judge doesn’t know what happened with absolute certainty.
Even the eventual jury can’t ever know what happened with absolute certainty.
With respect to the jury, however, we as a society have placed in their hands the responsibility of weighing the available evidence, as well as the legal arguments presented by the prosecution and the defense, applying the law to that evidence as instructed by the judge, and arriving at a verdict.
The jury, then, plays the role of the ultimate decider on whether Giles’ use of force was second-degree murder or self-defense. That’s their role, and their role exclusively. Nobody else has that authority. Not the cops, not the investigators, not the prosecutor, not the defense, not the judge …
… and especially not USCCA. Indeed, one of the worst entities to assume that role would be USCCA, because USCCA’s financial interests are contrary to Giles’ interests in having a well-funded legal defense. After all, if USCCA declines to pay for Giles’ legal defense, that means USCCA gets to keep all the money that would otherwise have been spent on that legal defense.
But is that what USCCA is doing in this case? Is USCCA making its own independent assessment that Giles’ shooting of Coutee “doesn’t look like self-defense to us, and if it doesn’t look like self-defense to us, we’re not paying.”
If that were to be the standard by which USCCA made its decisions whether to cover a Platinum-level Member’s legal expenses following a use-of-force event, one can’t help but think that it makes the Platinum-level program all but worthless, or at least only having worth if USCCA decides, on a case-by-case basis, to allow it to have worth.
Essentially, by that standard the Platinum-level coverage becomes a “we’ll pay if we feel like it” program. In effect, by that standard in each case they make a decision whether they’d like to cover your legal expenses, on the one hand, or keep their $150,000 dollars, on the other hand, and at their whim.
Conflict of interest? Why would anyone pay several hundred dollars a year for that?
And there’s certainly nothing on their Platinum-level marketing page that says anything like “we’ll pay if we feel like it, but not otherwise.” If anything, that marketing page suggests quite the contrary, stating explicitly:
But USCCA takes quite a different tone in response to Giles’ demands that they meet their apparent obligation to her as a Platinum-level member to the $1,000,000 in civil liability and $150,000 in criminal coverage promoted under that plan.
In Delta Defense’s response to Giles’ complaint in Federal court (that response is embedded below), the parent company of USCCA argues that it should be relieved of any obligation to pay Giles’ criminal legal defenses because:
“… Delta has no obligation to provide a defense or duty to defend in connection with the underlying criminal charges or criminal proceedings against plaintiff [Giles].”
Similarly, United Specialty Insurance Company, the apparent backer of these Platinum-level Membership promises, argues that it should be relieved of any obligation to pay Giles’ criminal legal defenses because:
“… USIC has no obligation to provide a defense or duty to defend in connection with the investigation or defense of any criminal charge or criminal proceeding against the insured [Giles] such as the Underlying Litigation.”
Really? If so, it begs the question—what was Giles paying $30 a month for in order to be a USCCA Platinum-level Member, if neither USCCA nor Delta Defense nor USIC has any obligation to provide a defense or duty to defend?
Indeed, what is any USCCA Platinum-level Member paying for, if USCCA, Delta, and USIC can simply wash their hands of that Members’ legal defense at their whim?
I actually called USCCA to ask these questions when the Giles Federal civil suit was first filed, and their only response was “no comment.” Which is, of course, their privilege. Nevertheless, it leaves the question as to why anyone would pay for such a program if the benefits can be denied arbitrarily.
As we noted at the start of this blog post, this past Thursday, September 24, 2020, Giles filed a motion with the Federal court overseeing her civil suit against Delta Defense and USIC asking for a stay of the case, meaning in effect a suspension of the case, while her criminal case proceeds forward.
There are a number of legal reasons for requesting such a stay, and these are set out in Giles’ motion, which I’ve embedded below my signature. Following that motion, you can also find the November 2019 responses by Delta Defense and USIC to Giles’ civil complaint against them.
UPDATE:
You may also be interested in these related posts:
USCCA Sued in Federal Court: Refused to Cover Platinum Member? [October 24, 2019]
Self-defense, or not? Who decides? [October 25, 2019]
You might also be interested in these “self-defense insurance” analysis by another attorney not associated with Law of Self Defense LLC, Ryan Cleckner:
BEST CONCEALED CARRY INSURANCE [2021]: WRITTEN BY A LAWYER! [March 10, 2021]
USCCA VS CCW SAFE: WHICH IS THE BEST CCW INSURANCE? [2021] [May 1, 2021]
OK, folks, that’s all I have for you today for Law of Self Defense members-only content. I do, however, want to remind all of you about our upcoming Law of Self Defense ADVANCED Live Online Course, taking place on Saturday, October 3, 2020.
In the meantime, stay safe!
–Andrew
Attorney Andrew F. Branca
Law of Self Defense LLC
Here’s that September 24, 2020 motion for a stay of the Giles’ Federal civil suit against USCCA:
Here’s Giles’ October 2019 civil complaint filed against Delta Defense and USIC:
Here’s the November 22, 2019 response by Delta Defense to Giles’ initial civil complaint:
Here’s the November 22, 2019 response by United Specialty Insurance Company to Giles’ initial civil complaint:
“We’ve got your back.” Seems they are overstating their position upwards by several dermatomes.
If you look at CCW Safe
“RESTRICTIONS – THE DEFENDER PLAN WILL NOT COVER THE FOLLOWING:
Force used against other family members.”
Estranged husband is still legally a family member.
Well, it’s not CCW Safe denying coverage in this case, so I don’t understand your point.
Are you suggesting that USCCA, which IS denying coverage in this case, has a similar exclusion?
If so, show me.
–Andrew
Attorney at Law
Law of Self Defense LLC
I believe he is pointing out that even if Giles has purchased a plan thru CCWSafe, she would not have been covered there either. I want to purchase CCWSAFE membership but the main fear I have is an estranged half brother. I doubt I’d be covered there either.
I was persuaded to buy a USCCA membership for me & my wife, but this case strongly has me questioning it… I train with my firearms religiously, even have welts still healing on my side from a “force on force” class, the actual physical confrontation doesn’t scare me like the legal aftermath does.
I have clean record except minor traffic violations, but that didn’t save Rittenhouse or Stephen Maddox..
Typical weaseling out by companies of their stated obligations, aided by attorneys with few scruples. Looks like a shell corporation game much like criminal activities. It seems that few people in society today, especially in the corporate and legal areas, has an ounce of honesty or honor. The predominate philosophy seems to be “If you get away with it it is OK, but if you get caught you are stupid”. I am really sick of seeing this. TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR ACTIONS OR DO NOT ACT!!
The policy states only covers if firearm was used in an act of Self Defense… but only if any force used is BOTH “reasonable under the circumstances and proportionate to the threat…
I’m guessing Giles use of deadly force with a firearm was NEITHER.
Reasonable and proprotionate to the threat is for a jury to decide: not the insurance companies.
This.
–Andrew
Attorney Andrew F. Branca
Law of Self Defense LLC
Does not CCW Safe have the same option (as USCCA, Delta Defense, USIC, any other insurer under a similar program) to determine if they will provide a legal Defense if the defendant does not meet the CCW Safe’s legal team’s criteria?
I am curious to this answer, as well, for CCW Safe and/or US Law Shield.
I know that the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network (ACLDN) explicitly states that they will review the facts of your case before agreeing to fund your defense and that the amount available for your defense will depend on the available funds of the network.
Any “insurer” can set conditions for coverage, and those conditions are valid to the extent they were in place at the time the coverage was promised.
No “insurer” can simply fabricate additional conditions for coverage after the fact, simply because doing so proves convenient for them.
No “insurer” is worth a penny for coverage if the promised coverage is paid only if the insurer feels like it–after all, it’s always in any “insurer’s” interest to not pay on a claim, because then they get to keep their money. If, however, that’s USCCA’s intended business practice, to pay Platinum-member’s legal fees only if they feel like it, they ought to make that clear when they take people’s money for such Platinum-level “coverage.” Tim Schmidt is in advertising assuring members that USCCA “has their back” if they are in a use-of-force event and facing legal jeopardy. Do they? Or does USCCA only have members backs if USCCA feels like it?
If the claim is that Giles ought to be denied her USCCA benefits because she violated some actual condition of USCCA coverage, what condition did Giles violate?
USCCA isn’t saying, which suggests to me that there is no such violation of a condition of USCCA coverage.
–Andrew
Attorney Andrew F. Branca
Law of Self Defense LLC
Precisely why I am losing confidence in USCCA.
Thank you for this analysis. Seems USCCA has just put itself out of business. What do members pay for if not coverage when they must have it?
One problem that I see is that CCW Safe says it excludes use of force on other family members and perhaps USCCA has the same and since he was her estranged husband, he was still legally family.
If that’s USCCA’s reason, why wouldn’t they just say so? There’s no problem denying coverage for reasons stated up front. CCW Safe states that exclusion up front. Does USCCA? If so, show me. And if that’s their reason, why don’t they claim that reason in court filings?
There’s a reason that none of us know why USCCA is denying Kayla Giles her Platinum member benefits–USCCA won’t tell us.
Why not? What are they hiding?
–Andrew
Attorney Andrew F. Branca
Law of Self Defense LLC
Hmmm. I don’t see why they would either. It would probably make it easy to dismiss the suit if they made that the point. I am not familiar with their conditions. It just seems that there should be a good reason to suddenly deny as it will really hurt their reputation in the long run to not pay out. Admittedly you may be exactly right since they have not given justification.
They actually paid $50000.00 out. Only a portion of stated coverage. Was she partly in the right and the balance in the wrong? Am I missing something?
Thank you, Andrew, for this important discussion. It would seem to me that if Giles is found guilty, that this might possibly be due to the lack of resources for a better legal team. I hope you will continue to cover this situation.
A question for future blog post or Q&A: Since about 98% of all criminal cases end in a plea bargain, and sometimes innocent parties accept plea bargains to avoid the possibility rolling the dice on a lengthly prison sentences, what is the policy of the self defense “insurance” companies if their clients decide to do a plea bargain? Does the client have to pay back the “insurance” money?
“It would seem to me that if Giles is found guilty, that this might possibly be due to the lack of resources for a better legal team.”
Indeed, my primary concern. Legal battles that could have been won with adequate resources can easily be lost because of inadequate resources. Quite possible the outcome has less to do with “guilt” or “innocence” than with lack of resources–which is precisely the situation USCCA is creating for Giles. It’s why I never was able to support the NRA Carry Guard “insurance,” because it was largely a reimbursement-type program that only provided substantive money after the verdict.
With respect to plea bargains, any “self-defense insurance” program is going to deny coverage if the member takes a plea. A plea is an admission of criminal guilt. No “insurance” company is going to be obliged to provide reimbursement to a member who admits criminal guilt. Indeed, public policy would be against it.
BTW, this also means, and I’ll use the USCCA Platinum program as an example, if you take a plea to a criminal charge, you not only lose any claim to legal defense money for the criminal charge, you also lose the $1 million in civil liability the program would otherwise have provided.
–Andrew
Attorney Andrew F. Branca
Law of Self Defense LLC
Thank you for your help. I was under the impression that some “self defense insurance” companies would pay even though their client feels it in his best self interest to take a plea. I got this idea from watching the YouTube video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueG1eeS0HIk
The comment in question is begins about 8:55 minutes into the video. The company is Firearms Legal Protection. I would appreciate your comments.
Thanks, Andrew, for this heads-up. Please keep us posted —the ramifications for many of us are immense.
Andrew, do any of the companies provide information on all previous cases, whether they funded the criminal defense/civil case or not and why? What is your confidence level that CCW Safe would not do the same?
You’d have to contact those companies to see what information they might be willing to pay for you.
I generally presume that companies will meet their obligations to their members, until they prove otherwise.
Indeed, I assumed that about USCCA, until they got themselves sued in Federal court on a claim of not meeting their obligations to a member, and without providing a substantive explanation to the allegation.
If any other similar organization has similarly credible claims made against it, I’m happy to report on those instances as well.
Do you know of any?
–Andrew
Attorney Andrew F. Branca
Does CCW Safe provide a list of the claims that have been made and how they handled them?
BTW, USIC’s statement for why they did not pay is a direct quote from the membership agreement. Delta’s is a partial quote.
I do’t speak for CCW Safe, call them and ask them.
Re: USIC and Delta, what’s the quote from the membership agreement you’re referring to? Share it with us.
–Andrew
Attorney Andrew F. Branca
Law of Self Defense LLC
As you quote in your article, “… USIC has no obligation to provide a defense or duty to defend in connection with the investigation or defense of any criminal charge or criminal proceeding against the insured [Giles] such as the Underlying Litigation.”
https://www.usccamemberterms.com/
Kayla Giles paid USCCA/Delta Defense LLC money for a Platinum Protection Plan, in exchange for their promise to provide her $150,000 in criminal defense funding if she was charged in a use-of-force event. They paid the first $50,000, then refused to pay the remainder.
This is the same contractual arrangement USCCA/Delta Defense LLC has made with every member who has ever paid USCCA for any protection plan that they offer. This contractual obligation is stated explicitly on the very USCCA web page they use to market these plans: https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/membership/
If USCCA/Delta Defense LLC claims no obligation to actually provide a defense, why are they collecting money for protection plans that promise to pay for a legal defense? Why did they pay the first $50,000 if they had no obligation to pay even a penny?
Are you suggesting that USCCA is engaged in a massive and widespread fraud of their members, by collecting millions of dollars in membership payments based on promises of providing those members with a legal defense, without any intention of honoring that promise?
If you’re not suggesting that, what are you suggesting?
–Andrew
Attorney Andrew F. Branca
Law of Self Defense LLC
I think the thousands of members who have paid USCCA millions of dollars for Gold, Platinum, and Elite with the explicitly stated promise that if the member will “Pick the Level That’s Right for You and Be Protected in Minutes” with “Self-Defense SHIELD: Criminal Defense, Bail Bond Funding & Attorney Retainer” fund in the explicitly stated amounts of $100,000, $150,000, and $250,000, respectively (per USCCA Membership marketing web page: https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/membership/), would be surprised to learn that it’s USCCA’s position that the member is actually entitled to … absolutely nothing. Zilch. Zero.
Is that what you’re claiming USCCA’s position is?
If so, how are you differentiating such conduct–collecting millions in member fees on promises of providing criminal defense funds, and then denying the promised funds–from fraud?
–Andrew
Attorney Andrew F. Branca
Law of Self Defense LLC
I was only pointing out that Delta and USIC’s response is quoted, verbatim in USIC’s case, from the membership agreement. I am definitely NOT advocating for them, I have the same questions you ask thanks to your blog post on this case, and my confidence in them has taken a massive torpedo. I now want to know what all these companies track records are in handling claims — how often do they refuse to provide coverage and why? Do their “reject” decisions match their membership agreements? If not, clearly every member should bail and put them where they should be — out of business. I am grateful for your article addressing this case.
Andrew, I’m curious if you see anything in USCCA’s membership agreement that would explain their decision in this case.