• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Legal Defense - Are You Covered?

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
It is sad to live in a world where one even has to think about such possibilities as what some overpaid, left leaning lawyer or judge might or might think or say. My first thought too when I read this thread was that some sharp (pointy head) lawyer would use the fact that you bought insurance as a tool against you. The difference between this type of insurance and auto or home insurance is that the latter are a general requirement.

TBG

Well, yes and no.

the only requirement for auto insurance is for liability insurance, not for replacement, unless required by a loan company. And, the same is true for home insurance. And, is it really required to purchase home owners liability coverage if there isn't a loan? I know a loan company will require you to purchase coverage to protect the collateral on the loan. But, is it actually a general requirement to have such insurance, sans loan?
 

Yard Sale

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
708
Location
Northern Nevada, ,
I would not want to have the prosecutor point at me and say "PROOF that he was looking for his chance to gun someone down is that he spent THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS over the years to keep lawyers on standby! He had the gun, he had the lawyer, all he needed was the right victim!"
Nevada law actually says having insurance can't be used against you in court.
 

DVC

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2010
Messages
1,185
Location
City? Who wants to live in a CITY?, Nevada, USA
When you posted that you would not want to be the one, that seems to indicate you felt it wasn't a good idea to pay for 'legal insurance' because of the 'fear' of the result. It appears you are arguing against preparing for eventualities, because someone may hold that choice against you in a court of law.

Considering the possibility of having it brought up in court IS preparing for eventualities.

The question then becomes whether that risk is outweighed by the benefits of the coverage.
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
Nevada Revised Statutes chapter regarding admissibility of evidence and testimony.

Planning to visit Nevada or just trolling?
It doesn't matter.

Rule 5 applies. Either you can cite to authority, or you cannot, but when you introduce a rule of law.....
If he hadn't asked for cite, I probably would have.

Well?
 

ravir3511

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
13
Location
Sparks NV
I think what Yard Sale is referring to is

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/NRS-048.html#NRS048Sec135

Which states
NRS 48.135 Liability insurance.

1. Evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is not admissible upon the issue whether the person acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully.

2. This section does not require the exclusion of evidence of insurance against liability when it is relevant for another purpose, such as proof of agency, ownership or control, or bias or prejudice of a witness.


Now the question if the courts in Nevada will see a membership in a legal defense service as insurance and thus be excluded under this chapter.
 
H

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/NRS-048.html#NRS048Sec135

Which states
NRS 48.135 Liability insurance.

1. Evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is not admissible upon the issue whether the person acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully.

2. This section does not require the exclusion of evidence of insurance against liability when it is relevant for another purpose, such as proof of agency, ownership or control, or bias or prejudice of a witness.


Now the question if the courts in Nevada will see a membership in a legal defense service as insurance and thus be excluded under this chapter.
thank you. I believe that the precise legal issue at hand is premeditation. Is "legal defense insurance" evidence of premeditation?
 

Rollbar

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
383
Location
Nevada
thank you. I believe that the precise legal issue at hand is premeditation. Is "legal defense insurance" evidence of premeditation?

I read their little booklet and it doesn't seem like insurance. More of a retaining service whereas IF/WHEN you get into a situation they will immediately place 5k or 10k (depending on...) into an attorneys account and dispatch said attorney. Then you can get a grant for more $$ to help in said situation and they will also reenact the situation w/private investigators/get expert witnesses etc.

$85.00 a year or 3yr memberships etc. If someone lives under your roof they can be a rider to the NETWORK for $50.00.

I would suggest everyone order a FREE booklet.

P.S. I am not a member yet so please don't think I am trying to sell anything.

Jim
 
H

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest
A decision theory expected utility estimation argues against it. First, it is unlikely to be needed. Second, it has a cost. Third, the outcome is only likely.

Like an "extended warranty" you're betting against your own interest in a quality product.
You haven't sold anything to me. Don't worry.
 
Top