chaosoul

$1600/year for RS, 1M umbrella.

sdq7

This has definitely opened up some discussions on coverage that may be a wake up call. I think you hit the nail on the head by saying a lot of people are not sure about exactly what their policies really cover. I did the same thing and got the surface quote from Geico for 1400 and when I questioned the agent they couldn't answer or show me how they would pay actual value. When I pressed them it came up as a 94k book value and I have no idea where they would come up with that. I wanted the liability coverage that protects me and stated value so I don't have to fight for a loss. So I realize what I was asking was going to vary but it does serve us well by bringing this topic forward if people make sure they know the coverage they have before they need to use it.

Archimedes

What are you referring to? I think everybody in this thread seems to know exactly what their policies cover. Outlaw came out of the blue spouting about an entirely tangential subject.

The original topic of debate was stated value, which has nothing to with the type of coverage, only that the payout in the event of a total covered loss is a pre-agreed value, rather than market value at the time of the event.

Umbrella liability is an entirely different topic, though again I think anyone who has one of those policies knows exactly what it covers and doesn't cover. They tend to be very clear and specific.

tonymission

Not arguing just a little surprised myself... are people really comfortable insuring a 225-250k car for a market value of 94k? I guess if you have many millions sitting in the bank then you might not be worried about your own property, just liability and getting sued by others. For my own peace of mind I needed to get an agreed value of what it would cost me to replace the car. And then I needed to get track insurance.

Archimedes

No idea where he came up with that number, but I have GEICO and my policy would pay me market value for the car, which for an RS would be way over $94k obviously. I've had three accidents involving totaled vehicles in my life, none my fault, two of which though had to be claimed under my policy, at least initially, due to the other party's lack of insurance. Both times, I got full market value. In one, which involved a car less than 6 months old, I got all the money I paid for it new plus the TT&L.

mcsmcs1

First of all, if in fact they are using $94k as current market value to price the policy, that has absolutely no impact on you at the time of loss. With policies other than agreed value, the market value is determined at the time of loss. Geico could never support a valuation of $94k for an RS and this could be easily challenged by using a third-party appraiser. You would likely receive something close to private party value at time of loss, so you would be made whole. If they want to price their insurance based on low valuation, that's their problem and will result in a premium too low to cover the risk.

The chief benefit of agreed value whether its cars or jewelry is the insured doesn't need to argue with the insurer in the event of a total loss with regard to value. Still, the number being charged by Chubb is very clearly absurdly high. Agreed value policies shouldn't be that much more than market value policies, since in order for the insurer to accept your agreed value number, it needs to be based on the actual market.

My USAA policy provides for market value at time of loss if totaled, plus 20%. If we assume the private party valuation is about $210K, they would pay in excess of $250k so I end up at the same place for a lot less than $3,700 a year.

The topic of liability is a separate matter, and is best handled by adding an umbrella to your underlying auto policy. Outlaw's concern was in regard to personal injury and ongoing expenses/disability in the event of an accident with an uninsured or underinsured party. To have coverage for that you need to have uninsured/underinsured coverage on your policy. In some states, you have the option to extend your umbrella limits to UU and protect yourself at the same level as your liability to others. Alternatively, you can elect to take the maximum UU coverage. What Outlaw failed to mention is that should you need to collect under uninsured/underinsured for an extensive claim, you will be placed in the situation of needing to bring suit against your own insurance company should they contest the amount of the loss or the at fault driver.

Finally, the truth is that for the situations Outlaw is worrying about, even a million or 2 million UU coverage might prove insufficient. I am talking about some lifelong disability from an accident for example. That's where an occupation specific disability policy comes in to play. Either way, we should all know what we are buying and what it will and will not do. And we always need to spend our insurance premiums wisely, not just throw money at something in the name of peace of mind.

chaosoul

I think some of you are missing the point Outlaw is trying to say.


There's a difference between Liability insurance (like umbrella) and Medical auto insurance.


Liability covers injuries, damage to properties to everyone else (to party you hit, your own passengers) but it does not cover yourself. Basically everyone but yourself. This is why on top of liability insurance, you add comprehensive insurance for your own car's damage (collision, theft, fire, etc)


However, most people only insure liability insurance and comprehensive insurance but miss out on the Medical auto insurance.


When you get into a accident, and it is your fault, your own insurance will not cover your own injury at all, unless you have medical auto insurance. The liability of bodily injuries only extend to your passengers and other parties.


There are two types of medical auto insurance: basic medical payment insurance and personal injury insurance. Basic medical payment insurance only covers basic hospital bills and funeral costs up to your coverage limit. While as Personal injury insurance will also cover lost of wages on top of that.

sdq7

Where is the confusion? I stated it clearly I thought. Yes stated value is not even for sure. I get that the 94k might be challenged when it comes time for a claim and if you are OK with that then thats how you roll. I personally dont have the time or desire to fight an insurance company and want to know that it is clear what the terms are in case of a claim. Also on the liability side I do agree that many never read their policies. Some do but most are like the masses who never read the disclaimers or exact claim terms before they sign off.

Archimedes

But most people on RL have health insurance to cover their medical expenses and disability policies to cover their lost income if they are disabled. In fact, most financial advisors will tell you NOT to pay for auto medical insurance if you're already paying for health insurance, as you're double paying for the same coverage.

I got t-boned on my motorcycle two years ago by a red light running teenager in a Jeep Rubicon. My medical bills were over $400k, all covered by my medical insurance.

Archimedes

You said "I think you hit the nail on the head by saying a lot of people are not sure about exactly what their policies really cover."

I was simply asking you where you're getting that from the discussion in this thread. I think most people on RL are reasonably smart people who understand exactly what their policies cover.

Outlaw

And surely you made a bodily injury claim on your underinsured policy over and above what teenager had??

Outlaw

Exactly. They only have to provide wholesale value of vehicle which as we know can vary widely.

The reason I brought up umbrellas and specific liability is because it follows logically that if you have a low cost small policy, you will not have adequate coverage. Hence, most professionals believe by adding an umbrella on top of a low cost policy does not in most cases cover your damages. If I strayed on topic, it was for good reason that's all.

alpine-al

As everyone knows, auto insurance varies by state. For instance, in Massachusetts the "actual cash value" must be determined based on the following factors:

1. the retail book value for an auto of like kind and quality, but for the damage incurred.
2. the price paid for the auto plus the value of prior improvements to the auto at the time of the accident, less appropriate depreciation;
3. the decrease in value of the auto resulting from prior unrelated damage which is detected by the appraiser; and
4. the actual cost of purchase of an available auto of like kind and quality but for the damage sustained.

Typically, it comes down to item 4. And, they add the value of the 6.25% MA sales tax on top of that.

.

Archimedes

No, in California, UI overlaps, so I just got full payout of his coverage level and nothing from my UI, as his coverage was equal to my UI coverage. That was my education in how certain states overlap on UI (the insurance companies don't make that clear at all) and drove me to massively increase my UI coverage. I now tell everyone that will listen to max out their UI coverage. And pay for good health insurance.

Archimedes

They absolutely do not only have to pay wholesale value of the vehicle. Where are you getting this? It's simply not true and I've had multiple accidents to prove it. I've never heard a single person get paid out wholesale value. It's always market value, less deductible.