own duty weapon , not a department owned one, got in a shoot out and were involved in civil suits before the gun smoke cleared. One items was that the Officers Private Homeowners Insurance was sued also and this resulted in many officers loosing Home and Auto coverage.Is this true?
Your question is incoherent, but it seems to ask about police officers being sued. Police officers and police departments can be sued for misconduct, but they tend to be difficult cases. There are immunity hurdles to overcome and proving that the city was negligent in training or supervising the officers is also difficult.
If you or someone you know was seriously injured by a police officer, you should consult with an experienced civil rights attorney as soon as possible to review whether or not there might be a viable civil rights case that can be litigated.
2 lawyers agree
You should consult a lawyer that deals in claims against government entities. If you are going to sue a police officer and the City these are tough case and have various deadlines. You must file a claim within a certain time or your case is barred, then you have only a certain amount of time to file the lawsuit once the claim is rejected. I don't know about the gun issue, but if their conduct was proper, I don't think it would matter what gun they used to defend themselves or others, or prevent a serious crime.
Legal disclaimer:This message does not constitute legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Any statements are made for general informational purposes and do not constitute legal advice. No attorney-client privilege is created by this communication. Attorney is licensed in California only.
What you describe is conceivable. If an officer is refused representation by the city in a civil suit because the officer uses a personally owned weapon, the officer's homeowners insurance may be asked to defend the officer. The insurance company may feel that it shouldn't be drawn into a suit arising out of an insured's employment, which is usually excluded from coverage. The insurance company could also think the lawsuit is based on an intentional act of the officer and, therefore, is not covered. The homeowner's insurer expects a policeman or fireman to be covered, for tortuous conduct on the job, by the City or the Department and it doesn't want to hire lawyers and spend money on claims or declaratory judgment actions which don't involve the homeowner in the capacity of a homeowner. If it feels that a policeman's job, itself, places it at increased risk of providing defenses to claims that it doesn't cover it may raise rates to a prohibitive level or just turn down the application for insurance by the officer. If your are talking about a claim against you as an officer, the other answers right, get a lawyer. But it sounds to me like you were just asking a question, if what you remember is possible.
This answer is not intended to be legal advice in a lawyer/client relationship. Misunderstanding of the answer or use of the answer for any illegal purpose is not the responsibility of the writer. The answer to any question in the Avvo website is constrained by the limited content of the question, an incomplete description of the facts underlying the question or a wrongful motivation for the question.