Wednesday, August 31, 2011

Bogleheads :: View topic - How much assets before considering ...

View previous topic :: View next topic ? Author Message AndroAsc

Joined: 21 Nov 2009
Posts: 555


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message ?'); //-->
letsgobobby

Joined: 18 Sep 2009
Posts: 2154


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message ?'); //-->
Lumpr

Joined: 19 May 2009
Posts: 112


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message ?'); //-->
Opponent Process

Joined: 18 Sep 2007
Posts: 4735


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message ?'); //-->
Quasimodo

Joined: 03 May 2007
Posts: 983


PostPosted: Sat Aug 27, 2011 11:47 am?? ?Post subject: Reply with quote

In the context of operating a car, the premium for a $1 million umbrella isn't even noticeable. For one or two hundred dollars a year you get a team of insurance company claim adjusters and attorneys to represent you in court if you get sued. Much less expensive than hiring your own attorney. I accept that the chances of a large lawsuit against me is small, but it makes me feel better to know there is a policy that could pay a million dollars as well as attorney's fees if something crazy happened.

Just a personal opinion. I don't sell insurance. Good luck whatever you decide!

John
_________________
Once you hear the details of victory, it is hard to distinguish it from a defeat.

Jean-Paul Sartre, writer and philosopher (1905-1980)

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message ?'); //-->
magellan

Joined: 09 Mar 2007
Posts: 1559


PostPosted: Sat Aug 27, 2011 12:03 pm?? ?Post subject: Reply with quote

There's also a completely different way to look at this. Forget about your net worth or your future income prospects, and consider you moral responsibility to pay for the harm that you do to others.

IMO, a strategy that says I don't need to worry about it because I don't have many assets and I can just declare bankruptcy is morally wrong. I don't mean to sound sanctimonious, but it just seems a little irresponsible for a financial plan to include the risk of doing uncompensated harm to others, especially if that risk can be easily and inexpensively mitigated.

I understand that many folks are just barely getting by, and the added premium may be a real burden. Still, IMO the decision should be mostly about the potential for harm to others and ability to pay premiums to mitigate it.

Sure, as a side effect you might end up enriching ambulance chasers and the like, but that's just a built-in cost of doing business.

Jim

Last edited by magellan on Sat Aug 27, 2011 3:38 pm; edited 2 times in total

Back to top Fallible

Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 814


Back to top AndroAsc

Joined: 21 Nov 2009
Posts: 555


PostPosted: Sat Aug 27, 2011 5:37 pm?? ?Post subject: Reply with quote

But wouldn't the presence of an umbrella insurance make you a more "sue-able" target?

For e.g. if it was some college kid with no assets and minimum liability payout, the victim might be less inclined to sue because not much money can be made and it may be too much of a hassle (especially if the incident involved was not too serious). But if the victim knew that the college kid had a 2 million umbrella, he will be encouraged to sue cause he can get as much a 2 million payout.

Does that make sense?

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message ?'); //-->
Sidney

Joined: 08 Mar 2007
Posts: 3081


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message ?'); //-->
livesoft

Joined: 01 Mar 2007
Posts: 18388


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message ?'); //-->
joppy

Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 383


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message ?'); //-->
swupak

Joined: 05 May 2007
Posts: 9


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message ?'); //-->
dm200

Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 4351
Location: Washington DC area Born 1946


PostPosted: Sun Aug 28, 2011 7:25 pm?? ?Post subject: Reply with quote

AndroAsc wrote:
But wouldn't the presence of an umbrella insurance make you a more "sue-able" target?

For e.g. if it was some college kid with no assets and minimum liability payout, the victim might be less inclined to sue because not much money can be made and it may be too much of a hassle (especially if the incident involved was not too serious). But if the victim knew that the college kid had a 2 million umbrella, he will be encouraged to sue cause he can get as much a 2 million payout.

Does that make sense?

1. In respone to the original question, I think an umbrella policy makes sense even if actual assets are not currently large because it could protect you against a drain on future income, as well as some assets that might come your way (say an inheritance) before you got around to getting a policy.

2. As to having the policy making you more of a target, I think, though, that having the backing of an insurance company's high powered lawyers behind you (actually the insurance company;s money) more than offsets the potentially higher risk. Someone seeing (if they could even find out) a $1 million umbrella policy would also know (or their attorneys would know) that the insurance company will fight hard to not pay out any significant portion of that $1 million frivolusly without real justification.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message ?'); //-->

Source: http://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1164622&sid=ea44a57c99a1027cc0497bfef0ac4eef

norfolk va norfolk va chesapeake bay shogun rachel zoe north carolina anderson silva

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.