Bought some insurance today, as my mom passed title of her car to me. I had not bought insurance in decades. In the past I had always just got the state-mandated minimum liability, but the place i went to said the minimum they sold was 100,000/200,000/100,000. (Iowa minimum is 20K/40K/20K).
I passed on the comprehensive and the collision. I figure cars don't get stolen in Iowa and I've never cracked up a car in my life. Good move? Bad move?
So are you just rocking liability?
Doesn't comprehensive cover more than just theft?
Oh and are there not other insurance companies to check out?
I don't own a car right now so none.
Bodily Injury Liability
Current Limit: $50,000/$100,000
Property Damage Liability
Current Limit: $25,000
Uninsured Motorist & Underinsured Motorist
Current Limit: $50,000/$100,000
Uninsured Motorist & Underinsured Motorist Property Damage
Current Limit: $25,000
Current Deductible: $250 Ded.
That is lowest i can go.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 03, 2013, 11:16:42 PM
Bought some insurance today, as my mom passed title of her car to me. I had not bought insurance in decades. In the past I had always just got the state-mandated minimum liability, but the place i went to said the minimum they sold was 100,000/200,000/100,000. (Iowa minimum is 20K/40K/20K).
I passed on the comprehensive and the collision. I figure cars don't get stolen in Iowa and I've never cracked up a car in my life. Good move? Bad move?
How much is the car worth? How much would comprehensive and collision add to your premiums? Did you check Geico or Progressive?
He should get Allstate, because Dennis Haysbert is more trustworthy than Flo or the gecko. ;)
I hate Flo and am so sad to support them.
Geico has several different ad campaigns running at once and somehow I also hate all of them.
You're going to pass on saving up to 15% or more on your car insurance?
I wasn't saving.
Quote from: garbon on December 03, 2013, 11:52:17 PM
I wasn't saving.
Technically, you were saving up to 15% or more.
True :(
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 03, 2013, 11:16:42 PM
Bought some insurance today, as my mom passed title of her car to me. I had not bought insurance in decades. In the past I had always just got the state-mandated minimum liability, but the place i went to said the minimum they sold was 100,000/200,000/100,000. (Iowa minimum is 20K/40K/20K).
I passed on the comprehensive and the collision. I figure cars don't get stolen in Iowa and I've never cracked up a car in my life. Good move? Bad move?
Collision and comprehensive - depends what your car is worth, and how easily you could replace it if it was in an accident or stolen. You're driving a $3k beater, I'd pass too.
Liability though... wow. I think the minimum is $200k (goggle - confirmed). Working in insurance defence a decade ago it isn't all that hard to go over that amount at all. I think I'm rocking $2 mil liability because it really didn''t cost that much more - maybe $20 or $50 for the year.
But then I'm also the guy who went out and bought liability insurance for his wedding.
I have SC's minimum coverage.
It is not $200k. If someone has been inflicted with $2 million in damages, probably best the paramedics snap their necks as painlessly as possible.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 04, 2013, 12:59:25 AM
I have SC's minimum coverage.
It is not $200k. If someone has been inflicted with $2 million in damages, probably best the paramedics snap their necks as painlessly as possible.
Lost wages is what can render liability through the roof. If you can convince a judge that you're unable to work as a result of an accident, then you're good for their salary for the next 20+ years. That can easily exceed a mil.
And by the way, I've got an old friend who, if he had been hit by another driver, instead of a moose, would have received a multi-million settlement since he became a quadriplegic. He would very much disagree with your opinion. (and he was a big, big fan of Manitoba's no-fault auto accident plan for that very reason)
Quote from: DGuller on December 03, 2013, 11:36:04 PM
How much is the car worth? How much would comprehensive and collision add to your premiums? Did you check Geico or Progressive?
Car is worth 7-9. State Farm was asking $10/month for comp and $26/month for collision.
Checked Geico and Progressive, they were nowhere close to the price i ended up getting.
Don't you get insurance comparison sites over there where you can specify what coverage you need and get the best deal? I even compare the comparison sites. Then phone up my favourite and get an even better deal.
Does US car insurance also cover medical liability?
I'd have to check my policy but I'm not at home now. A while ago I raised the liability limits to at least the 300k level, and may have some higher, don't remember. As others are saying, it's not hard for huge liability amounts to accrue.
Canada's insurance system is much different and then Quebec's is probably different from that too
but I have 1 million civil liability(that's the minimun) & 500$ deductibles on damages to the cars from collisions & another 500$ from non-collisions damage/stolen for each of my cars.
It's ~800$/year.
100/300 for liability. Should boost it at some point.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 04, 2013, 04:39:57 AM
Quote from: DGuller on December 03, 2013, 11:36:04 PM
How much is the car worth? How much would comprehensive and collision add to your premiums? Did you check Geico or Progressive?
Car is worth 7-9. State Farm was asking $10/month for comp and $26/month for collision.
Checked Geico and Progressive, they were nowhere close to the price i ended up getting.
In my opinion, whether it was good move or bad move to leave off comprehensive and collision coverages depends entirely on your level of risk aversion. Auto insurance is pretty competitive, so I would not try to out-analyze my insurance company. If some coverage costs you money, it's probably because there is a chance for you to have a claim on that coverage.
If by a chance you mean probability>0, then of course.
Anyone know the answer to my question: if a guy whacks me, does his liability pay for the damage to my car?
Everything I have on there:
50,000/100,000 Bodily injury
50,000 Property
50k/100k uninsured motorist bodily injury
25k personal injury protection
10,000 medical payments
$100 deductible or whatever its called that I pay in comprehensive
$250 in collision
25k in uninsured motorist damage (if some dick with no insurance damages my car) - $250 out of my pocket, I need to increase this coverage amount
Accident forgiveness
Rental reimbursement that will get me a clown car of some sort
Free towing
E: Changed that to 50k just now.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 04, 2013, 01:05:33 PM
If by a chance you mean probability>0, then of course.
Anyone know the answer to my question: if a guy whacks me, does his liability pay for the damage to my car?
Yes, if it's his fault. But you'll have to deal with
his insurance company.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 04, 2013, 01:05:33 PM
If by a chance you mean probability>0, then of course.
Anyone know the answer to my question: if a guy whacks me, does his liability pay for the damage to my car?
It's complicated, but basically, yes, less deductible. I'd recommend uninsured motorist coverage and comprehensive, but I am super risk averse.
Quote from: Scipio on December 04, 2013, 01:13:32 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 04, 2013, 01:05:33 PM
If by a chance you mean probability>0, then of course.
Anyone know the answer to my question: if a guy whacks me, does his liability pay for the damage to my car?
It's complicated, but basically, yes, less deductible. I'd recommend uninsured motorist coverage and comprehensive, but I am super risk averse.
No, not less deductible. The other guy's liability coverage pays in full. Liability coverage does not have a deductible.
I think you guys are hoping that if you cause an accident there will only be one person injured by your negligent act and that you wont be causing any long term injury. I look at it as buying insurance for the horrible hypothetical. I have 5M in liability.
30/60/25 (Texas state minimum) plus $2.5k personal injury, 30/60/25 uninsured motorist, , and collision/comprehensive with $500 deductables. All for the bargain price of $1360/year. <_<
Quote from: crazy canuckI think you guys are hoping that if you cause an accident there will only be one person injured by your negligent act and that you wont be causing any long term injury. I look at it as buying insurance for the horrible hypothetical. I have 5M in liability.
As DGuller said relative to collision/comprehensive, it depends on your risk aversion. My rate of negligible acts is so small and of such a nature that my chances of causing a horrible accident are vanishingly small, and thus I do not see the cost as worth it. I did an online estimate for raising my liability to 500/500/500 (that was the maximum the calculator would let me go) and it would add $300/year to my insurance. I'm not even
worth $500k right now. Below a certain point insuring yourself for more than you are worth does not make financial sense.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on December 04, 2013, 01:59:48 PM
30/60/25 (Texas state minimum) plus $2.5k personal injury, 30/60/25 uninsured motorist, , and collision/comprehensive with $500 deductables. All for the bargain price of $1360/year. <_<
Quote from: crazy canuckI think you guys are hoping that if you cause an accident there will only be one person injured by your negligent act and that you wont be causing any long term injury. I look at it as buying insurance for the horrible hypothetical. I have 5M in liability.
As DGuller said relative to collision/comprehensive, it depends on your risk aversion. My rate of negligible acts is so small and of such a nature that my chances of causing a horrible accident are vanishingly small, and thus I do not see the cost as worth it. I did an online estimate for raising my liability to 500/500/500 (that was the maximum the calculator would let me go) and it would add $300/year to my insurance. I'm not even worth $500k right now. Below a certain point insuring yourself for more than you are worth does not make financial sense.
If you have $300k, it could still be worth insuring more than $300k. Say you cause $400k in damages.
Personally, I don't know how much insurance coverage I have. I thought about it a few years ago when I renewed, and now I just keep carrying forward the same. I assume I had good judgment back then (or at least no worse than I have now).
Something's very different about Canada and the US.
You guys are all talking about liability coverage well under the minimum permissible by law here in Canada. Moldy's online calculator though won't go above $500k, while CC and I are carrying multi-million liability. And finally I specifically remember that upping the liability amount above a million really didn't cost all that much.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 04, 2013, 02:09:30 PM
If you have $300k, it could still be worth insuring more than $300k. Say you cause $400k in damages.
That is why I said "below a certain point". That case would probably make sense. If you only had $50k in seizable assets, probably not.
Quote from: Barrister on December 04, 2013, 02:10:22 PM
Something's very different about Canada and the US.
You guys are all talking about liability coverage well under the minimum permissible by law here in Canada. Moldy's online calculator though won't go above $500k, while CC and I are carrying multi-million liability. And finally I specifically remember that upping the liability amount above a million really didn't cost all that much.
I once inquired with my agent about a general personal liability policy (one that kicks in for any kind of civil liability, regardless of situation). I was only asking about $500k or $1m. My agent looked at me like I was crazy and basically refused to write me one.
Quote from: Barrister on December 04, 2013, 02:10:22 PM
Something's very different about Canada and the US.
You guys are all talking about liability coverage well under the minimum permissible by law here in Canada. Moldy's online calculator though won't go above $500k, while CC and I are carrying multi-million liability. And finally I specifically remember that upping the liability amount above a million really didn't cost all that much.
Of course. The US is an outlier on all this stuff. It is why US citizens are sometimes excluded from international policies, and international policies often apply everywhere but the US.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 04, 2013, 02:31:11 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 04, 2013, 02:10:22 PM
Something's very different about Canada and the US.
You guys are all talking about liability coverage well under the minimum permissible by law here in Canada. Moldy's online calculator though won't go above $500k, while CC and I are carrying multi-million liability. And finally I specifically remember that upping the liability amount above a million really didn't cost all that much.
Of course. The US is an outlier on all this stuff. It is why US citizens are sometimes excluded from international policies, and international policies often apply everywhere but the US.
But the US is widely acknowledged to be the most litigious place in the western world - so why wouldn't you guys carry more liability insurance?
I pay about $1100 a year for a $15k/$30k state minimum policy, thanks to a crappy driving record from when I was a kid. It's been over 6 years since the last incident, so yeah, at least in NJ, that stuff does follow you around.
Quote from: Barrister on December 04, 2013, 02:34:51 PM
But the US is widely acknowledged to be the most litigious place in the western world - so why wouldn't you guys carry more liability insurance?
In a perverse, ironic twist, the more insurance you have, the bigger a target you are, thus increasing your litigation risk. From a NY Times article on umbrella policies (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/09/business/personal-liability-insurance-is-essential-advisers-say.html):
QuoteThe consensus among financial advisers is that coverage on personal liability insurance should roughly equal a policyholder's net worth. It is possible that someone will be sued for more than that figure, but in their experience it is unusual.
Up to that amount, the policy pays off; substantially more than that and the policyholder on the wrong end of a court judgment is likely to file for bankruptcy and the plaintiff will have to stand in line with other creditors, advisers say.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on December 04, 2013, 02:42:54 PM
I pay about $1100 a year for a $15k/$30k state minimum policy, thanks to a crappy driving record from when I was a kid. It's been over 6 years since the last incident, so yeah, at least in NJ, that stuff does follow you around.
I thought Jersey had instituted some kind of crazy insurance law (by referendum of course) a while back (20 years?) that made it illegal to charge higher premiums for bad driving.
Quote from: Barrister on December 04, 2013, 02:34:51 PM
But the US is widely acknowledged to be the most litigious place in the western world - so why wouldn't you guys carry more liability insurance?
The natural question to me is the reverse: why are Canadians required to carry far more insurance than they can ever reasonably expect to need?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 04, 2013, 03:00:43 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on December 04, 2013, 02:42:54 PM
I pay about $1100 a year for a $15k/$30k state minimum policy, thanks to a crappy driving record from when I was a kid. It's been over 6 years since the last incident, so yeah, at least in NJ, that stuff does follow you around.
I thought Jersey had instituted some kind of crazy insurance law (by referendum of course) a while back (20 years?) that made it illegal to charge higher premiums for bad driving.
That is definitely not the case. The only thing that remotely comes close is that your first 2-point speeding ticket cannot affect your insurance.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 04, 2013, 03:34:20 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 04, 2013, 02:34:51 PM
But the US is widely acknowledged to be the most litigious place in the western world - so why wouldn't you guys carry more liability insurance?
The natural question to me is the reverse: why are Canadians required to carry far more insurance than they can ever reasonably expect to need?
Depends on what you think is reasonable. I prefer not to be bankrupted by a moment of stupidity. Although I have not had an accident in about 30 years I am pretty sure it is still possible for me to cause an accident - that is why we call them accidents.
Quote from: DGuller on December 04, 2013, 04:47:34 PM
That is definitely not the case. The only thing that remotely comes close is that your first 2-point speeding ticket cannot affect your insurance.
I think it might have been repealed.
Quote from: Barrister on December 04, 2013, 02:10:22 PM
Something's very different about Canada and the US.
You guys are all talking about liability coverage well under the minimum permissible by law here in Canada. Moldy's online calculator though won't go above $500k, while CC and I are carrying multi-million liability. And finally I specifically remember that upping the liability amount above a million really didn't cost all that much.
Yeah, there is obviously some difference here. In the U.S. there is State mandated liability minimums, usually they are very low. Some States are as low as $25k/50/25 or something ($25k per injured person, $50k per accident maximum, and $25k property damage)--which is very low for even run of the mill accidents. But often times parties settle for the maximum liability amount since most people that carry minimum coverage can't afford much more and have little else to go after once the policy is eaten up.
I have a $250/$500/$100 policy ($250k/person, $500k/max on personal injury per accident, and $100k max on property) which is as high as my insurer (Progressive) offered when I self-serviced on their website. My homeowner's also only has $300k in liability on it, and I think if I wanted higher I'd need to go request a special plan from my agent or go with a different insurer.
I do have umbrella insurance though which we try to keep a bit above our net worth, which is priced similarly to adding extra liability insurance to your auto policy seems to be in Canada. With my insurer you can buy umbrella insurance in $1m increments for fairly low increases in premium.
I got enough.
Quote from: Barrister on December 04, 2013, 01:33:16 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 04, 2013, 12:59:25 AM
I have SC's minimum coverage.
It is not $200k. If someone has been inflicted with $2 million in damages, probably best the paramedics snap their necks as painlessly as possible.
Lost wages is what can render liability through the roof. If you can convince a judge that you're unable to work as a result of an accident, then you're good for their salary for the next 20+ years. That can easily exceed a mil.
And by the way, I've got an old friend who, if he had been hit by another driver, instead of a moose, would have received a multi-million settlement since he became a quadriplegic. He would very much disagree with your opinion. (and he was a big, big fan of Manitoba's no-fault auto accident plan for that very reason)
Well, I'm not thrilled that this has a personal dimension for you, so I won't discuss it and risk making you mad over our difference in beliefs. In any event, I am sorry about your friend.
When walking the streets of Canada, remember all the drivers have a million in coverage. Be careful, but not too careful. ;)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 04, 2013, 03:34:20 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 04, 2013, 02:34:51 PM
But the US is widely acknowledged to be the most litigious place in the western world - so why wouldn't you guys carry more liability insurance?
The natural question to me is the reverse: why are Canadians required to carry far more insurance than they can ever reasonably expect to need?
We are not required, the market just moved that way. In Quebec, for example, we have an highly competitive insurance market, yet we have pure no fault system. My 1 million $ liability is only for property damage, I can't be sued for personal/bodily injuries or lost of incomes.
That's different than what the Anglos are telling us.
Quote from: DGuller on December 04, 2013, 04:47:34 PM
That is definitely not the case. The only thing that remotely comes close is that your first 2-point speeding ticket cannot affect your insurance.
This. In fact, the state tacks on its own surcharge (PLIGA) that goes up with insurance basis points.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 04, 2013, 05:58:06 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 04, 2013, 02:10:22 PM
Something's very different about Canada and the US.
You guys are all talking about liability coverage well under the minimum permissible by law here in Canada. Moldy's online calculator though won't go above $500k, while CC and I are carrying multi-million liability. And finally I specifically remember that upping the liability amount above a million really didn't cost all that much.
Yeah, there is obviously some difference here. In the U.S. there is State mandated liability minimums, usually they are very low. Some States are as low as $25k/50/25 or something ($25k per injured person, $50k per accident maximum, and $25k property damage)--which is very low for even run of the mill accidents. But often times parties settle for the maximum liability amount since most people that carry minimum coverage can't afford much more and have little else to go after once the policy is eaten up.
I have a $250/$500/$100 policy ($250k/person, $500k/max on personal injury per accident, and $100k max on property) which is as high as my insurer (Progressive) offered when I self-serviced on their website. My homeowner's also only has $300k in liability on it, and I think if I wanted higher I'd need to go request a special plan from my agent or go with a different insurer.
I do have umbrella insurance though which we try to keep a bit above our net worth, which is priced similarly to adding extra liability insurance to your auto policy seems to be in Canada. With my insurer you can buy umbrella insurance in $1m increments for fairly low increases in premium.
I also have an umbrella liability insurance policy, which I think is $1 million. I also have a Homestead Act on my home which gives me additional protection.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 04, 2013, 10:18:04 PM
That's different than what the Anglos are telling us.
Yep, just like everything else, it's different in Quebec.
Quote from: DGuller on December 04, 2013, 01:23:48 PM
Quote from: Scipio on December 04, 2013, 01:13:32 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 04, 2013, 01:05:33 PM
If by a chance you mean probability>0, then of course.
Anyone know the answer to my question: if a guy whacks me, does his liability pay for the damage to my car?
It's complicated, but basically, yes, less deductible. I'd recommend uninsured motorist coverage and comprehensive, but I am super risk averse.
No, not less deductible. The other guy's liability coverage pays in full. Liability coverage does not have a deductible.
Yeah, duh. I was thinking of collision.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 04, 2013, 03:34:20 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 04, 2013, 02:34:51 PM
But the US is widely acknowledged to be the most litigious place in the western world - so why wouldn't you guys carry more liability insurance?
The natural question to me is the reverse: why are Canadians required to carry far more insurance than they can ever reasonably expect to need?
I don't think it is required. However, several features of the Canadian legal system make very high damages claims much less likely in Canada than in the US, meaning that the cost to insurers of offering high coverage is relatively low - and consumers like the extra protection for the very rare case, even if it is unlikely. This means the market favours people buying lots of liability insurance.
Quote from: Malthus on December 05, 2013, 08:31:54 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 04, 2013, 03:34:20 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 04, 2013, 02:34:51 PM
But the US is widely acknowledged to be the most litigious place in the western world - so why wouldn't you guys carry more liability insurance?
The natural question to me is the reverse: why are Canadians required to carry far more insurance than they can ever reasonably expect to need?
I don't think it is required. However, several features of the Canadian legal system make very high damages claims much less likely in Canada than in the US, meaning that the cost to insurers of offering high coverage is relatively low - and consumers like the extra protection for the very rare case, even if it is unlikely. This means the market favours people buying lots of liability insurance.
The US should also follow Canada and change its liability and law suit system but the trial lawyer lobby owns too many politicians, has too much power.
re: personal liability:--It's sorta off topic, but in order to rent out my condo, I was told I needed to get $1M liability, minimum. In case a sprinkler escutcheon slices somebody's skull open and they die slowly.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 04, 2013, 03:34:20 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 04, 2013, 02:34:51 PM
But the US is widely acknowledged to be the most litigious place in the western world - so why wouldn't you guys carry more liability insurance?
The natural question to me is the reverse: why are Canadians required to carry far more insurance than they can ever reasonably expect to need?
The point of insurance though isn't to cover "reasonably expected" needs, or at least it's not the only purpose of insurance. It's to cover against very remote but catastrophic possibilities.
I'm a safe driver - no tickets or claims in over ten years. But it only takes a moments inattention to get into an accident, and if you have a really unlucky result you can have someone who is permanently disabled as a result.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 04, 2013, 06:34:46 PM
When walking the streets of Canada, remember all the drivers have a million in coverage. Be careful, but not too careful. ;)
Our systems are quite different. If one follows this advice, not only will the award be fairly low, by American standards, but you will also be dinged for the contributory negligence of your act. We dont settle to the level of insurance. That level is there for the horrible hypothetical that, hopefully, will never occur but we have the coverage - at a low price - in case it does occur.
I dont quite understand why you folks have such low coverage given the large amounts of potential awards in the US. Bankruptcy isnt that big of a deal?
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 05, 2013, 11:13:22 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 04, 2013, 06:34:46 PM
When walking the streets of Canada, remember all the drivers have a million in coverage. Be careful, but not too careful. ;)
Our systems are quite different. If one follows this advice, not only will the award be fairly low, by American standards, but you will also be dinged for the contributory negligence of your act. We dont settle to the level of insurance. That level is there for the horrible hypothetical that, hopefully, will never occur but we have the coverage - at a low price - in case it does occur.
I dont quite understand why you folks have such low coverage given the large amounts of potential awards in the US. Bankruptcy isnt that big of a deal?
Our deterrant is that the court is just not going to give you much money.
Their deterrant is that if you ask for too much you get nothing because the other side will declare bankruptcy.
Americans are too big to fail.
Quote from: Barrister on December 05, 2013, 11:09:20 AM
The point of insurance though isn't to cover "reasonably expected" needs, or at least it's not the only purpose of insurance. It's to cover against very remote but catastrophic possibilities.
I'm a safe driver - no tickets or claims in over ten years. But it only takes a moments inattention to get into an accident, and if you have a really unlucky result you can have someone who is permanently disabled as a result.
The question is how much of the tail of the probability distribution one wants to cover. Obviously even with a mill you're not covering 100% of risk.
You sure about that legal minimum you mentioned earlier? Other Canadians are giving different answers.
Quote from: The Brain on December 05, 2013, 11:16:00 AM
Americans are too big to fail.
You should go take a look at Dorsey's pictures.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 05, 2013, 12:14:59 PM
You sure about that legal minimum you mentioned earlier? Other Canadians are giving different answers.
He is correct. It is just that the minimums differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 05, 2013, 12:14:59 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 05, 2013, 11:09:20 AM
The point of insurance though isn't to cover "reasonably expected" needs, or at least it's not the only purpose of insurance. It's to cover against very remote but catastrophic possibilities.
I'm a safe driver - no tickets or claims in over ten years. But it only takes a moments inattention to get into an accident, and if you have a really unlucky result you can have someone who is permanently disabled as a result.
The question is how much of the tail of the probability distribution one wants to cover. Obviously even with a mill you're not covering 100% of risk.
You sure about that legal minimum you mentioned earlier? Other Canadians are giving different answers.
100%. I googled it beforehand. For Alberta only though.
I have $2 mil coverage.And yes, it doesn't cover absolutely 100% of the risk. But I do have some experience in this area, having done some insurance defence. Claims above the minimum ($200k) aren't common, but they aren't rare either. Claims above $1 mil are exceedingly rare, above $2 mil even more so.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 05, 2013, 11:13:22 AM
Our systems are quite different. If one follows this advice, not only will the award be fairly low, by American standards, but you will also be dinged for the contributory negligence of your act. We dont settle to the level of insurance. That level is there for the horrible hypothetical that, hopefully, will never occur but we have the coverage - at a low price - in case it does occur.
I dont quite understand why you folks have such low coverage given the large amounts of potential awards in the US. Bankruptcy isnt that big of a deal?
Exactly what large payouts are you talking about? It's exceedingly rare for a large payout to be awarded in a case between two "ordinary citizens." Large payouts almost always come when someone is suing a wealthy individual or a company. The rare cases where someone gets a large payout against an individual it's mostly for show, like awhile back there was a case where some random idiots beat a guy half to death and his family got like a $10m judgment against them. They have no assets and have never earned much above minimum wage, it's a pointless/meaningless judgment.
There's a lot of things legally protected from large judgments here, too. So even a middle class guy who owns a house and has a nice 401k balance, in many states those are protected from things like legal judgments so if you take that away he doesn't really have a lot of assets or income to go after. That's why you typically see them go after the insurance cap and leave it at that.
A coworker of mine, her 65 year old father who had $12.5k/25k/12.5k (minimum liability insurance in Ohio) tore down two utility poles in his car. The cost to the city to replace them was $22,000, they settled for the $12.5k because that was his maximum insurance payout. They did not even investigate or look into whether he could pay for more beyond that. That's pretty typical in most situations.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 05, 2013, 01:32:07 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 05, 2013, 11:13:22 AM
Our systems are quite different. If one follows this advice, not only will the award be fairly low, by American standards, but you will also be dinged for the contributory negligence of your act. We dont settle to the level of insurance. That level is there for the horrible hypothetical that, hopefully, will never occur but we have the coverage - at a low price - in case it does occur.
I dont quite understand why you folks have such low coverage given the large amounts of potential awards in the US. Bankruptcy isnt that big of a deal?
Exactly what large payouts are you talking about? It's exceedingly rare for a large payout to be awarded in a case between two "ordinary citizens." Large payouts almost always come when someone is suing a wealthy individual or a company. The rare cases where someone gets a large payout against an individual it's mostly for show, like awhile back there was a case where some random idiots beat a guy half to death and his family got like a $10m judgment against them. They have no assets and have never earned much above minimum wage, it's a pointless/meaningless judgment.
There's a lot of things legally protected from large judgments here, too. So even a middle class guy who owns a house and has a nice 401k balance, in many states those are protected from things like legal judgments so if you take that away he doesn't really have a lot of assets or income to go after. That's why you typically see them go after the insurance cap and leave it at that.
A coworker of mine, her 65 year old father who had $12.5k/25k/12.5k (minimum liability insurance in Ohio) tore down two utility poles in his car. The cost to the city to replace them was $22,000, they settled for the $12.5k because that was his maximum insurance payout. They did not even investigate or look into whether he could pay for more beyond that. That's pretty typical in most situations.
I can understand why the city chose to take the easy $12.5k when the difference is only $10k more.
But let me paint you a picture: nice middle class guy owns a home, has a RRSP, respectable income, owns his own vehicle. Has $200k minimum coverage. In a moments inattention he runs a red light, and t-bones another vehicle. Vehicle passenger snaps a vertebrae, becoming paralyzed. Spends six months in hospital, months more in physio, unable to sexually perform, employment prospects severely diminished (was working at a high paying but physically demanding job).
Very roughly, his damages are for pain and suffering (capped at $300k, but that's still above minimum coverage), loss of wages (the real killer - lets say $80k for 20 years - 1.6 million), loss of "companionship" to the wife, costs of physio, housekeeping. Total damages $2 mil.
Insurance pays out the $200k immediately and essentially fails to defend the claim. Defence gets a judgment for $1.8 mil. Now you're right, their lawyer isn't going to take heroic actions to enforce the claim. But the guy does have assets worth going after. They slap a judgment on the house - now if it is ever going to be sold they get the proceeds (minus first mortgage being paid out). Slap a judgment on the car (same thing). They garnishee his wages from his employer - the real killer. Now every cent te guy earns (above a certain minimum) goes to the victim. RRSP/401k - not sure here. The asset itself might be protected. But once you try to withdraw funds, now they're subject to garnishment.
Obviously there is a certain % of the population that is judgment proof - they own no property, job pays very little (or is paid in cash :ph34r:). But an awful lot of people would have something to lose.
The State Farm dude I spoke to suggested the US (Iowa?) cap is garnishment of 20% of wages.
Which, just based on the sensational award stories that make the news, doesn't seem to happen very often.
Quote from: Barrister on December 05, 2013, 01:48:39 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 05, 2013, 01:32:07 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 05, 2013, 11:13:22 AM
Our systems are quite different. If one follows this advice, not only will the award be fairly low, by American standards, but you will also be dinged for the contributory negligence of your act. We dont settle to the level of insurance. That level is there for the horrible hypothetical that, hopefully, will never occur but we have the coverage - at a low price - in case it does occur.
I dont quite understand why you folks have such low coverage given the large amounts of potential awards in the US. Bankruptcy isnt that big of a deal?
Exactly what large payouts are you talking about? It's exceedingly rare for a large payout to be awarded in a case between two "ordinary citizens." Large payouts almost always come when someone is suing a wealthy individual or a company. The rare cases where someone gets a large payout against an individual it's mostly for show, like awhile back there was a case where some random idiots beat a guy half to death and his family got like a $10m judgment against them. They have no assets and have never earned much above minimum wage, it's a pointless/meaningless judgment.
There's a lot of things legally protected from large judgments here, too. So even a middle class guy who owns a house and has a nice 401k balance, in many states those are protected from things like legal judgments so if you take that away he doesn't really have a lot of assets or income to go after. That's why you typically see them go after the insurance cap and leave it at that.
A coworker of mine, her 65 year old father who had $12.5k/25k/12.5k (minimum liability insurance in Ohio) tore down two utility poles in his car. The cost to the city to replace them was $22,000, they settled for the $12.5k because that was his maximum insurance payout. They did not even investigate or look into whether he could pay for more beyond that. That's pretty typical in most situations.
I can understand why the city chose to take the easy $12.5k when the difference is only $10k more.
But let me paint you a picture: nice middle class guy owns a home, has a RRSP, respectable income, owns his own vehicle. Has $200k minimum coverage. In a moments inattention he runs a red light, and t-bones another vehicle. Vehicle passenger snaps a vertebrae, becoming paralyzed. Spends six months in hospital, months more in physio, unable to sexually perform, employment prospects severely diminished (was working at a high paying but physically demanding job).
Very roughly, his damages are for pain and suffering (capped at $300k, but that's still above minimum coverage), loss of wages (the real killer - lets say $80k for 20 years - 1.6 million), loss of "companionship" to the wife, costs of physio, housekeeping. Total damages $2 mil.
Insurance pays out the $200k immediately and essentially fails to defend the claim. Defence gets a judgment for $1.8 mil. Now you're right, their lawyer isn't going to take heroic actions to enforce the claim. But the guy does have assets worth going after. They slap a judgment on the house - now if it is ever going to be sold they get the proceeds (minus first mortgage being paid out). Slap a judgment on the car (same thing). They garnishee his wages from his employer - the real killer. Now every cent te guy earns (above a certain minimum) goes to the victim. RRSP/401k - not sure here. The asset itself might be protected. But once you try to withdraw funds, now they're subject to garnishment.
Obviously there is a certain % of the population that is judgment proof - they own no property, job pays very little (or is paid in cash :ph34r:). But an awful lot of people would have something to lose.
No Fault :wub:
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 05, 2013, 02:45:35 PM
No Fault :wub:
There's something to be said for a no-fault system.
Only risk is that since in Quebec (and Manitoba) since the government runs both the no-fault system, and the insurance business, there's an incentive to simply short-change accident victims in order to save everyone else money.
That's pretty much what happens.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 05, 2013, 09:04:44 AM
re: personal liability:--It's sorta off topic, but in order to rent out my condo, I was told I needed to get $1M liability, minimum. In case a sprinkler escutcheon slices somebody's skull open and they die slowly.
One of my favorite words. :)