[Pre-paid legal service] and Pre-Paid Legal

[dac1842]

AEA, Sorry to do this to you, but you can be sued in civil court. The Castle Law says you should not be be held liable, the law does not prevent suing that would be unconstitutional. A friend of mine is going through this exact thing as we speak. He shot a person who had entered his residence without authority. The intruder was backed out of the house, fell to the ground made what the homeowner felt was a threatening move and the homeowner shot and killed the intruder. The homeowner was no billed by the grand jury. We all think that should be the end, it is not, the family of the deceased can sue. Now if the judges or jury follow the law, the homeowner should not be held liable. But that is yet to be seen.
The homeowners insurance company has asked the homeowner about settling, the homeowner has refused because of the precedent it would set.
The plaintiff's attorney has supposedly admitted if there was no insurance he would not have sued. Goes to show you the attorney's dont give a rip about what the law says, it is all about getting the might dollar.

[Greybeard]

dac - That's an interesting situation. Has there actually been a civil suit filed? Or just sabre rattling thus far?

[dac1842]

Graybeard, the suit has been filed, slated for trial later this year. They have been through all the depositions, tried to get it thrown out, Texas Supreme Court would not allow that. So barring any more delays should be going to trial.

[KFP]

I just happened across a similar program offered through Lockton Risk, the NRA endorsed insurance provider. I really didn't take any time to review it, but thought that others might be interested.

http://www.locktonrisk.com/nrains/defense.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Greybeard]

dac - Thanks for the confirmation. Sorry to hear it. Probably more than just a few folks would like to follow that one, help as practical. Let us know and/or PM as ya can.

[davidd]

Hi
I have been reading a number of the posts and all of you have good comments and questions. I work for [Pre-paid legal service] and have
been a chl holder for years. Before selling my business the attorneys that developed the [Pre-paid legal service] program were and still
are my lawyers. They are the real deal. This program differs from some as it will cover you should you have to go to trial and it
also will cover you should there be a civil suit. Another major difference the our program is when you use your gun and need to
call us you, as a member of [Pre-paid legal service], get a special 24/7 number that will be answered by one of the Attorneys, not an answering
service. This is a great program for very little money and it gives you peace of mind that someone has your back. My personal e mail
is ddonchecz@yahoo.com should anyone have any questions about the program. It is the real deal i promise you that.

[AEA]

Post a copy of the Contract.

[sjfcontrol]

Post a copy of the Contract.

-- or PM one to those that request here.

[wgoforth]

I think I found the contract online!

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[davidd]

A copy of our contract in on our web page at http://www.[Pre-paid legal service].com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
should you or any member of this forum wish to sign up you may input
the promo code DD1 when checking out and that will save you some money.
It is a straight forward simple contract and a great service.

[AEA]

No thanks!

[wgoforth]

He didn't give the exact url for the contracts (not very good PR there Davidd), and had to dig to find them, but they are
https://www.[Pre-paid legal service].com/terms_chl.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; For CHL Defense
https://www.[Pre-paid legal service].com/terms_hdp.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; For Home/Auto self Defense

I like Groucho Marx's contract better.

I think I would be more inclined towards something NRA approved like http://www.locktonrisk.com/nrains/defense.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[sjfcontrol]

Further, this contract shall specifically exclude representation for Client's conduct in the commission of any crime using his concealed hand gun.

Isn't it the point of any prosecution, that the prosecutor is claiming the use of the handgun was a crime??

Also, the conflict of interest clause is a bit troubling. So you get in trouble, and they say "Oh, sorry, there's a conflict of interest -- here's 30-bucks back -- now go away?

[davidd]

i am not an attorney with the firm but
i have heard the question asked before.
what that is pertaining too, i believe, is if one of our clients
robs a bank, or commits some sort of crime......not using the
weapon to defend himself.

[srothstein]

Obviously, IANAL and may be missing something in the contract, but it really doesn't look THAT bad to me. I am most troubled by the lack of a price specified in the contract, even by reference to an appendix or advertising price. The conflict of interest termination could be better explained (like how they decide which side of the conflict to terminate, or do they drop both sides), but by law they have to terminate if there is a conflict anyway, so I am surprised it is in there at all. I did take the crime clause to be referring to a crime other than the use of the firearm, such as a robbery or something. I was not even surprised by the fact that it covers the lawyer only, and not the expert witnesses or investigators.

If you want a bigger problem with the CHL contract, it clearly only covers your CONCEALED HANDGUN. If you are at home, or out hunting, and use a rifle or shotgun, it doesn't cover you at all. You might need both contracts they offer to get the proper coverage you think you have.

As a marketing tip, they might want to expand their coverage a little bit. It is currently restricted to only Texas CHL holders, and would not cover a person in Texas with an out of state CHL, say a tourist, a military person, or even a Texas resident who decided to get Utah's license instead. And I would also look at covering the investigator's time and some of the support stuff. It would require a raise in rates, but even double the fee, if that was added, would make me look more into it.

Since the terms of the contract are posted, I would strongly recommend anyone considering it to take the contract to their own lawyer and see what they have to say about it. Most of what we are objecting to might be straight contractual boilerplate in lawyer contracts. A good lawyer could tell you whether or not it is worth the money.