Insurance companies providing self-defense policies respond to Kayla Giles' federal lawsuit

Delta Defense and the United Specialty Insurance Company have responded to a federal lawsuit filed against the two companies by Kayla Giles, the woman accused of fatally shooting her estranged husband, Thomas Coutee, Jr.

When Giles purchased the gun used to kill Coutee, she took out a self-defense insurance policy from United Specialty Insurance Company through Delta Defense, Inc. Now, in a federal lawsuit filed in October by Giles and her attorney, Rocky Wilson, Giles claims that she has stopped receiving the payments from the companies that she began receiving when the alleged murder happened. She claims that Coutee's death was a result of self-defense.

The ‘Platinum Member' policy Giles purchased provides $1 million and an additional $150,000 in legal fees. However, after receiving $50,000 of legal fees, the lawsuit claims that the companies have 'refused further payment, despite amicable demand that they do so.'

In response to the lawsuit filed in the U.S. Western District Court of Louisiana, the United Specialty Insurance Company provides several defenses, with the most important defense saying that, in the fine print of the policy, it is stated that “USIC has no obligation to provide a defense...in connection with the investigation or defense of any criminal charge or criminal proceeding against the insured” like the second-degree murder charge Giles is facing. This means that the company is not required to make payments to Giles because she is facing criminal charges.

In Delta Defense’s response, the company says that Giles’ claims do not apply to Delta, because “Delta did not negotiate or issue the policy of insurance” against which Giles is making claims. Also, in a similar response, the self-defense claim Giles is making “arises out of multiple criminal offenses” and is not covered by the policy she took out when she purchased the gun. Delta also defends itself, saying that Giles’ claims in her original petition were “vague and ambiguous,” suggesting that those complaints should be dismissed.

Giles and her attorney, Rocky Wilson, are seeking the money that she says should have been covered by her policy, as well as interest amounts from the dates when she should have received payment.