In the earlier thread we discussed insurance a bit, and it sounds like there is general agreement to NOT buy insurance to cover the routine things, but only for catastrophic events. We do this by purchasing high deductable policies that are much cheaper than lower deductable policies. This question is basically about the other end, or the high limits. I have always assumed you want an umbrella policy with a limit about equal to your net worth... under the assumption that for most liability events the policy will protect your assets.For instance, lets say you have $1M in assets, and a $1M umbrella. If somebody wins a $2M judgement they collect $1M from your insurance, and you get to keep your $1M. I believe there are cases where this is not true, but those generally involve criminal conduct rather than simple liability. Is this consistent with what others (experts if available) believe or know? If not, is there some reasonable sources or beliefs about how much insurance one should have to protect themselves from liabilities?Thanks in advance,Alan
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ra