Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tradelite who wrote (48957)	2/22/2006 8:23:25 PM
From: orkrious	Respond to of 306849

That land has long since been sold, and the insurer seemed to think this was a big deal, too. I'm not sure whether you mean positive or negative. It's another exposure you want to insure, and it's another exposure on which an insurance company can charge a premium. So again, I'm puzzled about the emphasis on owning and driving a car as a reason or condition for owning an umbrella policy. There's no question that an auto exposure is bigger, but if I didn't have an auto I'd still want an umbrella policy (and I don't have kids living at home). A middle aged or older person who doesn't have kids living at home is really unlikely to need one, but again I think it's nuts not to have one. maybe my insurance company thinks I already insure my cars and home for as much as they can charge without adding to the complexity? Insurance polices are very complex products. They should be sold by people who understand them. I'd suggest asking friends who use independent agents if they think theirs is any good. If they do, call them. I'd avoid direct writers such as AAA, Allstate, State Farm, etc. It's possible they are cheaper, but you are likely to find higher quality people who are independent.

To: Tradelite who wrote (48957)	2/22/2006 8:37:49 PM
From: Elroy Jetson	Respond to of 306849

When considering an Umbrella policy, why not consider how a large corporation like Chevron-Texaco handles this issue. Chevron-Texaco is self-insured for all losses. However, they still have the equivalent of an Umbrella policy for individual losses which exceed $500 million. Chevron-Texaco has assets exceeding $50 billion. So they are willing to self-insure for losses for up to one percent of their assets. But they feel they need insurance for larger losses, even though the risk of a loss exceeding $500 million is quite small. Let's assuming your wealth far exceeds what I would guess. Lets say you have $3 million in assets. Following Chevron's example, you would self-insure for up to $30,000 and have insurance to cover larger losses. Even when you have an Umbrella policy, you can always raise the deductibles to come close to the $30,000 self-insurance level. You can also drop the collision coverage on your own cars entirely. I'd also look at it this way. I'd suspect I most need the type of insurance coverage my insurance company is least eager to sell. And I probably don't need the insurance they are most eager to sell me. .