Self-defense insurance is quietly becoming a major player in the intersection of insurance and civil litigation. Sometimes dubbed “murder insurance” by critics, these policies offer legal and financial support to individuals involved in shootings or other use-of-force incidents. With providers like USCCA and U.S. Law Shield reporting millions of members, it’s clear the demand is real - and growing.
The appeal is obvious. Policyholders get access to legal defense funds, bail coverage, and civil liability protection if they’re ever involved in a self-defense situation. But the rise of these products is triggering more than just market attention. Critics argue they could incentivize risky behavior or create moral hazard by giving people a perceived safety net after violent encounters. Others point to practical concerns, like vague policy terms and insurers who later deny coverage when things get messy.
Legal implications are substantial. Self-defense cases often involve overlapping criminal and civil proceedings, and whether an insurer steps in - or steps back - can depend on a maze of exclusions, state-specific laws, and claim timing. For insurers and defense counsel, these policies represent a complex, high-risk litigation niche. And for courts, they may soon be fielding a new generation of declaratory judgment actions over coverage scope and bad faith claims.
At Caliber Law, our name isn’t a nod to firearm specifications; however, we do take a sharp interest in how evolving insurance products shape the litigation landscape. The civil consequences of self-defense incidents are real, and so are the coverage questions that follow. As this industry continues to grow, so too will the case law that defines it.