Ask me about insurance!

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Business, Finance, and Careers > Ask me about insurance!

H110Hawk: Dec 28, 2006

MrLogan posted:

Is there an easy summary or flow chart of how much insurance you should have for auto/home? For instance for auto liability, we have 100/300, which seems like a lot compared to the minimum of 30/60, but the internet seems all over the place for recommendations.

Deductible part is easy to understand, but the actual coverage amounts I can't get my head around what the numbers should be.

The other thing you will notice is that the amount above a certain point will not cost all that much more incremental premium. That means you're above the point where the insurance company expects to have to pay out. The example above with a person made of glass is an outlier to the extreme. 150/300/150 should be state minimum, California's is like a wrinkled $10 bill and half a roll of prop 65 stickers.

Think about the assets you have which someone could sue you for, vs the amount where you want to go bankrupt.

If you own a house don't think about it too much, buy an umbrella policy for $1MM and set all the underlying coverages to the minimum required by the umbrella policy. (for example mine is like 150/300/250 or similar.) Now you have an order of magnitude more coverage.

# ? Oct 3, 2020 17:37

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 12, 2024 13:41

bird with big dick: Oct 21, 2015

MrLogan posted:

Is there an easy summary or flow chart of how much insurance you should have for auto/home? For instance for auto liability, we have 100/300, which seems like a lot compared to the minimum of 30/60, but the internet seems all over the place for recommendations.

Deductible part is easy to understand, but the actual coverage amounts I can't get my head around what the numbers should be.

100/300 and a million dollar umbrella is what I have. If you don't have a house or other significant assets you're worried about protecting you could do without the umbrella but maybe consider seeing how much extra it'd be to go to 250/500. It's not much from what I've seen IIRC, like 10 bucks a month extra or something.

I can tell you 100/300 would not even come close to covering the damages from the car accident I was recently in but that's also an extreme/edge case.

# ? Oct 4, 2020 16:26

devicenull: May 30, 2007; Grimey Drawer

bird with big dick posted:

100/300 and a million dollar umbrella is what I have. If you don't have a house or other significant assets you're worried about protecting you could do without the umbrella but maybe consider seeing how much extra it'd be to go to 250/500. It's not much from what I've seen IIRC, like 10 bucks a month extra or something.

I can tell you 100/300 would not even come close to covering the damages from the car accident I was recently in but that's also an extreme/edge case.

State minimums are not a great guide - I was sued over an accident that was part of (not caused). The woman broke her leg - my insurance ended up paying $10k as part of a settlement. I didn't find out what the guy that caused it ended up paying, but I'm sure it was way more then $10k.

If a broken leg settles for that much, you can imagine how much a more serious injury (or multiple injuries) would end up costing.

# ? Oct 4, 2020 16:58

MrLogan: Feb 4, 2004; Ask me about Derek Carr's stolen MVP awards, those dastardly refs, and, oh yeah, having the absolute worst fucking gimmick in The Football Funhouse.

Thanks for all the replies. I've added a $1m umbrella policy for $20/month. I was a little under the minimums for USAA for the policy, but it was only $10/month to increase to the minimums required.

# ? Oct 5, 2020 16:01

mrmcd: Feb 22, 2003; Pictured: The only good cop (a fictional one).

So, somewhat complicated question:

I rent an apartment, that's on the bottom half of a two family building. My kitchen is an add-on building to the unit on the back, that's connected to the apartment and back yard, etc. The foundation slap of this kitchen is basically slowly cracking in half right now, and the landlord says I can't live there for 4 - ?? weeks while they fix the foundation and then build a new kitchen.

My renters insurance policy is an all perils policy, with additional living expenses added, and an exclusion around settling written as:

quote:

In Deluxe Renters Coverage, a "covered loss" includes all risk of physical loss to your contents or
other property covered under this part of your Masterpiece Policy, unless stated otherwise or an
exclusion applies. Exclusions to this coverage are described in Exclusions.
In lieu of the definition for "business" in the Introduction, the following definition of "business"
applies:
"Business" means any employment, trade, occupation, profession, or farm operation including the
raising or care of animals or any activity intended to realize a benefit or financial gain engaged in on
a full-time, part-time or occasional basis.

quote:

Additional living expenses
As described below, under certain conditions when your rental unit cannot be lived in because of a
covered loss to your rental unit or, if applicable, its contents, we provide coverage for additional
living expenses which consists of extra living expenses, loss of fair rental value, and forced
evacuation expenses. There is no deductible for this coverage.
Extra living expenses. If a covered loss makes your rental unit uninhabitable, we cover the
reasonable increase in your normal living expenses that is necessary to maintain your household's
usual standard of living, including the boarding of domestic animals not primarily owned or kept for
business use. We cover these increases to your normal living expenses for a period of time
commencing with the date of loss and ending with the earliest of the following:
the reasonable amount of time required to restore your rental unit to a habitable condition;
the shortest amount of time required to settle elsewhere if you or members of your household
permanently relocate;
the reasonable amount of time required to restore the rental unit to the condition it was in prior to
the covered loss if you are constructing additions, alterations, or renovations to your rental unit at
the time of a covered loss, but we will only cover the increase in your normal living expenses
incurred by you; or
up to two years from the date of loss, or a later date if agreed to by us.

The exclusion in question that's a sticking point is:

quote:

Structural movement. We do not cover any loss to additions and alterations of your rental unit
caused by the settling, cracking, shrinking, bulging, or expansion of bulkheads, pavements, patios,
landings, steps, footings, foundations, walls, floors, roofs, or ceilings except loss to glass that is part
of a building, storm door, or storm window. But we do insure ensuing covered loss unless another
exclusion applies.

The adjuster had an engineer inspect the apartment, and he concluded:

quote:

It is the undersigned�s opinion, within a reasonable degree of engineering certainty, that the
cause of the damage to the floor tile and subfloor (concrete slab) was long term settlement of
the soil supporting the concrete slab. There was no evidence that there was a crawlspace or
basement below the slab and no supporting floor joists.

My claim is basically additional living expenses, because I half to half move out of my place, rent a furnished place short term, and possibly other expenses. My landlord isn't charging me rent (and I have a contract stating that) while the repairs are being done, but it's not a clear cut thing that will totally be done in 4 weeks, because who actually believes contractors. So I'm stuck where I'm trying to bounce between AirBNBs or furnished short term rentals a month to two weeks at a time, and it's likely that the cost of all this will exceed my normal monthly rent by some amount.

Before the engineer came, the adjuster sent me a letter saying they had not determined if it was covered, and then quoting an exclusionary paragraph about structural movement that was different than then one in my actual policy. The main difference is my policy has the clause about "We do not cover any loss to additions and alterations of your rental unit ..." where as the one he sent me in the letter had deleted the words "to additions and alterations of your rental unit", effectively broadening the exclusion. I emailed him back being like "wtf" and providing evidence that the quoted language was not the language in the documents provided to me both electronically and in physical companies. Adjuster replied saying "oh yeah, yours is correct, I probably quoted the standard renters policy and you have the deluxe renters policy'.

Two weeks go by and I hear nothing from them. I email him today asking for an update, and he replies again with the engineers report saying it was caused by long term settlement and so wouldn't be covered. I again remind him that my exclusion only covers alterations and additions. Then he replies "yes I will look into that but since there's no loss there's no ALE available."

So now he (the adjuster) has twice tried to tell me there's different language than is actually in my contract, and then twice when I called them on it, claims there's not actually any loss that happened to me. So I guess because the kitchen never actually collapsed to the point of destroying my personal poo poo, they aren't going to pay out? Is being turned out of my primary residence somehow not a 'loss' under an all perils policy.

The state is NY btw. Sorry if this sounds like an unhinged r/legaladvice rant. It's not a lot of money (right now) but this adjuster seems to be going out of his way to gently caress with and gas light me for some reason.

# ? Oct 5, 2020 17:29

H110Hawk: Dec 28, 2006

Have your landlord pay for your accommodations personally and keep paying your rent in full to them?

# ? Oct 5, 2020 18:48

bird with big dick: Oct 21, 2015

MrLogan posted:

Is there an easy summary or flow chart of how much insurance you should have for auto/home? For instance for auto liability, we have 100/300, which seems like a lot compared to the minimum of 30/60, but the internet seems all over the place for recommendations.

Deductible part is easy to understand, but the actual coverage amounts I can't get my head around what the numbers should be.

You mentioned home also, the biggest thing for home owners insurance for me is that they don't cover poo poo for personal possessions. Like I think my policy has 250k worth of personal possession coverage but you dig into the fine print and they don't cover poo poo for: guns, jewelry, collectibles, antiques, computers, electronics, etc. So I guess you're covered if you've got 250,000 worth of non-antique furniture and clothes or something. How anyone could have 250,000 grand worth of poo poo when all the poo poo that's actually valuable is excluded from coverage is beyond me, but I think this is an area where people think they've covered but actually are not.

# ? Oct 5, 2020 19:15

Virtue: Jan 7, 2009

bird with big dick posted:

You mentioned home also, the biggest thing for home owners insurance for me is that they don't cover poo poo for personal possessions. Like I think my policy has 250k worth of personal possession coverage but you dig into the fine print and they don't cover poo poo for: guns, jewelry, collectibles, antiques, computers, electronics, etc. So I guess you're covered if you've got 250,000 worth of non-antique furniture and clothes or something. How anyone could have 250,000 grand worth of poo poo when all the poo poo that's actually valuable is excluded from coverage is beyond me, but I think this is an area where people think they've covered but actually are not.

Certain types of property are subject to "sublimits". For most of them you can get coverage by scheduling them on a separate endorsement which is a process your agent can walk you through. For some types of property there isn't an easy way to get coverage for like currency. This isn't exclusive to personal property either. You'll likely find sublimits under other parts of your policy like tree and shrub removal.

# ? Oct 5, 2020 22:57

Virtue: Jan 7, 2009

mrmcd posted:

...

So I would suggest as a next step you ask to speak to a supervisor about this because at the very least the adjuster is not communicating this well. There are some confusing parts of your post but I think I get the gist of it.

For this next bit I'm going to assume your renters policy is based on the ISO HO-4 which is very standard in the industry.

What I think the adjuster is trying to say is that there is no coverage under either the standard or what your carrier calls the "deluxe" policy. Are you sure that is the only reference to structural movement in the entire policy? The way that language is written makes me think it's in addition to the existing exclusion and not the entire exclusion on it's own. Perhaps the "deluxe" version of the renters policy adds coverage for "additions and alterations" and has separate additional exclusion language for only those items? HO policies usually have an entire exclusion and definitions surrounding "Earth Movement". It might look something like this:

quote:

Earth Movement means:
a. Earthquake, including land shock waves or tremors before, during or after a volcanic eruption;
b. Landslide, mudslide or mudflow;
c. Subsidence or sinkhole; or
d. Any other earth movement including earth sinking, rising or shifting; caused by or resulting from human or animal forces or any act of nature unless direct loss by fire or explosion ensues and then we will pay only for the ensuing loss.

Edit: I removed commentary about "additions and alterations" because it caused more confusion than it solved

Virtue fucked around with this message at 01:05 on Oct 6, 2020

# ? Oct 6, 2020 00:16

mrmcd: Feb 22, 2003; Pictured: The only good cop (a fictional one).

Virtue posted:

So I would suggest as a next step you ask to speak to a supervisor about this because at the very least the adjuster is not communicating this well. There are some confusing parts of your post but I think I get the gist of it.

For this next bit I'm going to assume your renters policy is based on the ISO HO-4 which is very standard in the industry.

What I think the adjuster is trying to say is that there is no coverage under either the standard or what your carrier calls the "deluxe" policy. Are you sure that is the only reference to structural movement in the entire policy? The way that language is written makes me think it's in addition to the existing exclusion and not the entire exclusion on it's own. Perhaps the "deluxe" version of the renters policy adds coverage for "additions and alterations" and has separate additional exclusion language for only those items? HO policies usually have an entire exclusion and definitions surrounding "Earth Movement". It might look something like this:

I want to address the bit about "additions and alterations" separately because I think that's causing some confusion. The property coverage under a renters policy generally covers only your "personal property". This is because the landlord's property policy covers the unit itself and insurance policies try not to overlap coverage. However, what if you were to, at your own expense, upgrade the interior of the unit to make it more liveable for you? You don't have an insurable interest in the property itself but you do in those specific changes which would not be considered "personal property". This is where the "additions and alterations" language comes into play. I don't have your exact policy in front of me but it likely has language very similar to the following:

All this does is explicitly say those additions and alterations made are covered under your renters policy.

Yeah, I have a rider that also covers alterations and additions, up to 8k or something. I can dig it out later and post it.

The way I read the exclusion is that they won't cover losses for settling to additions and alterations because that's typically what's expensive. There's a different policy supposedly (not mine) that has almost the exact same exclusion for settling but without the additions and alterations clause. Presumably this is the cheaper insurance policy while the mine has a more narrowly written one which only excludes claims on alterations and additions.

My policy only has one exclusion related to exclusions and alterations, and it has the clause specifically applying it to the alterations.

I'm not making a claim for any alterations. My claim is for the loss of use of my home caused by this foundation problem. The adjuster kept kept first quoting the wrong exclusion language to me, then when I called him out on it, said yes I was using the right one (in my policy). Then after I corrected him twice that my exclusion was only for alterations, he said it didn't matter because there was no actual loss.

But if it doesn't matter why the loss occurred because there was never any loss then why send an engineer?

# ? Oct 6, 2020 00:35

Ham Equity: Apr 16, 2013; The first thing we do, let's kill all the cars.; Grimey Drawer

mrmcd posted:

Yeah, I have a rider that also covers alterations and additions, up to 8k or something. I can dig it out later and post it.

The way I read the exclusion is that they won't cover losses for settling to additions and alterations because that's typically what's expensive. There's a different policy supposedly (not mine) that has almost the exact same exclusion for settling but without the additions and alterations clause. Presumably this is the cheaper insurance policy while the mine has a more narrowly written one which only excludes claims on alterations and additions.

My policy only has one exclusion related to exclusions and alterations, and it has the clause specifically applying it to the alterations.

I'm not making a claim for any alterations. My claim is for the loss of use of my home caused by this foundation problem. The adjuster kept kept first quoting the wrong exclusion language to me, then when I called him out on it, said yes I was using the right one (in my policy). Then after I corrected him twice that my exclusion was only for alterations, he said it didn't matter because there was no actual loss.

But if it doesn't matter why the loss occurred because there was never any loss then why send an engineer?

IANAL, IANA Insurance Adjuster, but assuming it wasn't your fault that the work needs to be done and the landlord isn't going after you for it, you wouldn't really have a liability claim under your policy. You could go after your landlord for violating your lease, in that part of the lease is providing you someplace to live, but I would bet dollars to donuts there's a clause in your lease that limits the landlord's liability for loss of use to the amount of your rent. Is that legally enforceable? That's a great question for your lawyer, assuming you no longer want to live where you're currently living. Practically speaking, your best bet is probably to suck it up and deal, join your local Tenant's Union, and lobby for better renter protections in the area where you live going forward (all of this assumes you're in America).

# ? Oct 6, 2020 00:45

Virtue: Jan 7, 2009

mrmcd posted:

Yeah, I have a rider that also covers alterations and additions, up to 8k or something. I can dig it out later and post it.

The way I read the exclusion is that they won't cover losses for settling to additions and alterations because that's typically what's expensive. There's a different policy supposedly (not mine) that has almost the exact same exclusion for settling but without the additions and alterations clause. Presumably this is the cheaper insurance policy while the mine has a more narrowly written one which only excludes claims on alterations and additions.

My policy only has one exclusion related to exclusions and alterations, and it has the clause specifically applying it to the alterations.

I'm not making a claim for any alterations. My claim is for the loss of use of my home caused by this foundation problem. The adjuster kept kept first quoting the wrong exclusion language to me, then when I called him out on it, said yes I was using the right one (in my policy). Then after I corrected him twice that my exclusion was only for alterations, he said it didn't matter because there was no actual loss.

But if it doesn't matter why the loss occurred because there was never any loss then why send an engineer?

The adjuster isn't saying there is no loss, they're saying there is no "covered loss" under the policy which triggers coverage. They sent an engineer to investigate whether or not the loss was covered under the policy. Again, I don't know if the adjuster is playing fast and loose with the language here but the insurance contract is a very specific thing which is why I recommended going to a supervisor.

Your ALE coverage has to be triggered by a covered loss. If there is a general "earth movement" exclusion on the policy, there is no covered loss.

What usually happens is there is an exclusion somewhere in the boilerplate policy against the "earth movement" peril. What I think happened is you purchased additional coverage (additions and alterations) and the exclusion language you cited specifically regarding this coverage. It doesn't overwrite the existing "earth movement" exclusion which would apply to your actual claim. The reason I added brought up the additions and alterations coverage at all is because you seem to think that single exclusion applies to any claim under the policy which you should clarify with the adjuster.

Virtue fucked around with this message at 01:04 on Oct 6, 2020

# ? Oct 6, 2020 00:59

Virtue: Jan 7, 2009

Thanatosian posted:

IANAL, IANA Insurance Adjuster, but assuming it wasn't your fault that the work needs to be done and the landlord isn't going after you for it, you wouldn't really have a liability claim under your policy. You could go after your landlord for violating your lease, in that part of the lease is providing you someplace to live, but I would bet dollars to donuts there's a clause in your lease that limits the landlord's liability for loss of use to the amount of your rent. Is that legally enforceable? That's a great question for your lawyer, assuming you no longer want to live where you're currently living. Practically speaking, your best bet is probably to suck it up and deal, join your local Tenant's Union, and lobby for better renter protections in the area where you live going forward (all of this assumes you're in America).

Liability coverage isn't involved here, this is entirely a first party issue.

# ? Oct 6, 2020 01:00

Virtue: Jan 7, 2009

MrLogan posted:

Is there an easy summary or flow chart of how much insurance you should have for auto/home? For instance for auto liability, we have 100/300, which seems like a lot compared to the minimum of 30/60, but the internet seems all over the place for recommendations.

Deductible part is easy to understand, but the actual coverage amounts I can't get my head around what the numbers should be.

If you don't want to think too hard about it get a $1M umbrella policy and whatever the carrier requires as minimum underlying limits for that (probably 250/500 or 300/500). You probably want all three policies with the same company to make this work neatly.

# ? Oct 6, 2020 01:14

mrmcd: Feb 22, 2003; Pictured: The only good cop (a fictional one).

Virtue posted:

The adjuster isn't saying there is no loss, they're saying there is no "covered loss" under the policy which triggers coverage. They sent an engineer to investigate whether or not the loss was covered under the policy. Again, I don't know if the adjuster is playing fast and loose with the language here but the insurance contract is a very specific thing which is why I recommended going to a supervisor.

Your ALE coverage has to be triggered by a covered loss. If there is a general "earth movement" exclusion on the policy, there is no covered loss.

What usually happens is there is an exclusion somewhere in the boilerplate policy against the "earth movement" peril. What I think happened is you purchased additional coverage (additions and alterations) and the exclusion language you cited specifically regarding this coverage. It doesn't overwrite the existing "earth movement" exclusion which would apply to your actual claim. The reason I added brought up the additions and alterations coverage at all is because you seem to think that single exclusion applies to any claim under the policy which you should clarify with the adjuster.

Yeah I checked, there isn't any earth movement exclusion other than the one I quoted above. I checked several times. Otherwise, it's an all perils policy.

# ? Oct 6, 2020 01:26

sheri: Dec 30, 2002

It seems pretty clear to me that the engineer they sent out determined the problem was caused by structural movement/settlement and therefore not a covered loss.

�Structural movement. We do not cover any loss to additions and alterations of your rental unit
caused by the settling, cracking, shrinking, bulging, or expansion of bulkheads, pavements, patios,landings, steps, footings, foundations, walls, floors, roofs, or ceilings except loss to glass that is part of a building, storm door, or storm window.�

That�s the exclusion you quoted...they aren�t covering the loss because it�s specifically excluded from your policy.

# ? Oct 6, 2020 01:37

Virtue: Jan 7, 2009

mrmcd posted:

Yeah I checked, there isn't any earth movement exclusion other than the one I quoted above. I checked several times. Otherwise, it's an all perils policy.

It's really uncommon for a standard market HO policy to not have some type of earth movement/sink hole/earthquake exclusion on it so without having the actual documents in front of me I'm out of ideas. I don't think I've seen one myself.

# ? Oct 6, 2020 01:43

mrmcd: Feb 22, 2003; Pictured: The only good cop (a fictional one).

Virtue posted:

It's really uncommon for a standard market HO policy to not have some type of earth movement/sink hole/earthquake exclusion on it so without having the actual documents in front of me I'm out of ideas. I don't think I've seen one myself.

Sorry about the screen shot spam but these are from the pdf that's the same as the physical documents they sent me.

The structural movement exclusion specifically says "loss to additions and alterations of your unit".

# ? Oct 6, 2020 02:06

Dango Bango: Jul 26, 2007

mrmcd posted:

The structural movement exclusion specifically says "loss to additions and alterations of your unit".

This is because the first-party coverage on an HO-4 policy is personal property. There is no building coverage. "Additions and alterations" refer to any betterments you might have made that would be covered as personal property as someone else mentioned ITT.

It doesn't matter what the structure is (main dwelling or appurtenant) because your policy doesn't cover that.

# ? Oct 6, 2020 02:33

PT6A: Jan 5, 2006; Public school teachers are callous dictators who won't lift a finger to stop children from peeing in my plane

I had a not-at-fault accident, my insurance company is mostly doing a good job and has made this quite painless as far as I can tell so far, but one area I'm bothered by is the following: they agree to cover a car "of a similar size" which is bullshit because my car is a hot hatch, and they should like me to be satisfied with a very average "standard" sedan, and I hate driving a vehicle that feels soulless and depressing. They've given me the option to pay the difference between the standard car and another vehicle of my choice at Discount Car Rental, but the vehicle I want to rent is only available through Enterprise. Do I have a leg to stand on asking them to pay out whatever they would've paid to Discount (and I understand that's probably not going to be Discount's published rate for a standard car), and then just pay out of pocket for the vehicle I want at Enterprise?

# ? Oct 6, 2020 21:48

H110Hawk: Dec 28, 2006

PT6A posted:

I had a not-at-fault accident, my insurance company is mostly doing a good job and has made this quite painless as far as I can tell so far, but one area I'm bothered by is the following: they agree to cover a car "of a similar size" which is bullshit because my car is a hot hatch, and they should like me to be satisfied with a very average "standard" sedan, and I hate driving a vehicle that feels soulless and depressing. They've given me the option to pay the difference between the standard car and another vehicle of my choice at Discount Car Rental, but the vehicle I want to rent is only available through Enterprise. Do I have a leg to stand on asking them to pay out whatever they would've paid to Discount (and I understand that's probably not going to be Discount's published rate for a standard car), and then just pay out of pocket for the vehicle I want at Enterprise?

Sounds like they want you to rent a hatchback, enjoy your nissan versa. I would pick my battles.

# ? Oct 6, 2020 22:08

PT6A: Jan 5, 2006; Public school teachers are callous dictators who won't lift a finger to stop children from peeing in my plane

H110Hawk posted:

Sounds like they want you to rent a hatchback, enjoy your nissan versa. I would pick my battles.

I will not, I will pay out of pocket for a car I don't hate. Last time my car was in the shop I rented a Jeep Wrangler and come hell or high water I am getting one again, after the misadventure that was attempting to drive a Nissan Sentra without pondering suicide.

I feel... very strongly about my car, and cars in general, I consider this to be non-optional, it would just be nice if I could get *some* money from insurance for it.

The thing that skeeves me out about all the other categories of vehicles it is always says "X or similar" and I don't consider a vehicle to be similar purely due to superficial characteristics like size. The Wrangler is a deeply flawed vehicle in many ways, but I know exactly what those ways tend to be and I'm willing to put up with them. It is very easy to maneuver with good visibility all around, it has adequate power and a nice transmission which, for an automatic, at least behaves itself. It just drinks petrol like water, and bounces around like a happy idiot, both things I am willing to put up with. Overall it is a nice experience to drive for a short while and if I'm going to commute in it, that's important to me rather than dreading climbing into some dreadful, dreary piece of crap or some poncy 3-series.

PT6A fucked around with this message at 22:50 on Oct 6, 2020

# ? Oct 6, 2020 22:38

Literally Lewis Hamilton: Feb 22, 2005

PT6A posted:

I had a not-at-fault accident, my insurance company is mostly doing a good job and has made this quite painless as far as I can tell so far, but one area I'm bothered by is the following: they agree to cover a car "of a similar size" which is bullshit because my car is a hot hatch, and they should like me to be satisfied with a very average "standard" sedan, and I hate driving a vehicle that feels soulless and depressing. They've given me the option to pay the difference between the standard car and another vehicle of my choice at Discount Car Rental, but the vehicle I want to rent is only available through Enterprise. Do I have a leg to stand on asking them to pay out whatever they would've paid to Discount (and I understand that's probably not going to be Discount's published rate for a standard car), and then just pay out of pocket for the vehicle I want at Enterprise?

Is this through your own company? If so, you have a policy limit of $x/day. Use it however you like with Enterprise or Hertz. They�re hurting on business so bad they�ll likely give you just about anything you want for cheap.

# ? Oct 6, 2020 23:06

PT6A: Jan 5, 2006; Public school teachers are callous dictators who won't lift a finger to stop children from peeing in my plane

Literally Lewis Hamilton posted:

Is this through your own company? If so, you have a policy limit of $x/day. Use it however you like with Enterprise or Hertz. They�re hurting on business so bad they�ll likely give you just about anything you want for cheap.

Yes, it is. I will examine the exact wording of the policy to see what my options are.

# ? Oct 6, 2020 23:22

H110Hawk: Dec 28, 2006

PT6A posted:

Yes, it is. I will examine the exact wording of the policy to see what my options are.

If it matters to you just ask em if they have contracted rates with Enterprise. Paying out of pocket for an upgrade is fine then. Otherwise, call enterprise and ask for a quote. Tell them you want a Jeep Wrangler and have a budget of $X/day and see what they come back with, give them your insurance daily rate.

# ? Oct 6, 2020 23:27

PT6A: Jan 5, 2006; Public school teachers are callous dictators who won't lift a finger to stop children from peeing in my plane

Upon further reflection, I think my reaction to the car rental issue is caused by a general feeling of lack of control in my life, tinder caused by some other poo poo going on in my life, new work circumstances, COVID-19 precautions/restrictions, then set aflame by the spark of getting rear-ended in a 100% not-at-fault while obeying the law.

I think I will still have the Wrangler, because I will loving choose where I want to rent a car from, and I will loving choose exactly the vehicle I want to rent, and now I have a better understanding of why it matters so much to me. I do, however, wish that the insurance company were more understanding in this regard, as I don't think it's a huge ask and I already pay them a loving king's ransom every year. I feel physically well, and I'm of course thankful for that, but the accident has done an injury to me mentally speaking and no one ever really asked about that.

# ? Oct 7, 2020 05:00

Infidel Castro: Jun 8, 2010; Again and again
Your face reminds me of a bleak future
Despite the absence of hope
I give you this sacrifice

Literally Lewis Hamilton posted:

Is this through your own company? If so, you have a policy limit of $x/day. Use it however you like with Enterprise or Hertz. They’re hurting on business so bad they’ll likely give you just about anything you want for cheap.

Some companies, like the one I work for, have rental coverage based on car class and not daily limits. He should be able to get out of pocket reimbursement, but how much the coverage is probably based on how much the direct bill rate is with their vendor.

# ? Oct 15, 2020 18:40

Nocturtle: Mar 17, 2007

Apologies if this is a basic or already answered question: is there any reason for myself and my wife to both obtain health insurance for our family through our respective employer-provided health plans if both employers use the same insurer (UHC)? I've read that in some circumstances it can be worth having two health insurance plans, even if it effectively doubles the monthly insurance premiums. However if it's the same insurance for both plans, presumably we would just have exactly the same narrow provider network and coverage limitations etc.

# ? Oct 15, 2020 21:32

Dango Bango: Jul 26, 2007

Nocturtle posted:

Apologies if this is a basic or already answered question: is there any reason for myself and my wife to both obtain health insurance for our family through our respective employer-provided health plans if both employers use the same insurer (UHC)? I've read that in some circumstances it can be worth having two health insurance plans, even if it effectively doubles the monthly insurance premiums. However if it's the same insurance for both plans, presumably we would just have exactly the same narrow provider network and coverage limitations etc.

Wouldn't this result in double the deductible since you're not on the same plan?

# ? Oct 15, 2020 21:36

H110Hawk: Dec 28, 2006

Nocturtle posted:

Apologies if this is a basic or already answered question: is there any reason for myself and my wife to both obtain health insurance for our family through our respective employer-provided health plans if both employers use the same insurer (UHC)? I've read that in some circumstances it can be worth having two health insurance plans, even if it effectively doubles the monthly insurance premiums. However if it's the same insurance for both plans, presumably we would just have exactly the same narrow provider network and coverage limitations etc.

You need to ask both of your benefits people, in writing, what the impact of having this is and if you can pick which policy you want to be on, primary and secondary, that sort of thing. It wouldn't surprise me if UHC simply said "you can't use your spouses insurance as secondary if we're the primary." This may force your hand on how you are covered, which plan you use, etc.

Also two "UHC" plans from two different employers could be dramatically different in what is covered, copays, deductible, prescription formulary, etc. One could literally say "we cover imaging at 100% with no cost sharing" and the other could say "We cover imaging at 90% co-insurance after $1000 deductible is met." Both ID cards would say UHC on them.

# ? Oct 15, 2020 21:40

Nocturtle: Mar 17, 2007

H110Hawk posted:

You need to ask both of your benefits people, in writing, what the impact of having this is and if you can pick which policy you want to be on, primary and secondary, that sort of thing. It wouldn't surprise me if UHC simply said "you can't use your spouses insurance as secondary if we're the primary." This may force your hand on how you are covered, which plan you use, etc.

Also two "UHC" plans from two different employers could be dramatically different in what is covered, copays, deductible, prescription formulary, etc. One could literally say "we cover imaging at 100% with no cost sharing" and the other could say "We cover imaging at 90% co-insurance after $1000 deductible is met." Both ID cards would say UHC on them.

Thanks, this is useful. I checked the policy documents but frankly couldn't understand the co-ordination of benefits sections, so just contacting the benefits office is a good suggestion.

As far as I can tell the coverage is pretty similar between the plans.

Dango Bango posted:

Wouldn't this result in double the deductible since you're not on the same plan?

Yes, as I understand it you would have separate deductibles for each plan. Also separate limits, out-of-pocket maximums etc.

# ? Oct 16, 2020 03:43

MJP: Jun 17, 2007; Are you looking at me Senpai?; Grimey Drawer

My employer (from whom my wife and I have our health insurance) is offering hospital indemnity insurance starting this year. Premiums are $269 per year for both of us. We've got an E-fund and brokeage funds. Should I be buying the hospital indemnity as a supplement to our health plan?

It's got the following benefits, if that helps:

$150 daily in-hospital stay benefit
$1000 hospital admission daily benefit
$1000 ICU admission daily benefit
$300 ICU daily stay benefit

ICU admission benefit only once per person and 5 times per calendary year, hospital stay benefit payable up to 31 days per person per calendar year, etc. No payouts for the usual stuff like suicide, self-inflicted injuries, acts of war, military service, etc. No coverage for treatment for dental care unless it's a covered accident/injury illness, no coverage for elective and/or cosmetic surgery, pre-existing conditions, etc.

I'm more concerned about the pre-existing conditions - the way I read this, if I have to stay in the hospital to recover from surgery for say a back injury I had a few months ago, I'm SOL:

quote:

A person has a Pre-existing Condition if the person received medical treatment, consultation, care or services, including diagnostic measures, or took prescribed drugs or medicines, or followed treatment recommendation in the 12 months just prior to the person's effective date of Coverage. A person has a Pre-existing Condition if the person received medical treatment, consultation, care or services, including diagnostic measures, or took prescribed drugs or medicines, or followed treatment recommendation in the 12 months just prior to the person's effective date of Coverage.

# ? Oct 23, 2020 15:16

sheri: Dec 30, 2002

Doesn't your health insurance already cover that type of stuff?

# ? Oct 23, 2020 17:50

H110Hawk: Dec 28, 2006

sheri posted:

Doesn't your health insurance already cover that type of stuff?

It's just cash on the barrel to offset your "other costs" associated with being in the hospital.

MJP: Sounds like you would need to be 12 months out from enrollment date for that insurance to pay you out for your back injury.

# ? Oct 23, 2020 18:05

MJP: Jun 17, 2007; Are you looking at me Senpai?; Grimey Drawer

H110Hawk posted:

It's just cash on the barrel to offset your "other costs" associated with being in the hospital.

MJP: Sounds like you would need to be 12 months out from enrollment date for that insurance to pay you out for your back injury.

I've never heard of "cash on the barrel" before - gonna borrow that saying.

sheri raised a good point - if I end up at an in-network hospital, and I don't have the indemnity insurance, would I just be on the hook for deductibles and out-of-pocket maximums under my health insurance? Let's say for sake of argument it's for an appendectomy, never had an issue before, and it's 1/1/2021 so I haven't been to a doctor in the deductible year yet.

# ? Oct 23, 2020 20:39

H110Hawk: Dec 28, 2006

MJP posted:

I've never heard of "cash on the barrel" before - gonna borrow that saying.

sheri raised a good point - if I end up at an in-network hospital, and I don't have the indemnity insurance, would I just be on the hook for deductibles and out-of-pocket maximums under my health insurance? Let's say for sake of argument it's for an appendectomy, never had an issue before, and it's 1/1/2021 so I haven't been to a doctor in the deductible year yet.

Ask your company these questions. Emergency stuff in general should not wind up with you owing beyond your deductibles (copays, coinsurance, cofuckyou's) but it might be a long road. Get the answers in writing. I just sent of a FDCPA gently caress off letter to an ambulance company who refused to send me an itemized bill, and has since sent the entire balance to a debt collector - including the amount my insurance has paid them already. (I have literally never gotten a bill from them.)

Either way, it just pays you. If you spent the night in an ICU you would get a check for $1000 ($1300?). Then every extra night would be $300. Say your insurance covered everything and you had no bills (pause for laughter) you would just be $1000 richer. Remember that most people don't wind up admitted to a hospital ever short of childbirth (which I presume they exclude.) Going to the ER and spending 25hrs on a bed waiting for an x-ray and advil without getting "admitted" likely wouldn't get you paid.

https://www.guardianlife.com/hospital-indemnity/how-it-works

(Note: I don't work in insurance, I just have an infinitely deep spite-well for megacorps who are out to gently caress me over.)

H110Hawk fucked around with this message at 22:13 on Oct 23, 2020

# ? Oct 23, 2020 22:10

Virtue: Jan 7, 2009

MJP posted:

sheri raised a good point - if I end up at an in-network hospital, and I don't have the indemnity insurance, would I just be on the hook for deductibles and out-of-pocket maximums under my health insurance? Let's say for sake of argument it's for an appendectomy, never had an issue before, and it's 1/1/2021 so I haven't been to a doctor in the deductible year yet.

The answer is yes with about fourty asterisks at the end because of out of network balance billing nonsense. More specifically if your health insurance plan is ACA compliant the maximum you'll have to pay in any given plan year is your out of pocket maximum which includes the deductibles first and then any applicable copays. Indemnity plans on top are nice to have but not necessary since the health insurance should protect you from the catastrophic scenarios (and in the world of medical billing, a routine apendectomy is far from a castrophic scenario). If you have a decent emergency fund and relatively liquid investments already like it sounds you do the cash won't make or break you but at the end of the day it's a judgment call on your part.

Virtue fucked around with this message at 00:03 on Oct 24, 2020

# ? Oct 24, 2020 00:00

bird with big dick: Oct 21, 2015

H110Hawk posted:

Emergency stuff in general should not wind up with you owing beyond your deductibles (copays, coinsurance, cofuckyou's) but it might be a long road.

I don't think this is really true. I think what you'll see is the insurance company says "Oh, it was an emergency, so we won't totally deny you the coverage we'll just treat it like it was an In Network cost" but what happens is that the in network max for e.g. an ambulance ride is $500 but the ambulance company charged you $2500 so you're on the hook for the extra $2000 unless/until you negotiate with the ambulance company.

Also there's generally a big difference between a deductible and an out of pocket maximum which you seem to not be aware of?

# ? Oct 24, 2020 00:50

H110Hawk: Dec 28, 2006

bird with big dick posted:

I don't think this is really true. I think what you'll see is the insurance company says "Oh, it was an emergency, so we won't totally deny you the coverage we'll just treat it like it was an In Network cost" but what happens is that the in network max for e.g. an ambulance ride is $500 but the ambulance company charged you $2500 so you're on the hook for the extra $2000 unless/until you negotiate with the ambulance company.

Also there's generally a big difference between a deductible and an out of pocket maximum which you seem to not be aware of?

Yeah I am aware. I hit my deductible ($250 in, $500 out of network, hit both ) and now am playing the oop max game @ 10% coinsurance of max allowable amount. Every out of network PT visit is $92 allowed less $20 copay = $72 reimbursed and $20 towards my oop max.

It's also state by state. I probably owe them $250, and uhc has after much back and forth (without a fight on my side, pleasant surprise) paid the rest of the bill. Again I've never been given a bill let alone the itemized one I've requested. So fdcpa it is if they want to play dirty. (Of the say $2000 bill uhc has paid $750 then another $1000. I got a collections notice for $2000.)

# ? Oct 24, 2020 01:06

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 12, 2024 13:41

bird with big dick: Oct 21, 2015

That's a nice low deductible. Mine's 400 but I have the best plan out of the three different ones my company offers. I think the other ones are $1000 and $2500.

Its still early days with regards to the medical insurance covering my car accident but it's pretty likely BCBS will refuse to pay more than ~$1500 of the ~$8,000 worth of ambulance rides because of being out of network.

You look at your policy and see that it says "In case of emergency services out of network services will be billed at in network rates" and you think "Great! That means at most I'll have to pay 20% but really I won't have to pay anything because I'm hitting my OOP maximum so none of it really matters" but then how it actually works out is what I outlined above, getting charged thousands and it doesn't apply to your OOP max.

If I look at my BCBS summary right now it says "You owe these providers a total of $4,000" even though my OOP max is $2500, and I've only used $1,600 of my OOP max so there will be more stuff they expect me to pay to come.

The real fun part seems like it's going to be the life flights. My company benefits coordinator told me life flights are always out of network which means they'll likely tell me I'm on the hook for somewhere well into five figures but I checked what BCBS says and it says life flights can absolutely be in network and in fact that company that flew me is listed as in network, so I shouldn't have to pay more than $800 or so out of what I expect to be a 50 or 60 thousand dollar bill.

# ? Oct 25, 2020 00:43

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Business, Finance, and Careers > Ask me about insurance!

«‹›77 »