chuckles67

Agree. In my case the extra coverage came for free, after I asked for it. Maybe this helps someone in some situation. But you're right, if you cause an accident incurring bodily injury things will get very bad.

Bink

No, this would be on your house policy.

Giantaxe

You can buy an umbrella policy from anyone. Some will insist that your car and/or house policy (if any) is also with them. Mine is with my car insurer.

Bink

Ah okay, thanks for that. I had assumed it could only be on your house policy as a general cover all.

S Folinsky

The rubric of YMMV applies in this discussion.

As a practical matter, a person has to consider if they are what us legal types call "judgement proof."

If one does not have substantial asset exposure and gets into an accident, the plaintiff's attorney will simply not go after the person without insurance or will settle for policy limits for "underinusred."

This does not take into account "subrogation" if the victim collects against their "uninsured motorists."

FWIW, we have assets in a long owned appreciated home and inheritances. So, we carry auto, homeowners and an umbrella with the same company. [It can be spread out among other companies. Our earthquake used to be with an independent carrier which stopped offering the policy so we are now with CEQA via our regular carrier.] We obtain a discount with both HO and auto with the same company.

Having the umbrella actually allowed us to get by with lower liability with the auto than we would have otherwise carried. It also turned out to be more coverage for less money. Go figure.

We do carry "UM" un-insured motorists -- most people who carry this have it for lower amount than their own liability limits. Ours matches our liability limits. California has a fairly high number of non-citizens who are not authorized to be in the US. In an effort to battle "illegal immigration" the law prevents such drivers from obtaining licenses, registering cars and comcomitantly from obtaining liability insurance. I personally find it perverse that this policy is done by increasing the risk to all residents of California, but I digress. [BTW, there is a market for clunkers which have 11 months left on their tags. The cars are then abandoned when the tags expire. Again, this is encouraged by the state of California.]

Also, we do not carry "med pay." The premium saved is not all that much, but the coverage would be quite minimal. We have good health coverage. Our passengers will have their own health insurance, or ability to collect from the other guys insurance, our UM coverage, or if it is our fault from our liability. I do not care to pay for a minimal payout that pretty much duplicates other coverage.

On collision and comprehensive coverage, that is governed by the age and value of the car. [It also can be influenced by the repair record of that model]. Higher deductibles cut down a lot on the premium.

sergeyvo

It worth making, especially taking into account that the monthly premium will increase just ~$10 for $100's --> $1M jump.
This is not only for the financial coverage, but for extra care from the insurance company. If you have a $30k limit and someone claims $200k, it might be cheaper for the insurance company to pay this money than to appeal in the court or hire a lawyer. The rest will be yours.