Umbrella Policy: Right amount for $7 mil net worth?

Have a question about your personal investments? No matter how simple or complex, you can ask it here.
1CEBITN
Posts: 45
Joined: Mon May 07, 2018 2:14 pm

Re: Umbrella Policy: Right amount for $7 mil net worth?

Post by 1CEBITN » Mon Jul 02, 2018 1:53 pm

TIAX wrote:
Thu Jun 28, 2018 5:38 pm
1CEBITN wrote:
Thu Jun 28, 2018 12:50 pm
\Also remember one of the biggest, most ridiculous things in our legal system is it is "free" to sue someone. Plaintiff's lawyers don't get paid unless you win typically so anybody can sue you any time over any thing and some sleazy lawyer will take that case just to see if you will settle vs pay your lawyer to defend you (tens of thousands of dollars for a typical civil suit).
That's a pretty simplistic view. Lawyers generally don't take loser cases and, if they do, they'll dismiss them pretty quickly once they see the defendant isn't willing to settle for nuisance value. And to the extent a case is frivolous, a defendant can usually get attorneys' fees from plaintiff.
I think that's a pretty optimistic view based on my experiences. Have you ever been sued frivolously? Have you ever tried to get attorney's fees from the plaintiff in such an instance? Do you know how much that costs? If you look like you have money you are more likely to get sued by someone who has no money and no conscience just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time because it costs them nothing to find a lawyer who will take their case. Someone can punch you in the face just standing there doing nothing and then sue you for starting a fight. They can break into your house and sue you for hitting them with a bat to protect your family. Lawyers take those cases all day long because they get to deal with insurance companies in those cases and personal injury law really doesn't have much to do with facts like a criminal court does, it is totally perception, and a jury normally decides the award which puts the outcome totally up in the air based on the jury's personal experiences. Do you want to guess how often the rich guy wins in a jury trial?

I have seen similar things happen to friends with money on a few occasions and, without their insurance company's lawyers getting involved, they would have been out a 5-figure sum just for the lawyer fees to go through discovery before it even got to trial, irregardless of the outcome of the case. That would be the point the plaintiff's lawyer would be able to tell he had a dud. I had a buddy driving his Mercedes E-class who cut a guy off in traffic inadvertently, just never saw him, the guy proceeds to pull a gun from his door pocket, holds it up so my buddy can see it. My buddy tries to get away from him by making a quick turn from his lane (legally). The guy chases him across a lane of traffic, hitting another car, and then sues my buddy because now he has "back problems." That's a pretty extreme example but the insurance company settled rather than taking their chances in court even though that guy is obviously a whack job (his lawyer is too). OJ was acquitted and still had to pay for wrongful death as another example. No comment on OJ's guilt/innocence but just a data point that criminal law and injury law are not related in all cases. Logic doesn't always apply in a personal injury case.

My point is, get the umbrella, it is cheap and buy more than you think you need because there are a lot of ways you can get sued in this country.

golfCaddy
Posts: 722
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 10:02 pm

Re: Umbrella Policy: Right amount for $7 mil net worth?

Post by golfCaddy » Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:36 pm

1CEBITN wrote:
Mon Jul 02, 2018 1:53 pm
I have seen similar things happen to friends with money on a few occasions and, without their insurance company's lawyers getting involved, they would have been out a 5-figure sum just for the lawyer fees to go through discovery before it even got to trial, irregardless of the outcome of the case. That would be the point the plaintiff's lawyer would be able to tell he had a dud. I had a buddy driving his Mercedes E-class who cut a guy off in traffic inadvertently, just never saw him, the guy proceeds to pull a gun from his door pocket, holds it up so my buddy can see it. My buddy tries to get away from him by making a quick turn from his lane (legally). The guy chases him across a lane of traffic, hitting another car, and then sues my buddy because now he has "back problems." That's a pretty extreme example but the insurance company settled rather than taking their chances in court even though that guy is obviously a whack job (his lawyer is too). OJ was acquitted and still had to pay for wrongful death as another example. No comment on OJ's guilt/innocence but just a data point that criminal law and injury law are not related in all cases. Logic doesn't always apply in a personal injury case.

My point is, get the umbrella, it is cheap and buy more than you think you need because there are a lot of ways you can get sued in this country.
Did the settlement in this case, exceed the primary auto policy limits? If the settlement was within the primary policy limits, it's not an example of where someone needed an umbrella policy. Sure, if you have minimum limits, it's cheaper for the insurance company to pay out the policy limits than litigate, but no insurance company pays out a 7 figure settlement on a frivolous lawsuit.

elnegativo
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 3:37 pm

Re: Umbrella Policy: Right amount for $7 mil net worth?

Post by elnegativo » Mon Jul 02, 2018 9:54 pm

1CEBITN wrote:
Mon Jul 02, 2018 1:53 pm
TIAX wrote:
Thu Jun 28, 2018 5:38 pm
1CEBITN wrote:
Thu Jun 28, 2018 12:50 pm
\Also remember one of the biggest, most ridiculous things in our legal system is it is "free" to sue someone. Plaintiff's lawyers don't get paid unless you win typically so anybody can sue you any time over any thing and some sleazy lawyer will take that case just to see if you will settle vs pay your lawyer to defend you (tens of thousands of dollars for a typical civil suit).
That's a pretty simplistic view. Lawyers generally don't take loser cases and, if they do, they'll dismiss them pretty quickly once they see the defendant isn't willing to settle for nuisance value. And to the extent a case is frivolous, a defendant can usually get attorneys' fees from plaintiff.
I think that's a pretty optimistic view based on my experiences. Have you ever been sued frivolously? Have you ever tried to get attorney's fees from the plaintiff in such an instance? Do you know how much that costs? If you look like you have money you are more likely to get sued by someone who has no money and no conscience just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time because it costs them nothing to find a lawyer who will take their case. Someone can punch you in the face just standing there doing nothing and then sue you for starting a fight. They can break into your house and sue you for hitting them with a bat to protect your family. Lawyers take those cases all day long because they get to deal with insurance companies in those cases and personal injury law really doesn't have much to do with facts like a criminal court does, it is totally perception, and a jury normally decides the award which puts the outcome totally up in the air based on the jury's personal experiences. Do you want to guess how often the rich guy wins in a jury trial?

I have seen similar things happen to friends with money on a few occasions and, without their insurance company's lawyers getting involved, they would have been out a 5-figure sum just for the lawyer fees to go through discovery before it even got to trial, irregardless of the outcome of the case. That would be the point the plaintiff's lawyer would be able to tell he had a dud. I had a buddy driving his Mercedes E-class who cut a guy off in traffic inadvertently, just never saw him, the guy proceeds to pull a gun from his door pocket, holds it up so my buddy can see it. My buddy tries to get away from him by making a quick turn from his lane (legally). The guy chases him across a lane of traffic, hitting another car, and then sues my buddy because now he has "back problems." That's a pretty extreme example but the insurance company settled rather than taking their chances in court even though that guy is obviously a whack job (his lawyer is too). OJ was acquitted and still had to pay for wrongful death as another example. No comment on OJ's guilt/innocence but just a data point that criminal law and injury law are not related in all cases. Logic doesn't always apply in a personal injury case.

My point is, get the umbrella, it is cheap and buy more than you think you need because there are a lot of ways you can get sued in this country.
While there is no screening process for civil suits before they are filed, after they are filed, every state has systems in place for defining "frivolous suits" and methods for quickly getting them dismissed. In Texas, for example, the definition is "no basis in fact or law." If you file such a suit, the defendant can immediately move to have it dismissed and will get it dismissed if it has no basis in fact or law. So, by definition, no one ever wins a frivolous case.

As far as insurance claims go, why would they regularly settle claims that have no basis in fact or law when they know if they just tell you "no" and force you file suit that you will be dismissed? As far as claims adjusting goes, is there occasionally going to be an outlier? Sure. Does it work perfectly every time? Probably not. But there is no epidemic of frivolous lawsuits or frivolous claims being paid.

Civil juries aren't crazy or illogical. They are just like you and me. In fact, they ARE you and me. When they return a verdict - big or small or nothing - it's because they have good reasons based on the evidence they heard in court. This idea that our civil justice system is suffering from existential flaws is propaganda put together by insurance companies and the national chamber because, well, they don't like being on the business end of a fair jury when folks are maimed or killed.

TIAX
Posts: 1161
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 12:19 pm

Re: Umbrella Policy: Right amount for $7 mil net worth?

Post by TIAX » Mon Jul 02, 2018 10:03 pm

1CEBITN wrote:
Mon Jul 02, 2018 1:53 pm
TIAX wrote:
Thu Jun 28, 2018 5:38 pm
1CEBITN wrote:
Thu Jun 28, 2018 12:50 pm
\Also remember one of the biggest, most ridiculous things in our legal system is it is "free" to sue someone. Plaintiff's lawyers don't get paid unless you win typically so anybody can sue you any time over any thing and some sleazy lawyer will take that case just to see if you will settle vs pay your lawyer to defend you (tens of thousands of dollars for a typical civil suit).
That's a pretty simplistic view. Lawyers generally don't take loser cases and, if they do, they'll dismiss them pretty quickly once they see the defendant isn't willing to settle for nuisance value. And to the extent a case is frivolous, a defendant can usually get attorneys' fees from plaintiff.
I think that's a pretty optimistic view based on my experiences. Have you ever been sued frivolously? Have you ever tried to get attorney's fees from the plaintiff in such an instance? Do you know how much that costs?
No, no, and yes. And since you would get all your attorneys' fees (including fees related to the attorneys' fees application), you shouldn't care very much. Of course, this assumes the case is in fact frivolous. People like to throw that word around without knowing what it really means.
1CEBITN wrote:
Mon Jul 02, 2018 1:53 pm
If you look like you have money you are more likely to get sued by someone who has no money and no conscience just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time because it costs them nothing to find a lawyer who will take their case. Someone can punch you in the face just standing there doing nothing and then sue you for starting a fight. They can break into your house and sue you for hitting them with a bat to protect your family. Lawyers take those cases all day long because they get to deal with insurance companies in those cases and personal injury law really doesn't have much to do with facts like a criminal court does, it is totally perception, and a jury normally decides the award which puts the outcome totally up in the air based on the jury's personal experiences. Do you want to guess how often the rich guy wins in a jury trial?
I'm not sure why you trust a jury sitting in a criminal case more so than a civil case. Jurors draw from their experiences in both contexts. As for how often rich guys win, that depends in part on the jury pool.
1CEBITN wrote:
Mon Jul 02, 2018 1:53 pm
OJ was acquitted and still had to pay for wrongful death as another example. No comment on OJ's guilt/innocence but just a data point that criminal law and injury law are not related in all cases. Logic doesn't always apply in a personal injury case.
Those results aren't inconsistent. As you probably know, the burden of proof in a criminal case is much higher than in a civil case.
1CEBITN wrote:
Mon Jul 02, 2018 1:53 pm
My point is, get the umbrella, it is cheap and buy more than you think you need because there are a lot of ways you can get sued in this country.
Agreed.

JBTX
Posts: 4107
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2017 12:46 pm

Re: Umbrella Policy: Right amount for $7 mil net worth?

Post by JBTX » Mon Jul 02, 2018 10:06 pm

elnegativo wrote:
Mon Jul 02, 2018 9:54 pm
1CEBITN wrote:
Mon Jul 02, 2018 1:53 pm
TIAX wrote:
Thu Jun 28, 2018 5:38 pm
1CEBITN wrote:
Thu Jun 28, 2018 12:50 pm
\Also remember one of the biggest, most ridiculous things in our legal system is it is "free" to sue someone. Plaintiff's lawyers don't get paid unless you win typically so anybody can sue you any time over any thing and some sleazy lawyer will take that case just to see if you will settle vs pay your lawyer to defend you (tens of thousands of dollars for a typical civil suit).
That's a pretty simplistic view. Lawyers generally don't take loser cases and, if they do, they'll dismiss them pretty quickly once they see the defendant isn't willing to settle for nuisance value. And to the extent a case is frivolous, a defendant can usually get attorneys' fees from plaintiff.
I think that's a pretty optimistic view based on my experiences. Have you ever been sued frivolously? Have you ever tried to get attorney's fees from the plaintiff in such an instance? Do you know how much that costs? If you look like you have money you are more likely to get sued by someone who has no money and no conscience just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time because it costs them nothing to find a lawyer who will take their case. Someone can punch you in the face just standing there doing nothing and then sue you for starting a fight. They can break into your house and sue you for hitting them with a bat to protect your family. Lawyers take those cases all day long because they get to deal with insurance companies in those cases and personal injury law really doesn't have much to do with facts like a criminal court does, it is totally perception, and a jury normally decides the award which puts the outcome totally up in the air based on the jury's personal experiences. Do you want to guess how often the rich guy wins in a jury trial?

I have seen similar things happen to friends with money on a few occasions and, without their insurance company's lawyers getting involved, they would have been out a 5-figure sum just for the lawyer fees to go through discovery before it even got to trial, irregardless of the outcome of the case. That would be the point the plaintiff's lawyer would be able to tell he had a dud. I had a buddy driving his Mercedes E-class who cut a guy off in traffic inadvertently, just never saw him, the guy proceeds to pull a gun from his door pocket, holds it up so my buddy can see it. My buddy tries to get away from him by making a quick turn from his lane (legally). The guy chases him across a lane of traffic, hitting another car, and then sues my buddy because now he has "back problems." That's a pretty extreme example but the insurance company settled rather than taking their chances in court even though that guy is obviously a whack job (his lawyer is too). OJ was acquitted and still had to pay for wrongful death as another example. No comment on OJ's guilt/innocence but just a data point that criminal law and injury law are not related in all cases. Logic doesn't always apply in a personal injury case.

My point is, get the umbrella, it is cheap and buy more than you think you need because there are a lot of ways you can get sued in this country.
While there is no screening process for civil suits before they are filed, after they are filed, every state has systems in place for defining "frivolous suits" and methods for quickly getting them dismissed. In Texas, for example, the definition is "no basis in fact or law." If you file such a suit, the defendant can immediately move to have it dismissed and will get it dismissed if it has no basis in fact or law. So, by definition, no one ever wins a frivolous case.

As far as insurance claims go, why would they regularly settle claims that have no basis in fact or law when they know if they just tell you "no" and force you file suit that you will be dismissed? As far as claims adjusting goes, is there occasionally going to be an outlier? Sure. Does it work perfectly every time? Probably not. But there is no epidemic of frivolous lawsuits or frivolous claims being paid.

Civil juries aren't crazy or illogical. They are just like you and me. In fact, they ARE you and me. When they return a verdict - big or small or nothing - it's because they have good reasons based on the evidence they heard in court. This idea that our civil justice system is suffering from existential flaws is propaganda put together by insurance companies and the national chamber because, well, they don't like being on the business end of a fair jury when folks are maimed or killed.
As annoying, seemingly arbitrary and unfair as civil suits can be on occasion, the Civil tort system at times is the only thing driving behavior modifications for all of our benefits. There is only so far laws and regulations can go. We probably live much safer lives due to the Civil tort system.

User avatar
Lieutenant.Columbo
Posts: 1176
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2015 9:20 pm
Location: Los Angeles CA

Re: Umbrella Policy: Right amount for $7 mil net worth?

Post by Lieutenant.Columbo » Sun Sep 09, 2018 12:33 am

golfCaddy wrote:
Wed Jun 27, 2018 7:07 pm
80-90% of personal umbrella claims are for auto accidents. If you almost never drive, don't own any dangerous pets, don't have any high risk hobbies, like boating or flying a private plane, and rent an apartment or condo, I question whether you need an umbrella policy at all.
if one rents an apartment or condo, do you question or do you Not question the need of umbrella insurance? And, why? Thank you
Note: We own and live in a condo.
Lt. Columbo: Well, what do you know. Here I am talking with some of the smartest people in the world, and I didn't even notice!

Skierajs
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2018 9:05 am

Re: Umbrella Policy: Right amount for $7 mil net worth?

Post by Skierajs » Sun Sep 09, 2018 1:12 am

I’m not sure how much you’re paying for the umbrella without auto, but I’m in a similar boat with no car (but do rent occasionally) and when I priced it out it was cheaper to buy a “named non-owner” auto policy PLUS an umbrella from Geico than a stand-alone umbrella from anywhere else. It’s also nice knowing I have full coverage when renting a car while traveling.

golfCaddy
Posts: 722
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 10:02 pm

Re: Umbrella Policy: Right amount for $7 mil net worth?

Post by golfCaddy » Sun Sep 09, 2018 9:40 am

Lieutenant.Columbo wrote:
Sun Sep 09, 2018 12:33 am
golfCaddy wrote:
Wed Jun 27, 2018 7:07 pm
80-90% of personal umbrella claims are for auto accidents. If you almost never drive, don't own any dangerous pets, don't have any high risk hobbies, like boating or flying a private plane, and rent an apartment or condo, I question whether you need an umbrella policy at all.
if one rents an apartment or condo, do you question or do you Not question the need of umbrella insurance? And, why? Thank you
Note: We own and live in a condo.
Like, I said, 80-90% of umbrella lawsuits are about auto accidents. So the first question is do own a car or a boat or an airplane? Assuming the answer is no, the question is what other liability exposures do you have? If you own your own home, and someone slips and falls on the sidewalk, they can sue you. If you rent, they sue the apartment owner. If someone drowns in the pool you own, they sue you. If someone drowns in a community pool and you rent, they sue the apartment owner. If you own your home and a construction worker falls off the roof, they can sue you. If you rent, they sue the apartment complex. If you own a condo, you should talk to a lawyer, but I assume the condo association has umbrella insurance that covers the communal areas.

User avatar
Lieutenant.Columbo
Posts: 1176
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2015 9:20 pm
Location: Los Angeles CA

Re: Umbrella Policy: Right amount for $7 mil net worth?

Post by Lieutenant.Columbo » Sun Sep 09, 2018 10:28 am

golfCaddy wrote:
Sun Sep 09, 2018 9:40 am
Lieutenant.Columbo wrote:
Sun Sep 09, 2018 12:33 am
golfCaddy wrote:
Wed Jun 27, 2018 7:07 pm
80-90% of personal umbrella claims are for auto accidents. If you almost never drive, don't own any dangerous pets, don't have any high risk hobbies, like boating or flying a private plane, and rent an apartment or condo, I question whether you need an umbrella policy at all.
if one rents an apartment or condo, do you question or do you Not question the need of umbrella insurance? And, why? Thank you
Note: We own and live in a condo.
Like, I said, 80-90% of umbrella lawsuits are about auto accidents. So the first question is do own a car or a boat or an airplane? Assuming the answer is no, the question is what other liability exposures do you have? If you own your own home, and someone slips and falls on the sidewalk, they can sue you. If you rent, they sue the apartment owner. If someone drowns in the pool you own, they sue you. If someone drowns in a community pool and you rent, they sue the apartment owner. If you own your home and a construction worker falls off the roof, they can sue you. If you rent, they sue the apartment complex. If you own a condo, you should talk to a lawyer, but I assume the condo association has umbrella insurance that covers the communal areas.
I see, thank you.
It baffles me that the owner of a house or that a condo association would be found at fault (or whatever the legal term is) when someone drowns in their pool or slips when when on the premises, if the accident happens with no (direct?) fault of the owner's or the association's. How can the legal system find fair finding the owner at fault when the accident did not happen due to negligence or fault of the owner? :?
Do you know?
Lt. Columbo: Well, what do you know. Here I am talking with some of the smartest people in the world, and I didn't even notice!

User avatar
Watty
Posts: 14399
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 3:55 pm

Re: Umbrella Policy: Right amount for $7 mil net worth?

Post by Watty » Sun Sep 09, 2018 10:38 am

I might have missed it but I don't think one thing was mentioned. That is to get a quote and then decide. If getting a couple million dollars in extra coverage only costs $50 a year more then there would be little reason to not get it even if there was not a clear need for it.

Saving$
Posts: 1623
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 8:33 pm

Re: Umbrella Policy: Right amount for $7 mil net worth?

Post by Saving$ » Sun Sep 09, 2018 11:08 am

I'm not really sure the insurers are as expert at selecting lawyers as Afan's friend thinks. A few years ago, an acquaintance was named in a suit, and notified his insurance. They assigned an attorney who seemed to want to cut a deal, which would have cost well into the low 6 figures. He was furious, as he believed he had nothing whatsoever to do with the incident other than attending the event the incident took place. He ended up hiring his own lawyer, who got a hearing in front of the judge, and got the judge to agree the plaintiff needed to remove my acquaintance from the suit. The insurance company lawyer marveled at that strategy...The total cost of legal fees was mid five figures, far less than what the insurance company was willing to pay, and my acquaintance then had to fight his insurance to get his legal fees reimbursed for saving the insurance six figures...

sambb
Posts: 2165
Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2013 3:31 pm

Re: Umbrella Policy: Right amount for $7 mil net worth?

Post by sambb » Sun Sep 09, 2018 11:10 am

For the OP, i would definitely buy 5M, and i would definitely buy a car with autobraking, lane change, blind spot etc - most of the brands have this now. I would not be driving an older car with out these.
Also get a doorbell security cam and other cameras. Cant hurt

golfCaddy
Posts: 722
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 10:02 pm

Re: Umbrella Policy: Right amount for $7 mil net worth?

Post by golfCaddy » Sun Sep 09, 2018 11:13 am

Lieutenant.Columbo wrote:
Sun Sep 09, 2018 10:28 am
I see, thank you.
It baffles me that the owner of a house or that a condo association would be found at fault (or whatever the legal term is) when someone drowns in their pool or slips when when on the premises, if the accident happens with no (direct?) fault of the owner's or the association's. How can the legal system find fair finding the owner at fault when the accident did not happen due to negligence or fault of the owner? :?
Do you know?
I'm not a lawyer, but I would venture the legal system has a much more expansive definition of fault and negligence than you do. See the Demi Moore lawsuit as an example:

Moore has now been added as a defendant in the case, according to court documents obtained by PEOPLE. The Valle family is blaming the actress for allegedly failing to place depth markers near what they claim was an “excessively deep” pool. They also allege that rocks by the pool’s edge were a tripping hazard, and that alcohol and the pool’s “dangerously high” temperature (allegedly 101 degrees at the time) were factors in his death.

boglerdude
Posts: 634
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2015 1:28 am
Contact:

Re: Umbrella Policy: Right amount for $7 mil net worth?

Post by boglerdude » Mon Sep 10, 2018 1:15 am

> How can the legal system find the owner at fault when the accident did not happen due to negligence or fault of the owner?

You're right. Folks who sell insurance downplay the fact that foreseeable negligence is required for liability.

But rather than go to trial and have the jury hear "someone at that complex should have predicted the hazard!", cases always settle. So, have your 1M umbrella and 50k (the max) of HOA loss assessment coverage.

Call_Me_Op
Posts: 7045
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:57 pm
Location: Milky Way

Re: Umbrella Policy: Right amount for $7 mil net worth?

Post by Call_Me_Op » Mon Sep 10, 2018 6:06 am

golfCaddy wrote:
Wed Jun 27, 2018 7:07 pm
I question whether you need an umbrella policy at all.
I don't. Even if he drives 10 feet per day, there is risk.
Best regards, -Op | | "In the middle of difficulty lies opportunity." Einstein

badger42
Posts: 287
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 9:01 am

Re: Umbrella Policy: Right amount for $7 mil net worth?

Post by badger42 » Mon Sep 10, 2018 1:44 pm

Looking at net worth and risk, the #1 thing I would consider doing is to stop driving. For that 10 times a year, take an Uber/Lyft (even one of the nice ones) and be done with it.

ohyeah
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2013 12:50 pm

Re: Umbrella Policy: Right amount for $7 mil net worth?

Post by ohyeah » Wed Sep 12, 2018 3:21 pm

I was under the impression that most states(mine does) have laws that protect retirement accts and erisa pensions, along with homes and vehicles.

Unless you have substantial tax paid accts and/or luxury toys, why should you be concerned about umbrella policies? Is this a case of being over-insured? If you have $5+ mil in IRA's, are you still vulnerable even with state protection?

Pigeye Brewster
Posts: 225
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2017 7:33 pm

Re: Umbrella Policy: Right amount for $7 mil net worth?

Post by Pigeye Brewster » Wed Sep 12, 2018 3:47 pm

ohyeah wrote:
Wed Sep 12, 2018 3:21 pm
I was under the impression that most states(mine does) have laws that protect retirement accts and erisa pensions, along with homes and vehicles.

Unless you have substantial tax paid accts and/or luxury toys, why should you be concerned about umbrella policies? Is this a case of being over-insured? If you have $5+ mil in IRA's, are you still vulnerable even with state protection?
I'm not a lawyer. But my understanding is that while ERISA and certain other retirement accounts may be protected from bankruptcy or other creditor claims, distributions from those accounts might be subject to any outstanding judgments.

Iridium
Posts: 278
Joined: Thu May 19, 2016 10:49 am

Re: Umbrella Policy: Right amount for $7 mil net worth?

Post by Iridium » Wed Sep 12, 2018 4:46 pm

Pigeye Brewster wrote:
Wed Sep 12, 2018 3:47 pm
ohyeah wrote:
Wed Sep 12, 2018 3:21 pm
I was under the impression that most states(mine does) have laws that protect retirement accts and erisa pensions, along with homes and vehicles.

Unless you have substantial tax paid accts and/or luxury toys, why should you be concerned about umbrella policies? Is this a case of being over-insured? If you have $5+ mil in IRA's, are you still vulnerable even with state protection?
I'm not a lawyer. But my understanding is that while ERISA and certain other retirement accounts may be protected from bankruptcy or other creditor claims, distributions from those accounts might be subject to any outstanding judgments.
Someone in that position would almost certainly file for bankruptcy. This would prevent creditors from going after distributions (and any other asset) until bankruptcy proceedings are finished). Assuming the judgement was not related to drunk driving or other criminal activity, non secured debts get wiped away in the bankruptcy process, so your distributions would be protected after bankruptcy as well.

ohyeah
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2013 12:50 pm

Re: Umbrella Policy: Right amount for $7 mil net worth?

Post by ohyeah » Wed Sep 12, 2018 9:54 pm

Someone in that position would almost certainly file for bankruptcy. This would prevent creditors from going after distributions (and any other asset) until bankruptcy proceedings are finished). Assuming the judgement was not related to drunk driving or other criminal activity, non secured debts get wiped away in the bankruptcy process, so your distributions would be protected after bankruptcy as well.
Sounds plausible.

Since tax paid accts would be unprotected, seems like this could be another item to consider when doing Roth conversions. Conventional wisdom would have you paying the taxes with your tax paid acct., thus reducing overall exposure to liability claims. Assuming of course, your state offers protection for tax deferred accts.

Mordoch
Posts: 350
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 11:27 am

Re: Umbrella Policy: Right amount for $7 mil net worth?

Post by Mordoch » Wed Sep 12, 2018 10:04 pm

ohyeah wrote:
Wed Sep 12, 2018 9:54 pm
Since tax paid accts would be unprotected, seems like this could be another item to consider when doing Roth conversions. Conventional wisdom would have you paying the taxes with your tax paid acct., thus reducing overall exposure to liability claims. Assuming of course, your state offers protection for tax deferred accts.
In case there is any confusion on this point Roth accounts are definitely also comparably protected. The only thing to be aware of with regards to Roth IRAs (with also applies to a regular IRA) is their protection in bankruptcy only goes up to slightly over $1,283,000 dollars currently in case that detail is relevant for you.

Peppergrass
Posts: 46
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2018 7:25 pm

Re: Umbrella Policy: Right amount for $7 mil net worth?

Post by Peppergrass » Thu Sep 13, 2018 12:18 am

amp wrote:
Thu Jun 28, 2018 3:12 pm
Pete3 wrote:
Thu Jun 28, 2018 1:45 pm
As been stated by others, your net worth has nothing to do with how much umbrella insurance you need and discussing it in those terms means you don't understand what umbrella coverage is.
I'm not sure I agree with this. Seems to me that the more assets one has, the higher the umbrella coverage should be. Shouldn't a person with $2 million in assets have more coverage than one with $20,000, even if both have the same liability risk? The millionaire simply has more to protect.

There's no amount of liability coverage that can protect you from every risk, but I think using your net worth as a guideline is a perfectly valid rule of thumb.
I think what he means in a different way is.. you can't protect your assets fully because if it goes over you are done.. but I believe you are correct if you have more to lose, you should up the limit if you worry at night of losing a large amount of your money to a lawsuit... cheap price to pay in my eyes..

you have umbrella for 5 mill. you crush top violinists hand and he sues for 13 million and wins because you had alcohol on the breath detector even under limit.. what this does is

A. pays up to 5 mill.. you cover 8 out of pocket so you just lost all your assets in life
B. you can't be sure what they can sue for and win, I saw a case in Hawaii and said they won 15 mill... so yeah it happens
C. umbrella doesn't cover your assets, which I think you mistake, it covers up to the amount you specified and paid for if you got sued
D. I believe we are trying to define risk here, and 5 isn't a top end of the spectrum in my eyes, when I saw that in Hawaii I said man someone got hit hard, if they had 15 mill protection they were fine, anything under, nope..


shouldn't we be talking about a trust and asset protection also??/ isn't this what the main user is really wanting?

I would just up the limits, or try to find another company who will do a better pricing.. insurance is a pain but you have to pay it because if you don't, that's when you are going to get in trouble... I once was involved in a lawsuit and glad I had my insurance!!!
Last edited by Peppergrass on Thu Sep 13, 2018 12:22 am, edited 1 time in total.

OnTrack
Posts: 349
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2016 11:16 pm

Re: Umbrella Policy: Right amount for $7 mil net worth?

Post by OnTrack » Thu Sep 13, 2018 12:19 am

Mordoch wrote:
Wed Sep 12, 2018 10:04 pm
ohyeah wrote:
Wed Sep 12, 2018 9:54 pm
Since tax paid accts would be unprotected, seems like this could be another item to consider when doing Roth conversions. Conventional wisdom would have you paying the taxes with your tax paid acct., thus reducing overall exposure to liability claims. Assuming of course, your state offers protection for tax deferred accts.
In case there is any confusion on this point Roth accounts are definitely also comparably protected. The only thing to be aware of with regards to Roth IRAs (with also applies to a regular IRA) is their protection in bankruptcy only goes up to slightly over $1,283,000 dollars currently in case that detail is relevant for you.
See: https://www.irahelp.com/slottreport/you ... -surprised
Based on this article, the $1,283,000 is bankruptcy protection only. It does not cover "general creditors" which apparently would include judgements from lawsuits. Also, inherited IRAs are not covered under federal law.

As far as state law protection, I think that even if the state where you live offers protection for IRAs, I do not think that is sufficient to be entirely safe. For example, what if while driving in another state a person is involved in an accident. I think in that case, the laws of the state where the accident occurred would apply. Disclaimer: IANAL.

User avatar
Sasquatch
Posts: 239
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 12:44 pm

Re: Umbrella Policy: Right amount for $7 mil net worth?

Post by Sasquatch » Thu Sep 13, 2018 12:24 am

My arguement is very rudimentary but why not spend as an example $1000 a year to help protect $7M? At the very least just to have the piece of mind that you will get some measure of protection (even if small) in the event of a incident. Insurance + making good life choices = a good nights sleep

User avatar
TheClash
Posts: 57
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2012 8:29 pm

Re: Umbrella Policy: Right amount for $7 mil net worth?

Post by TheClash » Tue Sep 18, 2018 11:27 am

megabad wrote:
Fri Jun 29, 2018 2:27 pm
Would strongly recommend non-owned auto insurance as I see that as your biggest exposure. For me, umbrella would depend on where you live and what you drive. If you lived in/rented in a billion dollar downtown condo/apt building, I would be inclined to carry a very large umbrella policy as renter's insurance typically offers pathetic liability coverage. If you lived in/rented a mansion, I would have a modest amount (low millions).

When you rent cars, I would rent the modest compact or intermediate sized car to limit my exposure on auto. If you rent a luxury brand, then I would up your coverage extensively. In states with discovery (most states), the ambulance chaser can always find out your assets and coverages, but they will be less inclined to even take on a case if you are driving around in the Toyota Yaris and you pull up to your 1970s split level rental house on the poor side of town. If this doesn't describe you, I would prepare accordingly.
OP here.
Thank you megabad for the non-owned auto insurance suggestion! Just got it. Not cheap, but added peace of mind. Now, I need to decide if I still max out the coverage that I get from the rental car companies, or just go with the basic. Thank you all for your input!

Leesbro63
Posts: 5517
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 4:36 pm

Re: Umbrella Policy: Right amount for $7 mil net worth?

Post by Leesbro63 » Wed Sep 19, 2018 8:55 am

TheClash wrote:
Tue Sep 18, 2018 11:27 am
megabad wrote:
Fri Jun 29, 2018 2:27 pm
Would strongly recommend non-owned auto insurance as I see that as your biggest exposure. For me, umbrella would depend on where you live and what you drive. If you lived in/rented in a billion dollar downtown condo/apt building, I would be inclined to carry a very large umbrella policy as renter's insurance typically offers pathetic liability coverage. If you lived in/rented a mansion, I would have a modest amount (low millions).

When you rent cars, I would rent the modest compact or intermediate sized car to limit my exposure on auto. If you rent a luxury brand, then I would up your coverage extensively. In states with discovery (most states), the ambulance chaser can always find out your assets and coverages, but they will be less inclined to even take on a case if you are driving around in the Toyota Yaris and you pull up to your 1970s split level rental house on the poor side of town. If this doesn't describe you, I would prepare accordingly.
OP here.
Thank you megabad for the non-owned auto insurance suggestion! Just got it. Not cheap, but added peace of mind. Now, I need to decide if I still max out the coverage that I get from the rental car companies, or just go with the basic. Thank you all for your input!
Not sure if this gives you enough coverage, but a family member living in NYC has non-owned auto insurance (doesn't own a car living in NYC). When he rents cars, he uses the Chase Sapphire Preferred card ($95/yr), with primary coverage, and buys no other insurance. The main risk is liability which is covered by the non-owner's policy.

cdu7
Posts: 163
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2017 2:34 pm

Re: Umbrella Policy: Right amount for $7 mil net worth?

Post by cdu7 » Wed Sep 19, 2018 9:16 am

There is a much greater risk of being over insured than under insured in this situation. If you trust yourself enough to know that you will never be a negligent and or criminally liable driver, then a couple million umbrella is going to cover you in 99.9% of situations. You aren't going to be in an accident with a world famous hand model or whatever crazy scenarios they are running here. The worst case scenario is that you will be in an accident with an overly litigious driver who manages to squeeze a couple thousand extra out of your insurance payout because they are claiming fake injuries. I doubt you will ever even enter umbrella territory in the vast majority of traffic accidents, which typically occur at low speed.

Post Reply