It is extremely rare for a CCW permit holder to be involved in an incident that is charged as a crime or results in civil liability-- those cases make the news. The few examples are case studies on the Attorneys On Retainer website, and there are maybe three of those over several years across the whole country and all their members. In other words, rare, and this is likely supported in the official CJIS statistics (have to dive deeper into those, to be honest). However, the magnitude of a civil judgment in a scenario where someone loses their life could be $10 million to $20 million or more, in the event of a wrongful death verdict-- could involve the suspect or bystanders, or both. Of course, there's also the plaintiffs' common strategy of bluffing in a war of attrition that forces a settlement, even when they think they will lose. The way I look at a risk of this type is that if there is a 0.1% chance of a CCW holder being involved in a liability-producing incident per year of holding a CCW, a 20% chance that the incident results in litigation, a 40% chance of a jury verdict of $20 million, and a 100% chance of spending at least $150,000 in attorney fees defending the case, then the permit holder should logically be willing to spend up to $1,750 per year to avoid that (0.001 x ((0.2 x 0.4 x 20,000,000) + 150,000)). $600 or about 1/3 of that amount feels right in terms of a premium-type payment for a risk of this type. Looking at it from my side and the business perspective, if I have 20 members in the plan paying $600 per year, it's an acceptable risk to have a 20% chance of having to defend one of them over a 10 year period (20 x 0.001 x 10) because over that 10 years, I've collected $120,000 in payments which equates to one case (that's my actual cost, probably), and there's only a 20% chance that I have to spend that. The ratio gets better as more members sign up, so if I have 100 members there is a 100% chance I defend one of them in 10 years, but it only costs me $120,000 out of $600,000 in collected premiums. The personalized pricing I mentioned would come in handy, because the Platinum Tier of safe, accurate, good-judgment shooters would let me either charge the same premium and give them more service/benefits, or let me charge a lower premium confidently knowing they are even more unlikely to have any issues and therefore those funds are expected to be 100% profit. Thus, the Platinum Tier would be likely to be my actual profit center, while the normal tier might be a loss leader since it's a wash if I don't make an actual profit or only have 20 regular tier members. That is consistent with my desire to not soak anyone and to provide a valuable service. Thinking out loud here.
