I'm up for that annual insurance coverage meeting with my State Farm Agent. I'm paying $382 every 6 months with 250/500/50 coverage on a $500 deductictible. Also have an umbrella liability policy. It's a third car that gets driven less than 4k a year. Is this enough coverage? Too much?

On a side note, my 6 month bill went down when I traded in our 03 Cobra. Corvette insurance is one of the best kept secrets going.

Thanks for the info.

 

I'd say your coverages look pretty good.

It would be rare that you would total a car worth more than your coverages selected so you should be good to go.

I'm assuming you also have full uninsured motorist coverage along with roadside, and non-deductible glass?

 

The only thing that jumps out at me is the $50,000 property damage limit. That is low in this day and age since the cost of many cars now are over 50K.

 

How much is too much?? Tough question.
However, I assume your umbrella is 1 million at least and umbrella's are very inexpensive.
Umbrella's will require "underlying limits" of $XXX. Just make sure your 250/500 meets these requirements.
Your PD limit of 50k is questionable unless your umbrella requires a 50k limit for PD.
Some years ago, 50k seemed plenty but there are a ton of cars out there now way over 50k. How about if you ran a tractor/trailer rig off the road; how about that trailer carrying $300,000+ in cargo?
What if you rear end a van with a mom and pop and their 6 kids in there and it catches fire and kills a few.
Extreme examples, I know, but just how much coverage is "enough"?

 

If you don't have UNDERinsurance then your agent is either incompetant or is screwing you. Yes, that's right, UNDERinsurance, not UNinsured coverage. Let him/her explain it to you.

 

Yup. If your car goes sliding, you could take out 2 or more high dollar cars. $100k is better unless your umbrella picks up property damage.

 

I carry high liability with an excess rider as well. Your insurance sounds cheap to me but I have a teenage driver in the house and my wife hit a telephone pole (which raised rates quite a bit).

As for sufficient coverage...only you know how much liability protection you need. I hate paying insurance premiums but when you need it it's nice to have...and to be well covered.

 

Who are you with? I am paying 5 and change. I'm w/Statefarm.

V-Dub

 

Sorry, what is the amount of your third-party liability?

Red Cell.

 

You should at the least have liability coverage that exceeds the amount of your assets. I'm a claim rep mostly dealing with large catastrophic losses. Case in point. We insure a driver who rear-ended a motorcyclist stopped at a traffic light. The biker lost his leg. Our insured had a $100,000 bodily injury liability limit. You bet your A$$ the biker's attorney went after our insured's personal assets. The insurance company is only on the hook for $100,000. After that, you're on your own.

Your property damage liability limit of 50k is pretty low, unless the limit is high enough for your umbrella to kick in as excess coverage. Double check your policy and call your agent.

 

Thanks for the info Gents. Yes, our umbrella is set up at the particular limits to kick in if we exceed our auto policy. We are pretty lucky, no tickets or accidents and it's just the Missus and I. Our son is only 3 1/2, will be a bit till he is worrying us with a car. I'm not sure why, but insurance is one of those bills I really dislike paying. But as Wayne said, it's better to have it when you need it then get caught without.

V-Dub, I'm with State Farm. We have everything with them.

 

[QUOTE=PeteTheGreek;1563689705]You should at the least have liability coverage that exceeds the amount of your assets. I'm a claim rep mostly dealing with large catastrophic losses.

Can't agree with your first sentance here. I spent 35 years in claims but feel your comment is a bit of a misconception.
Let's face it, if you have nothing for assets, you can carry minimum limits just to get by any state mandated requirements. Let's say your state mandates 25/50 for BI and you have zip for assets. You are in essence, judgement proof. i.e., so you cause 100k in damages but your limit is 25k. What's the point of a claimant getting a judgement over your limits. They cannot collect if you have nothing.
I think the bottom line is to cover your *** so as to avoid any potential to get to your personal assets.
Take the above scenerio but you happen to have a million in assets. You are now not judgement proof and any plaintiff can go after your personal assets. Why? Just because you have them.
If we take your scenerio to the next step, let's say you have 500k in assets and get 500k in coverage...then you cause 1 million in damages. That 500k in coverage leaves you exposed to the extent of your assets.
99+% of us will never experience an excess situation like this, BUT if you do, an Umbrella of 1-2 million is a great comfort to have and at $1-200 per year, it gives one a huge comfort level.
Not to forget, Umbrella policys protect you for your general liability exposure also....like an excess policy over your homeowners coverage. You are out golfing, slice a shot into the head of a golfer on an adjoining tee box and he suffers a subdural bleed and resultant brain damage....he is an exec and makes 250k per year and is now a vegtable, unable to work, needs around the clock nursing care...yada, yada, yada and you have 250k in limits on your homeowners policy. Not attemting to discuss any affirmative defenses here but you can see someones personal exposure in such a situation.
Bottom line to me is that if you have zip, don't worry but if you have some assets that could be exposed, cover your *** with an Umbrella policy that gives you sufficient coverage.

 

If you have one, you have the other, they are sold as one unit and usually are mandatory coverages in most states.

 

So far I have lived in Michigan, California, Illinois and Oklahoma and have never had to have uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage..knock on wood! This is one of the most expensive coverages for the little protection it affords. Most people who actually have this coverage, have no idea what it actually covers. Many people think it covers their car, but it usually only covers occupants in your vehicle when another vehicle is at fault and does not have sufficient liability.

 

Absolutely wrong

 

You also are wrong.

 

It varies by state.


Maizen is correct in that some do not understand what uninsured/underinsured covers. Here in AZ it ONLY covers medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering etc...not damage to your car....see below.

 

You are mostly wrong as you digressed and mischaracterized what I stated.

 

What is wrong with what I stated?

Added definition from my USAA policy:

"Uninsured/Underinsured Motorists Bodily Injury coverage pays if you or your passengers are injured in an accident caused by a driver that has no insurance, a hit-and-run driver or a driver who does not have enough insurance to pay for your injuries."

 

I guess being mostly wrong is better than being absolutely wrong, but still worse than just being wrong .