Why California PORAC Legal Defense Fund Does Not Cover Armed Church Security Volunteers and What Church Leadership Must Know

CRITICAL COVERAGE GAP ANALYSIS

A Comprehensive Analysis for Church Elders, Trustees, Safety Committees, and Legal Counsel

Statement on CCW Licenses and Individual Self‑Defense Insurance

A Concealed Carry Weapon (CCW) license is issued to an individual for the purpose of personal self‑defense. Its scope is limited to the license holder’s own protection and does not extend to duties performed on behalf of an employer, volunteer organization, ministry, or property owner.

When a CCW holder begins working or volunteering in a role that involves protecting other people, safeguarding property, providing security, or acting in any protective capacity, that activity can be interpreted as outside the intended scope of both the CCW license and the individual self‑defense insurance policy associated with it.

Because most individual CCW insurance memberships are designed to cover personal self‑defense incidents, an insurer may determine that an incident occurring while the individual is performing protective, security, or organizational duties falls outside the definition of covered personal self‑defense. In such cases, the incident is more likely to be evaluated under the organization’s liability insurance, not the individual’s CCW policy.

When a CCW holder transitions from self‑defense for oneself to defense of others or property in an organizational role, the coverage framework may shift from individual CCW insurance to organizational liability insurance, depending on the insurer’s definitions, exclusions, and underwriting intent.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Many churches operate under the dangerous assumption that retired law enforcement volunteers carrying firearms while serving on church safety teams are protected by their PORAC Legal Defense Fund membership. This assumption is categorically false and creates exposure for both the volunteer and the church that leadership must address immediately.

This article provides church elders, trustees, safety committee members, and legal counsel with a comprehensive understanding of PORAC LDF coverage limitations, the specific policy language that excludes church security service, the liability implications for both volunteers and churches, California legal requirements for armed security personnel, insurance carrier responses to unauthorized security programs, and a defensible policy framework that protects both the church and individual members.

CRITICAL FINDING PORAC Legal Defense Fund (LDF) does not provide coverage for any firearm related incident that occurs while an individual is acting in a protective, security, or duty based role for a private organization, including churches. This exclusion applies even when the individual is unpaid, volunteering, or retired from law enforcement. This exclusion places both the church and the volunteer at significant civil and criminal liability risk that church leadership must understand and address through proper policy frameworks and alternative coverage mechanisms.

I. THE PORAC LDF EXCLUSION: CRITICAL POLICY LANGUAGE

A. The Specific Exclusion Language

The Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC) Legal Defense Fund operates as a membership benefit organization providing legal representation for law enforcement officers. However, PORAC’s Firearms Coverage FAQ contains explicit exclusionary language that eliminates coverage for church security volunteers. The policy states unambiguously: “LDF does not provide coverage for incidents arising from employment, including acting in an unpaid private security capacity, part time law enforcement, etc.”

This single sentence creates a coverage gap that many church leaders and volunteers fail to recognize. The exclusion operates on two critical principles: First, it applies regardless of compensation. The phrase “unpaid private security capacity” makes clear that volunteer status does not circumvent the exclusion. Second, it focuses on function rather than title. Whether the church calls the role “safety ministry,” “protector team,” “watch team,” or any other designation, PORAC evaluates what the individual is actually doing, not what the position is called.

B. What Constitutes “Acting in an Unpaid Private Security Capacity”

PORAC LDF interprets “acting in an unpaid private security capacity” through a functional analysis that examines the actual duties performed rather than the volunteer’s title or the church’s characterization of the role. A volunteer is considered to be acting in a private security capacity if they engage in any of the following activities:

• Assigned to protect the congregation or church property
• Scheduled or rostered for specific security shifts or positions
• Positioned at entrances, exits, or perimeter locations to monitor access
• Responding to threats, disturbances, or security incidents as part of organized team
• Carrying a firearm in a protective capacity while performing safety team duties
• Conducting patrols of church facilities or grounds
• Communicating via radio or other means as part of coordinated security operations
• Wearing identifying clothing, badges, or equipment designating security role
• Participating in security briefings, training, or operational planning
• Exercising authority to detain, direct, or control individuals on church property

These activities trigger the PORAC exclusion because they demonstrate that the individual is functioning as private security regardless of whether they receive compensation. The exclusion recognizes that volunteer security personnel assume the same duties, exercise the same authority, and create the same liability exposure as paid security, and therefore should not be covered under a policy designed exclusively for peace officers acting within their official law enforcement capacity.

C. Why Volunteer Status Does Not Create Coverage

Church leadership frequently assumes that because safety team members are unpaid volunteers rather than hired security guards, they fall outside the scope of security exclusions. This assumption is incorrect for several critical reasons that both PORAC and commercial insurance carriers recognize.

First, California law does not distinguish between paid and unpaid security personnel when defining private patrol operators and security guards. Under the California Business and Professions Code, any person who provides security services on behalf of an organization, whether compensated or volunteering, may be subject to licensing requirements if their activities meet the statutory definition of private patrol services. The statute focuses on the nature of services provided, not on whether compensation is received.

Second, liability risk does not diminish based on volunteer status. A volunteer security team member who uses force creates the same potential for injury, death, civil lawsuits, and criminal prosecution as a paid security guard performing identical functions. Courts impose the same duty of care standards on volunteers as on paid personnel when those volunteers assume security responsibilities. The volunteer’s good intentions or lack of compensation do not reduce the church’s exposure to negligent hiring, negligent training, negligent supervision, or vicarious liability claims.

Third, PORAC LDF specifically contemplated volunteer security scenarios when drafting its exclusionary language. The explicit use of the phrase “unpaid private security capacity” demonstrates that PORAC anticipated churches and other organizations might attempt to characterize armed security personnel as unpaid volunteers to circumvent coverage exclusions. By including this specific language, PORAC closed that loophole and made clear that volunteer status provides no exception to the security exclusion.

II. CALIFORNIA LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR PRIVATE SECURITY

A. Private Patrol Operator Licensing Requirements

California Business and Professions Code Section 7582.1 defines a private patrol operator as any person who, for consideration, engages in the business of furnishing watchmen, guards, private patrol officers, or other persons to protect persons or property or to prevent the theft, unlawful taking, loss, embezzlement, misappropriation, or concealment of any goods, wares, merchandise, money, bonds, stocks, notes, documents, or papers. While the statute requires “consideration” (payment), the Bureau of Security and Investigative Services has interpreted this broadly to include any arrangement where an entity receives security services, regardless of how those services are structured or whether direct payment occurs.

Churches that create organized safety teams, assign specific security duties, roster volunteers for shifts, and direct their security related activities may inadvertently create a private patrol operation that requires licensing. The fact that volunteers are not paid does not automatically exempt the church from licensing requirements if the church is effectively operating an organized security service. The critical question is whether the church has created a structured security operation rather than simply allowing individual members to exercise their personal concealed carry rights while attending worship.

B. Armed Security Guard Requirements

California Penal Code Section 26030 establishes strict requirements for armed security personnel. The statute permits private security guards to carry firearms only when properly licensed, trained, and authorized by the Bureau of Security and Investigative Services. Armed security guards must complete a Bureau approved firearms training course, pass a criminal background check, obtain a guard card, and receive specific authorization to carry firearms while performing security duties.

Church volunteers who carry firearms while performing organized security functions but lack proper security guard licensing create significant legal exposure for both themselves and the church. If these individuals use force and are later determined to have been acting as unlicensed armed security guards, they may face criminal charges for operating without required licenses. The church may face regulatory sanctions, fines, and increased civil liability for deploying unlicensed armed security personnel.

The distinction between a concealed carry license holder attending church for personal worship while lawfully armed and that same individual serving on an organized church security team is critical. A concealed carry license authorizes the individual to carry a concealed firearm for personal protection. It does not authorize that individual to act as armed security for an organization, which requires separate licensing under California’s private security statutes.

C. Scope of Employment vs. Personal Capacity

California law distinguishes sharply between actions taken within the scope of employment or volunteer service and actions taken in a purely personal capacity. Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer or organization can be held vicariously liable for the tortious acts of employees or volunteers committed within the scope of their duties. This principle applies equally to paid employees and unpaid volunteers.

When a church assigns an individual to a safety team, provides that individual with duties, schedules that individual for shifts, and directs that individual’s activities, the church creates a scope of service relationship. If the volunteer uses force while performing these assigned duties, courts will likely find the volunteer was acting within the scope of service to the church, thereby exposing the church to vicarious liability for the volunteer’s actions.

Conversely, if an individual attends church purely as a congregant, carries a concealed firearm under their personal license for self-protection, and responds to a threat based on their individual decision rather than as part of an organized church security response, courts are more likely to find the individual acted in a personal capacity outside the scope of any church relationship. This distinction becomes critical in determining whether church insurance responds to claims and whether the church faces vicarious liability exposure.

III. LIABILITY IMPLICATIONS FOR VOLUNTEERS AND CHURCHES

A. Volunteer Exposure When PORAC LDF Denies Coverage

When a retired law enforcement officer volunteers on a church safety team and uses force, that individual faces the same criminal and civil exposure as any private citizen who uses force. However, because PORAC LDF has excluded coverage for incidents arising from private security activities, the volunteer suddenly discovers they have no legal defense coverage from the organization they believed would protect them.

Criminal Defense Costs: A volunteer who uses deadly force to stop a threat, even when completely justified, will face a criminal investigation and likely grand jury review. In California, these proceedings can last six to twelve months. Criminal defense attorneys specializing in use of force cases typically charge between $250,000 and $500,000 for complete representation through trial. Without PORAC LDF coverage and without alternative insurance, the volunteer must pay these costs personally or represent themselves, which is legally permitted but practically inadvisable.

Civil Defense Costs: Simultaneously with criminal proceedings, the volunteer will likely face civil lawsuits from multiple parties. The threat actor or their family may sue alleging excessive force, wrongful death, or civil rights violations. Injured bystanders may sue alleging negligence. Each lawsuit requires separate legal representation, with defense costs easily exceeding $100,000 per case even before trial. If multiple lawsuits arise from a single incident, the volunteer’s defense costs can reach $500,000 to $1,000,000 before any judgments are considered.

Civil Judgment Exposure: If the volunteer loses any civil case, judgments can reach millions of dollars. California courts can impose compensatory damages for medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, and emotional distress. In cases involving alleged excessive force or reckless conduct, courts may also award punitive damages designed to punish the defendant and deter similar conduct. These judgments attach to the volunteer’s personal assets including their home, savings accounts, retirement accounts, and future earnings through wage garnishment.

Professional License Impact: Retired law enforcement officers may maintain professional licenses or certifications that can be jeopardized by criminal charges or civil findings related to use of force incidents. Even if criminal charges are ultimately dismissed, the investigation itself may trigger professional licensing reviews that can result in suspension or revocation of credentials.

B. Church Exposure Under Multiple Legal Theories

Churches deploying volunteer safety teams without proper structure face exposure under:

• Negligent Hiring: Failing to conduct adequate screening before assigning security duties.
• Negligent Training: Deploying volunteers without adequate instruction in use of force, de escalation, and legal liability.
• Negligent Supervision: Failing to exercise reasonable oversight over volunteer activities and conduct.
• Negligent Retention: Continuing to deploy volunteers despite known problems with judgment or temperament.
• Vicarious Liability: Direct liability for volunteer actions within scope of service to the church.

C. Insurance Carrier Responses

Major church insurance carriers including Brotherhood Mutual, Church Mutual, GuideOne, and Philadelphia Insurance Companies (PHLY) have developed specific exclusions and requirements related to armed church safety teams. Understanding these carrier positions is essential for church leadership evaluating their insurance protection.

1. Brotherhood Mutual

Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Company, one of the largest church insurance providers in the United States, has issued explicit guidance regarding church security teams. Brotherhood Mutual policies typically exclude coverage for bodily injury or property damage arising from armed volunteer security activities unless the church has obtained specific endorsement coverage, complied with carrier underwriting requirements, and paid additional premiums for security team coverage.

Brotherhood Mutual requires churches seeking armed security team coverage to demonstrate comprehensive training programs, written policies and procedures, background check protocols, and supervision structures. The carrier conducts underwriting review of the church’s safety program before determining whether to extend coverage and at what premium. Many churches discover after incidents occur that their Brotherhood Mutual policies exclude the specific claims arising from their safety team activities because they deployed armed volunteers without first obtaining proper endorsement coverage.

2. Church Mutual

Church Mutual Insurance Company maintains similar exclusions for armed volunteer security activities in its standard church liability policies. The carrier’s standard form excludes coverage for bodily injury arising from security operations unless specifically endorsed. Church Mutual requires notification before churches deploy armed security teams and reserves the right to modify coverage terms, increase premiums, or decline coverage based on the church’s security program structure.

Church Mutual has published guidance documents emphasizing that churches should not deploy armed volunteers in security capacities without first consulting their insurance agent, obtaining proper endorsement coverage, and ensuring compliance with state licensing laws. The carrier has denied coverage in cases where churches created armed security teams without proper notification and endorsement.

3. GuideOne Insurance

GuideOne Insurance provides church liability coverage but excludes security related claims in standard policies. The carrier has developed specific safety ministry guidelines that distinguish between permissible volunteer activities (greeting, ushering, medical response, facility monitoring) and excluded security activities (armed patrol, threat intervention, physical security operations).

GuideOne encourages churches to develop safety ministries focused on observation and reporting rather than armed intervention. The carrier emphasizes that volunteers carrying firearms for personal protection while attending worship are covered under standard concealed carry laws, but the same individuals lose coverage when they transition into organized security roles for the church. This distinction between personal carry and security team deployment is critical to understanding GuideOne’s coverage position.

4. Philadelphia Insurance Companies (PHLY)

PHLY provides specialized houses of worship liability coverage but maintains clear exclusions for armed security operations in standard policies. The carrier’s forms exclude coverage for bodily injury arising from the use of armed security personnel unless the church has disclosed the security program, obtained endorsement coverage, and complied with carrier requirements.

PHLY requires churches seeking armed security coverage to demonstrate that volunteers meet minimum training standards, undergo background checks, operate under written policies, and receive ongoing supervision. The carrier conducts detailed underwriting analysis before extending coverage and reserves the right to decline coverage for churches whose security programs do not meet carrier standards.

5. Catholic Mutual Group

Catholic Mutual Group, which provides specialized insurance coverage for Catholic churches and institutions, maintains similar exclusions for unauthorized armed security operations. The carrier has published comprehensive Church Security and Volunteer Protection Guidelines emphasizing that volunteer security teams must operate under properly structured programs with documented training, background checks, and supervision. Catholic Mutual requires churches to notify the carrier before establishing armed security programs and mandates compliance with all applicable state licensing laws. The carrier has explicitly stated that coverage may be denied for incidents involving unlicensed volunteers performing security functions, and that churches operating such programs without carrier approval face potential coverage gaps similar to those created by other major insurers.

IV. CASE STUDY: WHEN COVERAGE ASSUMPTIONS FAIL

A. Scenario Overview

To illustrate the coverage gaps and liability exposures created by misunderstanding PORAC LDF limitations and insurance exclusions, consider the following scenario based on actual church security incidents:

First Community Church establishes a safety team comprising five retired law enforcement officers, all of whom maintain PORAC LDF membership and concealed carry licenses. The church assigns these volunteers to rotating shifts during worship services, positions them at entrances and in the sanctuary, provides them with radios, and instructs them to respond to any threats. The volunteers carry concealed firearms while performing these duties. The church believes the volunteers are protected by PORAC LDF and the church’s general liability insurance covers any incidents.

During a Sunday service, an individual experiencing a mental health crisis enters the sanctuary shouting and making threatening gestures with a weapon. One safety team volunteer perceives an immediate threat and draws his firearm. The individual, startled by the drawn weapon, makes a sudden movement toward the volunteer. The volunteer fires, seriously wounding the individual. The individual survives but suffers permanent injuries.

B. Coverage Denials

1. PORAC LDF Denial

The volunteer immediately contacts PORAC LDF expecting coverage for both criminal investigation and civil liability. PORAC LDF reviews the incident and issues a coverage denial letter. The denial explains that the volunteer was acting in an unpaid private security capacity at the time of the incident. PORAC notes that the volunteer was assigned to a church safety team, positioned at a specific location, equipped with a radio for security communications, and responding to a perceived threat as part of his security team duties. The denial letter cites the explicit exclusion in PORAC’s Firearms Coverage FAQ for incidents arising from employment or acting in an unpaid private security capacity. PORAC concludes that the incident falls squarely within the exclusion and coverage is therefore denied.

The volunteer must now retain a criminal defense attorney at his own expense. He pays a $100,000 retainer immediately, with his attorney estimating total costs could reach $300,000 if the case proceeds to trial.

2. Church Insurance Denial

Simultaneously, the injured individual and his family file a civil lawsuit against both the volunteer and the church, alleging excessive force, negligent training, negligent supervision, and vicarious liability. The church tenders the claim to its general liability carrier expecting coverage. The insurance company issues a reservation of rights letter followed by a coverage denial.

The carrier’s denial letter explains that the church’s policy excludes bodily injury arising from security operations. The carrier notes that the church created an organized safety team, assigned volunteers to security positions, equipped them with communications equipment, and directed their security activities without obtaining endorsement coverage for armed security operations. The carrier further notes that California law may require licensing for such security operations, and the church’s failure to comply with licensing requirements violates the policy’s requirement that the insured comply with all applicable laws.

The carrier denies coverage for both the volunteer’s defense and any potential judgment, leaving both the volunteer and the church to defend the lawsuit without insurance support.

C. Liability Outcomes

The volunteer hires a civil defense attorney at his own expense, paying another $75,000 retainer. The church, facing potential vicarious liability, retains separate counsel paying a $150,000 retainer. After eighteen months of litigation, both the volunteer and church agree to settle the case for $2,500,000, split equally between them. The volunteer must pay $1,250,000 from personal assets plus approximately $200,000 in legal fees. The church pays $1,250,000 plus approximately $300,000 in legal fees. Neither party has insurance coverage for any of these costs.

The volunteer loses his retirement savings and must sell his home to satisfy the judgment. The church depletes its building fund and conducts an emergency fundraising campaign to pay the settlement and legal fees. Both the volunteer and church leadership face significant emotional trauma from the experience. The church dissolves its safety team, and several volunteers who had served faithfully resign from church membership due to the lack of support and protection.

D. What Went Wrong

This scenario illustrates multiple failures in understanding coverage limitations and implementing proper risk management:

• The church incorrectly assumed PORAC LDF would cover volunteer security activities
• The volunteer relied on this assumption without verifying coverage with PORAC
• The church created an organized security operation without consulting its insurance carrier
• The church failed to obtain proper endorsement coverage for armed security operations
• The church may have violated California licensing requirements for private security
• The church failed to establish clear policies distinguishing personal carry from security operations
• Neither the church nor volunteers obtained alternative insurance coverage

V. COMPLIANT POLICY FRAMEWORK: PROTECTING CHURCH AND VOLUNTEERS

A. The Safe Alternative: Non-Security Safety Ministry

Churches can establish effective safety programs without creating security operations that trigger coverage exclusions and licensing requirements. The key is structuring the program to focus on observation, reporting, medical response, and emergency coordination rather than armed intervention and physical security. This approach protects both the church and volunteers while still enhancing overall safety.

B. Model Policy Template

CHURCH SAFETY AND MEDICAL RESPONSE MINISTRY Non-Security Framework 1. POLICY STATEMENT This church does not authorize, assign, or deploy armed volunteers in any protective or security capacity. This church does not operate a security team, safety team, protection detail, or any similar function involving armed intervention, threat response, or physical security operations. Individuals who choose to carry firearms on church property do so as private citizens exercising their personal concealed carry rights, not as representatives, agents, or volunteers of this church. The church neither requires, encourages, nor prohibits lawful concealed carry by licensed individuals attending worship. 2. SAFETY MINISTRY PURPOSE The Church Safety and Medical Response Ministry exists to enhance congregational welfare through observation, reporting, medical assistance, and emergency coordination. This ministry does not perform security functions and volunteers are explicitly prohibited from acting in any protective or intervention capacity. 3. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES Safety ministry volunteers are explicitly prohibited from: • Acting as armed security guards or protective personnel • Conducting armed or unarmed patrols of church facilities • Intervening physically in violent incidents or confrontations • Detaining, restraining, or physically controlling individuals • Providing perimeter security or access control • Standing post at doors, entrances, or designated security positions • Identifying themselves as church security, safety team, or protection personnel • Wearing badges, insignia, or clothing identifying security role • Carrying firearms as part of church duties or responsibilities • Using force on behalf of the church or congregation 4. PERMITTED ACTIVITIES Safety ministry volunteers may perform the following non-security functions: • Observe and report suspicious activity to church staff or law enforcement • Provide first aid and medical response to injuries or medical emergencies • Assist with emergency evacuation procedures • Support lost child reunification protocols • Monitor weather alerts and emergency notifications • Coordinate with emergency responders during incidents • Assist elderly or disabled congregants with mobility • Operate communication equipment for emergency notifications • Maintain emergency supplies and equipment • Participate in emergency drills and training exercises 5. FIREARMS POLICY The church does not authorize, supervise, or direct any volunteer to carry firearms as part of safety ministry duties. Individuals who possess valid California concealed carry licenses may lawfully carry concealed firearms on church property while attending worship, subject to all applicable laws and restrictions. However, such carry is in a purely personal capacity for self-protection, not as part of any church sanctioned security or safety role. The church provides no training, authorization, supervision, or oversight regarding firearms carry or use. Any individual who carries a firearm does so entirely independently of their participation in the safety ministry and must not represent that they are armed security for the church. The church does not provide legal defense, insurance coverage, or indemnification for any incident involving firearms use, regardless of whether the individual is a safety ministry volunteer or other church member. 6. VOLUNTEER ACKNOWLEDGMENT All safety ministry volunteers must sign an acknowledgment form confirming they understand: • They are not authorized to act as security personnel • They must not intervene in violent situations • They must not carry firearms as part of church duties • They have no authority to use force on behalf of the church • The church provides no legal defense or insurance for use of force incidents • They act solely in observation and reporting capacity 7. REPORTING PROTOCOL Safety ministry volunteers who observe potential threats, suspicious activity, or emergency situations must immediately report to designated church staff, who will determine the appropriate response including contacting law enforcement when necessary. Volunteers must not attempt to confront, intervene, or resolve such situations independently. 8. TRAINING REQUIREMENTS Safety ministry volunteers must complete training in: • CPR and first aid certification • AED operation • Emergency evacuation procedures • Communication protocols • Observation and reporting procedures • De-escalation techniques (verbal only) • Lost child protocols • Emergency contact procedures The church does not provide firearms training, use of force training, defensive tactics training, or any security related instruction.

C. Implementation Guidance

Churches adopting this policy framework should take the following implementation steps to ensure compliance and protection:

1. Consult Insurance Carrier: Before implementing any safety ministry program, consult with your church’s insurance agent or broker. Provide the agent with a copy of your proposed policy and obtain written confirmation that the program as structured does not trigger security exclusions or require additional endorsement coverage.

2. Legal Review: Have qualified legal counsel review your safety ministry policy to ensure compliance with California licensing laws, liability standards, and insurance requirements. Counsel should specifically confirm that your program does not create a private patrol operation requiring licensing under California Business and Professions Code Section 7582.1.

3. Volunteer Acknowledgment Forms: Create and maintain signed acknowledgment forms from all safety ministry volunteers confirming they understand the scope and limitations of their role, the prohibition on security activities, and the absence of church provided legal defense or insurance for use of force incidents.

4. Communication with Congregation: Clearly communicate to the congregation that individuals carrying concealed firearms do so in a personal capacity and are not church security. This prevents the creation of reasonable reliance claims where congregants might assert they believed armed volunteers would protect them in emergencies.

5. Eliminate Security Terminology: Remove all references to security teams, protection details, safety patrols, or similar security language from church documents, websites, bulletins, and communications. Use terminology that accurately reflects the observation and reporting nature of the ministry.

6. Document Compliance: Maintain detailed records of volunteer training, acknowledgment forms, policy distributions, and compliance measures. These records become critical evidence if claims arise demonstrating that the church operated a non security program and volunteers understood the limitations on their authority.

VI. ALTERNATIVE COVERAGE OPTIONS FOR VOLUNTEERS

Volunteers who choose to carry firearms in a personal capacity while attending church should understand their coverage options and limitations. While PORAC LDF excludes coverage for security related activities, individual volunteers carrying for personal protection may have other coverage sources.

A. Concealed Carry Insurance

Several companies offer self-defense insurance specifically designed for concealed carry license holders. These policies typically cover criminal defense costs and civil liability for justified use of force in self-defense situations. However, most of these policies contain exclusions similar to PORAC LDF for incidents occurring while the insured is acting in a security capacity for an organization.

Volunteers considering concealed carry insurance should specifically inquire whether coverage applies when the insured is on church property, whether any on duty exclusions apply, and whether the policy covers use of force while volunteering at church in any capacity. Obtain written confirmation of coverage scope before relying on such policies.

B. Personal Umbrella Liability

Personal umbrella liability policies provide additional liability coverage above underlying homeowners and auto policies. However, most umbrella policies exclude intentional acts, which courts may classify use of force as even when justified in self-defense. Umbrella policies also typically exclude liability arising from business or volunteer activities performed on behalf of organizations. Volunteers should not assume umbrella coverage will respond to church related use of force incidents.

C. Disclosure and Verification

Any volunteer considering carrying a firearm at church, whether as personal protection or while serving in any church capacity, should fully disclose their church involvement to any insurance carrier or membership organization from whom they seek coverage. Provide detailed information about church attendance, volunteer roles, and any safety ministry participation. Request written confirmation that coverage applies to the specific scenario the volunteer anticipates. Generic assurances or verbal representations from sales agents are insufficient. Obtain explicit written confirmation from the carrier’s underwriting or legal department confirming coverage for the described activities.

VII. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The intersection of church safety concerns, volunteer service, firearms carry, and insurance coverage creates complex legal and risk management challenges that church leadership must address with clear understanding and sound policy frameworks. The following conclusions and recommendations emerge from this analysis:

1. PORAC LDF Coverage Limitation is Absolute

Churches must understand that PORAC Legal Defense Fund explicitly excludes coverage for incidents arising from employment or acting in an unpaid private security capacity. No amount of good intentions, volunteer status, or characterization of the role as ministry rather than security will overcome this exclusion. Retired law enforcement volunteers serving on church safety teams do not have PORAC LDF coverage for security related incidents, period.

2. Church Insurance Typically Excludes Security Operations

Standard church general liability policies from major carriers exclude coverage for armed security operations unless churches obtain specific endorsement coverage, comply with carrier requirements, and pay additional premiums. Churches deploying armed volunteer safety teams without proper insurance endorsements create massive liability exposure for both the church and volunteers.

3. Volunteer Status Does Not Eliminate Licensing Requirements

California law may require BSIS licensing for organized security operations regardless of whether personnel are paid or volunteer. Churches creating structured safety teams with assigned duties, scheduled shifts, and security responsibilities risk violating private security licensing statutes, which creates additional liability exposure and insurance coverage issues.

4. Non-Security Safety Ministries Provide Safer Alternative

Churches unable to afford professional services must implement compliant safety ministries focused on observation and emergency response rather than armed security.  Churches can enhance congregational safety through well structured observation and reporting programs that avoid security functions. By focusing on medical response, emergency coordination, and threat reporting rather than armed intervention, churches protect both their organizations and volunteers while still improving overall safety.

5. Clear Policies Protect Both Church and Volunteers

The model policy framework presented in this article provides churches with a defensible structure that preserves individual concealed carry rights while avoiding the creation of church sanctioned security operations. Proper implementation of such policies, combined with thorough documentation and volunteer acknowledgments, substantially reduces liability exposure.

6. Contract with Law Enforcement and/or Private Security Services 

The preferred solution for faith-based organizations is contracting with law enforcement agencies or licensed private security firms to provide professional armed coverage during services.

7. Immediate Action Required

Churches currently operating armed volunteer safety teams under the assumption of PORAC LDF or insurance coverage must take immediate action. Church leadership should suspend security operations pending thorough legal and insurance review, consult qualified legal counsel regarding licensing requirements and liability exposure, contact insurance carriers to determine coverage status and endorsement requirements, implement compliant policy frameworks that eliminate prohibited security activities, and obtain written acknowledgments from all volunteers confirming understanding of coverage limitations and policy requirements.

For questions regarding implementation of compliant church safety policies, insurance procurement, legal compliance review, or volunteer training programs, contact Kearnan Consulting Group, LLC.

Citations

1. PORAC Legal Defense Fund, Firearms Coverage FAQ, https://www.poracldf.org/firearms-coverage (last visited Mar. 10, 2026).
2. Id.
3. Cal. Civ. Code § 1714 (West 2026) (establishing general duty of care and liability for negligence).
4. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 7582.1 (West 2026) (defining private patrol operator and requiring licensing).
5. Cal. Penal Code § 26030 (West 2026) (permitting private security guards to carry firearms only when licensed and authorized).
6. Restatement (Second) of Agency § 219 (1958) (establishing vicarious liability for acts of servants and agents).
7. Cal. Civ. Code § 1714 (West 2026) (general duty of care and liability for negligence).
8. Restatement (Second) of Agency § 219 (1958) (vicarious liability for acts of servants and agents).
9. Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Company, Church Security Team Coverage Exclusions (2025) (on file with author).
10. Church Mutual Insurance Company, Armed Volunteer Exclusions and Requirements, Policy Form CM 00 01 (2024).
11. GuideOne Insurance, Church Safety Ministry Guidelines and Coverage Limitations (2025).
12. Philadelphia Insurance Companies (PHLY), Houses of Worship Liability Coverage Form (2024).
13. Catholic Mutual Group, Church Security and Volunteer Protection Guidelines (2025).