Insurance coverage these days.

A lot of people may not think about this these days but the minimum insurance numbers for your state is definitely no longer accurate. My state minimum is 25/50/25. Vehicles cost a whole lot more now as well as hospital/emergency care. I told SF that I am in the process of getting a new/newish car and need full coverage quote. They provided me with the state minimum. I told them I prefer 50/100/50 and was told it was not necessary to do that unless required by your business or company that I work for. Is she right or what I asked for in the first place sufficient? What ratios are you all doing?

It's been a while since I've talked about coverage amounts, but several years ago my agent actually provided me with a quote for more than the "state minimum" and told me that was his recommendation for the exact reasons you cite.  If I recall, the premium differences weren't crazy and I figured that the peace of mine that comes along with the increased coverage was well worth it.  Again, it has been a while, but I seem to recall something about how my umbrella policy might also affect that in some way.  If you already have an umbrella that's providing that coverage, maybe that's why your agent told you that it wasn't necessary?  Just trying to give them the benefit of the doubt - I've not been in sales all my life or anything, but I know that the number one rule is that when the customer asks YOU for the upsell, you freaking take it!

Define "sufficient". A lot of "financial gurus" basically seem to recommend to only buy coverage based on your net worth and if you don't own anything of value - other than the car you just flattened a bus stop full of grannies with - you can just pick state minimum. Just keep in mind that you're personally liable for the damage and if it exceeds your insurance coverage, it comes out of your pocket.

I think this is somewhat dangerous (to your wealth) advice to state that you don't need more than state minimum coverage. Especially given how even a fairly small accident these days seems to be viewed as an ATM by everybody from the ambulance company to the sleazy late night lawyer ads.

But to wae's point, what sort of sales person does not immediately grab an upsell that was requested by the client?

We generally have considerably higher coverage than state minimum, but that's partially because I'm used to the European model where coverages are a lot higher at the bottom end of the coverage and the idea is that you do carry enough coverage to be able to make the other party whole in pretty much all cases.

All that said, I don't find that the coverage cost went up that significantly once we got up past state minimums in our cases, even with the 996 accident on my record. But then again both my wife and I are over 50...

In reply to wae :

See if your agent offers umbrella coverage. I was shocked at how little it costs and comes in when damage exceedes policy amounts. 

In reply to frenchyd :

Umbrella policies tend to require higher coverage than the OP is looking for in the first place, though.

IMHO: If they're not all 6-figures, it's not enough.

Driven5 said:

IMHO: If they're not all 6-figures, it's not enough.

Plenty or even overkill if you have little or nothing to lose.

frenchyd said:

In reply to wae :

See if your agent offers umbrella coverage. I was shocked at how little it costs and comes in when damage exceedes policy amounts. 

We had one and state farm dropped it because I pulled coverage from a racecar that's just sitting and couldn't provide proof that it's covered elsewhere.  That's literally the only thing they've ever really done to piss me off.  

I'm in the boat of what others have said above.  Make sure your insurance coverage in general is scaled to protect what assets you may (or may not) have.

Patrick (Forum Supporter) said:

frenchyd said:

In reply to wae :

See if your agent offers umbrella coverage. I was shocked at how little it costs and comes in when damage exceedes policy amounts. 

We had one and state farm dropped it because I pulled coverage from a racecar that's just sitting and couldn't provide proof that it's covered elsewhere.  That's literally the only thing they've ever really done to piss me off.  

Is the race car still registered?  My experience is that once I told State Farm that the race car was listed as "non-operational" with the DMV (which means no reg fees but not allowed to be driven on public streets) they stopped caring about coverage on it.

As for coverage levels, the CA state minimums were (in my estimation) too low when I graduated college 25 years ago.  They haven't changed since then...

100/300 coverage here and it still doesn't seem like I have enough. The price difference from state minimums to 100/300 was almost trivial for the coverage offered. I was paying about 1600/yr for minimums and the increased coverage was 200 more, IIRC from when I started with the increased coverage. Of course, now I pay much more for the same coverage due to other people totaling out cars....

Paul_VR6 (Forum Supporter) said:

Driven5 said:

IMHO: If they're not all 6-figures, it's not enough.

Plenty or even overkill if you have little or nothing to lose.

Trust me they can always take their pound of flesh and it will follow you. Mine is 500/1000/500 right now and its not that much more then the the 150/250/150 I had before. 

i run 100/300/100 cause it wasnt that much more than state minimum.

Mine is a lot more than the min, but it really depends on your circumstance. When I was a broke college kid, min and try not to hit anyone.

100k/300k/100k, $4k/year for 2 cars through Geico. 

The rest I have through Hagerty. 

It's staggering what the cost is though. $475 every 6 months for minimum. $795 every 6 months for double the minimum. Both is for $1k deductible. 

frenchyd said:

In reply to wae :

See if your agent offers umbrella coverage. I was shocked at how little it costs and comes in when damage exceedes policy amounts. 

I actually really need to do this, soonish.  We're way too close to retirement to lose it to something stupid.

Paul_VR6 (Forum Supporter) said:

Driven5 said:

IMHO: If they're not all 6-figures, it's not enough.

Plenty or even overkill if you have little or nothing to lose.

Sure, if you are struggling to make ends meet already, have not appreciable net worth, and no plan or ability to grow your net worth...Then I might be more inclined to agree in that 'exception to the rule' scenario.

More generally speaking though, even if your net worth is not great: If you're actively building it, you need to protect it.  I would argue that it's not so much about what your net worth is, but rather how much of your net worth your willing to lose and how difficult it would be to recover from that loss. Not to mention that typical car and medical costs have gone up far faster than state insurance minimums.

If your net worth is $25k, and you follow the 'conventional wisdom' of purchasing the equivalent (also state minimum) $25k in coverage, but you then total someone else's not-at-all-uncommon $50k car, you're completely wiped out.  But if your net worth is $250k, and you somehow decided to stick with the state minimum of $25k coverage, and you total that same $50k car, you're only out 10% of your net worth. So it's really not that simple when it comes to protecting yourself.

If you're both young and low net worth, perhaps you are still willing to take the risk of losing it all to save a few bucks a month. But as you get a little (really, not that much) older and start looking towards the future, you may quickly find yourself becoming more interested might be in reasonably protecting whatever it is you have, regardless of how much (or little) it might be at the time.

But like my initial disclaimer, that's all just my humble opinion...To which plenty of 'experts' still advise otherwise.

Insurance is cheap, 100/300/100 with both uninsured/underinsured coverage and stacked limits is a bare minimun. That and a personal liability "umbrella" for a million or two should be part of your overall coverage portfolio. Many years as an agent, appraiser, adjuster, BI negotiator and SIU investigator. 
 

Remember, the third number in your coverage or the PD(property damage) limit. If you don't have $100k of PD coverage, there are LOTS of vehicles out there today worth more than that, so if you are at fault and total one of them, the insurance company will come knocking and look for the difference beyond your policy limits. It's tough to watch it happen and it can ruin you for years to come. 

$250/500/250, but insurance is cheap in ohio (has to have at least one redeeming quality, right?) so it's pretty much a no brainer. The difference between that and minimum coverage ($25/50/25) is just over $10/month. I had originally gone with $100k property damage thinking it would be hard to eclipse that number, but I was just sitting here thinking aobut how I own a car worth (hopefully) >=$30k and pretty much every SUV, truck, and minivan on the market can be optioned up to $60k or more, so that $100k gets eaten up quickly.

Sine_Qua_Non said:

It's staggering what the cost is though. $475 every 6 months for minimum. $795 every 6 months for double the minimum. Both is for $1k deductible. 

That's certainly not 'cheap', so presumably there are one or more factors elevating your rates. I'll agree that it is not an insubstantial increase either, at a little more than $50/mo. However, many people also spend a lot more on things that are a lot less important...From cell phone and cable/streaming subscriptions, to vehicle selection.

I'm in my 40's with no accidents in 25+ years and no speeding ticket since 2001. I have posted elsewhere about this and it looks likes I am overpaying to begin with. Probably my agent at SF who has gotten too comfortable and gets horrible reviews now than he did 20 years ago. Plus he is never there. His assistant who I always dealt retired 5 years ago and he has young bloods there I guess running the show under his name. 

If you're not on the phone with other agents and/or companies (or brokers) right now...You should be.

Sine_Qua_Non said:

It's staggering what the cost is though. $475 every 6 months for minimum. $795 every 6 months for double the minimum. Both is for $1k deductible. 

That's way under what I'm paying (just shy of $1000/six), and IIRC it's 100/300/100 and I worry that it isn't enough coverage.

Sine_Qua_Non said:

It's staggering what the cost is though. $475 every 6 months for minimum. $795 every 6 months for double the minimum. Both is for $1k deductible. 

that's cheap.  I pay $281 a month for the Landy and the Abarth.. and my record is squeaky clean