|
Your mom can buy the insurance and have you listed as a driver, that can be done. Or, it may be cheaper to just add the auto and you to her existing policy, if she lives in the same state. Since you wouldn't be a youthful driver, but you would be a new driver it'll be more expensive to insure just you than if she is on the policy too. The key is that it'll be up to you and your mom to make sure payments are paid properly, her paying the company, and you then paying her. It CAN be done where your mom isn't a driver on the policy and it's just for you, but the few companies that will do that will certainly have a surcharge on there since it's a different situation. If your mom is willing to do it, I'd say add you and the car to her policy, we can figure out how much your addition is going to cost, and she can ask for that money from you. I'm like 80% sure it'll be cheaper than getting your own policy right off the bat.
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2012 21:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 08:35 |
|
|
I need to buy Auto, Business, and Health insurance by next year (Buying a car, opening a small business with equipment insurance, and won't be covered under parents health plan) How much should I be expecting to pay and should I group them all together or pick and choose from different companies?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2012 02:07
|
|
|
Respekt posted:I need to buy Auto, Business, and Health insurance by next year (Buying a car, opening a small business with equipment insurance, and won't be covered under parents health plan) I do commercial insurance too!  It depends on how you're doing it. Are you a one man operation? Are you going to be using the same vehicle for personal and business use? Will you have employees driving your vehicles or a company vehicle? There are a TON of questions I'd have to have answered before I can give you super accurate information. Generally for a commercial policy it'll be more than personal, usually a few hundred a year. This covers you for more than what is normally covered since you have a larger exposure with a business behind it. So if you're paying $400 a year, I'd expect $600 or so for the typical owner, keeping in mind it can be more or less based on the type of business. Business Owners Policies (or BOP) usually start at around $400-$500 a year and go up from there. If you have a lot of heavy equipment it can be a bit more since that equipment itself is something you'll want to insure. Health depends on your age and health of course. If you're in your 20's in good health I'd say up to a few hundred a month. When we get into business stuff it can be pretty complex. If you want me to give you specifics and you don't mind it on the forums, post it here. Otherwise you can email me here: Jastiger fucked around with this message at 04:36 on Jan 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2012 03:17
|
|
|
Can you tell me about gap insurance that would cover "lose of use" on rental cars?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2012 04:27
|
|
|
Why does comprehensive insurance roughly stay the same if my car is old or new? According to my agent, fully insuring my '97 Maxima vs a 2005 Altmia is roughly an extra $100 a year.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2012 06:52
|
|
|
Can we talk about insurance for really old cars? I'm tentatively looking into buying an early 70's corvette as a project car (something worth sub-$12k at time of purchase), with the intent to store it indoors for restoration. I want to keep it as a fair weather car, and put on probably <3000 miles/year. Is it going to be expensive to keep it locked up in a garage in a non-operational condition? And how much more expensive is it going to be to insure it as a Sunday driver? I'm in the CA bay area, if that helps :]
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2012 08:12
|
|
|
JollyGood posted:Can you tell me about gap insurance that would cover "lose of use" on rental cars? Well GAP insurance is usually for an auto you purchased. It's designed to cover the cost of a new one since your car depreciates so quickly once it is off the lot. If you're talking about general Loss of Use, that is a general option you can choose on your auto insurance policy if you're car is in the shop. It isn't a standard feature and has to be added, usually at a few bucks a policy period, so it isn't bad. It covers the cost of renting a car in a day/month format. A typical Loss of Use coverage is something like 30/900 or something like that-$30 a day/$900 for the entire month max. That is the lowest most will go, you can go higher if you'd need/want a better rental car. Tab8715 posted:Why does comprehensive insurance roughly stay the same if my car is old or new? It really depends on the vehicle and the cost to repair it. I don't think either of those are high theft vehicles, and I don't think either one is especially expensive to repair. If you have a good record, good credit, and have been a loyal customer with no claims, the company probably cuts you a big break on that. This is a good thing! Ask how much a 2005 Mini Cooper or BMW would cost for comp and you'll see a big jump in price I bet. Remember, Comp is if something happens to it while stationary. If it's in the same place as the other car it really isn't any more or less likely to be damaged regardless of the model. pancaek posted:Can we talk about insurance for really old cars? These are generally Classic Car policies, which are really nice. Often you name how much you want to insure it for. Sometimes it may be a better deal to go with the insurance companies valuation, but it's up to you. Often they'll be year round policies specifically for what you're talking about; driven maybe 4 months a year, often in a garage, and not driven. I've written a policy for 3 GTO's in the same situation for about $445 a year, and these were high value since he restored them. You'd probably pay about half that unless you're in a high theft area. I would recommend biting the bullet and getting the year round plan instead of getting a small 4-6 month plan. This way it is ALWAYS insured and you won't have gaps in coverage for underwriting purposes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2012 16:33
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Well GAP insurance is usually for an auto you purchased. It's designed to cover the cost of a new one since your car depreciates so quickly once it is off the lot. The loss of use I'm referring to is when you wreck a rental vehicle and you declined the additional optional insurance and your personal insurance only pays for the vehicle to be repaired but not the loss of revenue that the rental car company is losing while the vehicle sits in the shop getting repaired. 30/900 is just rental car coverage in general, $30 / Day or up to a $900 policy max (or until the day your vehicle is repaired), which the highest I've seen is 50/1500 and I've even seen as low as 15/450 which wouldn't even cover the cost of the cheapest daily rental car rate around in my area. I'm more specifically wondering about additional insurance that would cover the "loss of use (revenue)" on the rental company's end. The research I have done shows some insurance companies won't even offer it, even if you ask about it (e.g. USAA). While I know most major insurance companies have agreements with the major rental companies (e.g Hertz & Enterprise) to waive all loss of revenue charges, but you can never be over insured with peace of mind.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2012 18:42
|
|
|
JollyGood posted:The loss of use I'm referring to is when you wreck a rental vehicle and you declined the additional optional insurance and your personal insurance only pays for the vehicle to be repaired but not the loss of revenue that the rental car company is losing while the vehicle sits in the shop getting repaired. 30/900 is just rental car coverage in general, $30 / Day or up to a $900 policy max (or until the day your vehicle is repaired), which the highest I've seen is 50/1500 and I've even seen as low as 15/450 which wouldn't even cover the cost of the cheapest daily rental car rate around in my area. Ah OK yeah you're looking for loss of use for the rental company, not yourself. I don't believe any of the companies I deal with will even offer such a thing. I know it is out there but I have never seen it as a specific line item on an insurance policy. I can look into it, but I doubt it will be offered, especially since it's A) a big uncapped risk for the company and B) It's probably cheaper to buy the rental companies insurance anyways. This isn't to say an insurance company may not step in and let your property damage line cover the loss for the other company if they just estimate their lost earnings and charge that. It'd be a relationship between the companies and not something I'd leave to chance. I recommend getting the rental vehicle insurance from the place.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2012 18:58
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:These are generally Classic Car policies, which are really nice. Often you name how much you want to insure it for. Sometimes it may be a better deal to go with the insurance companies valuation, but it's up to you. Often they'll be year round policies specifically for what you're talking about; driven maybe 4 months a year, often in a garage, and not driven. I've written a policy for 3 GTO's in the same situation for about $445 a year, and these were high value since he restored them. Thanks! That was exactly what I wanted to hear :]
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2012 04:44
|
|
|
Why do auto insurance policies seem so... random? I was in a serious (almost car totaling) at-fault accident in January, got a ticket in May for making a rolling stop at a stop sign, and am a 20 year old male and my insurance is still lower than my female friend with a clean driving record(same company). I was terrified they were going to drop me and I'd have to have high risk insurance, but I guess I was lucky? Not that I'm complaining, of course, just curious as to how you guys come up with these numbers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2012 20:47
|
|
|
SlenderWhore posted:Why do auto insurance policies seem so... random? I was in a serious (almost car totaling) at-fault accident in January, got a ticket in May for making a rolling stop at a stop sign, and am a 20 year old male and my insurance is still lower than my female friend with a clean driving record(same company). I was terrified they were going to drop me and I'd have to have high risk insurance, but I guess I was lucky? Not that I'm complaining, of course, just curious as to how you guys come up with these numbers. I'm a broker, not the company, but I can explain a bit here. For one, insurance companies will have different protocols. I know a major company that doesn't run drivers licenses until there is a claim. I know another that runs them immediately and will potentially cancel you IMMEDIATELY if you cost too much money. Most, however, will only look at it upon renewal. So if you bought a policy today and had a problem, you wouldn't have to worry about it until next year where they may drop you or change rates. Another important factor is the type of market you're in. Different companies have different markets. If you have a ticket and you approach them you'll probably go into Non-Standard. This means that if you go into a Standard product it would be way more expensive for you than a Non-Standard would be. This is why those "cut rate" insurance places are able to offer it at the rates they do: because they off set their non-standard with their standard. The larger the company the more lee way there is usually. For your specific situation I'd watch for your renewal. You'll probably get slammed when it comes time to re-up. You'll also want to compare coverage with your friend. If she has more people on her policy and is only paying a portion of it, that could be why. Plus there are discounts like multi-policy, family, home owners, etc.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2012 01:58
|
|
|
Canadian house insurance question: I bought a house that turned out to be a lemon. A leaking roof and a buckling foundation that is seeping is going to cost me a stupid amount of money to fix. I called my insurance provider but it turns out the three things my policy doesn't cover are roof repairs, foundation repairs, or water damage from an external source. Is it worth it for me to find another provider that will cover these things (does anyone cover these things?) and if I do is it going to set off alarm bells when I make some claims right away?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2012 21:30
|
|
|
Poldarn posted:Canadian house insurance question: I bought a house that turned out to be a lemon. A leaking roof and a buckling foundation that is seeping is going to cost me a stupid amount of money to fix. I called my insurance provider but it turns out the three things my policy doesn't cover are roof repairs, foundation repairs, or water damage from an external source. Is it worth it for me to find another provider that will cover these things (does anyone cover these things?) and if I do is it going to set off alarm bells when I make some claims right away? Ouch. Home policies often cover a specific set of perils or all perils but a few listed out. What you listed out are generally exclusions. Just like a warranty doesn't cover something forever, the insurance won't either. Roofs need replaced, foundations inspected, and so on so it's considered standard upkeep for home insurance. Now, if your roof blew off in a storm or the foundation cracked due to fire or some such, then yes, you'd be covered. Since that isn't the case insurance generally will not cover that. If you go shopping around for a company that does cover it, then make a claim, that is going to be the best way to get dropped. Why would they extend insurance only to have you immediately start making claims on it? They will jack up your rates if not out right drop you, unfortunately. Really, the only recourse here is to see what you can do as far as the prior owners and their insurance. If you need to make a civil claim against them for selling you a lemon that is probably the way to go. IANAL, so I'd get one and see what can be done concerning the selling agreement and all the legal talk. Depends on how long ago it was too. You mention water damage from the outside, this is exactly right. If the water originated in the home you can get a special clause on there for water damage. No policy will cover external water because that falls under flood insurance. Snow melts all at once and hits the basement? Flood. Water drips over the roof and into the same spot for years and gets into the foundation or basement? Flood. A massive earthquake causes a tsunami that hits the first floor, filling it with water? Flood. All equal in the eyes of insurance companies since the water came from OUTside the home and not INside the home. You can purchase flood insurance, but it's a special program, tons of red tape, but ultimately worth it if you are in a flood prone area. Keep in mind Flood Insurance Programs are closely monitored by the US Govt so most of my knowledge about them pertains to the US only. Canada probably has something similar, but I'm not for sure. I'd hit up your govt website for any more information pertaining to flood risks since that is a very specific line of insurance offered outside typical home owners policies.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2012 01:31
|
|
|
Thanks for the info. I'm pretty screwed with the prior owners; I'm not sure if this is Canada wide or just my province, but we are required to get a home inspection prior to purchasing a house. This takes any liability off the seller, but my home inspector had me sign a liability waiver when he submitted the inspection report. I later found out that home inspectors are not regulated or licensed and my problem seems to be fairly common among my peers. A quick bit of Google research shows me that no one in Canada offers flood insurance for some reason. Time to take out the second mortgage I guess.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2012 14:47
|
|
|
Didn't you have a home inspection or anything done prior to purchasing the house? How did they miss those problems? And yeah, structural issues like that, resulting from poor maintenance and upkeep, are not what insurance is intended for-- much like auto insurance isn't there to pay for replacing your brakes when they wear out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2012 00:38
|
|
|
Like I said, I had a home inspection done before purchasing, but the way home inspectors operate here is dumb. They aren't liable for anything they miss in their inspections, as well as most of the problems were hidden behind the finished walls in my basement. It was only after I noticed the initial leak under the floor boards and carpets that I had the walls torn up and the extent of the damage was noticed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2012 01:15
|
|
|
How much liability (auto) insurance should someone buy? I get that it's important and can be supplemented with an umbrella policy, but most web sites I've seen don't give a number or a method to calculate what you need, but instead say something like 'Buy a lot! If you don't have enough you'll get sued for all of your assets'.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2012 21:01
|
|
|
Initio posted:How much liability (auto) insurance should someone buy? I get that it's important and can be supplemented with an umbrella policy, but most web sites I've seen don't give a number or a method to calculate what you need, but instead say something like 'Buy a lot! If you don't have enough you'll get sued for all of your assets'. "You should buy all of it. All of the insurance"- Online Insurance Companies It really is specific to everyone's needs. Let me address the bit about umbrella's. Most umbrella policies will require you to have a minimum amount of liability on your home and auto. Otherwise you'd just get the skimpiest auto you could and then go to the umbrella. If they are talking about umbrella's you want to stop and read the fine print first. As for auto I've seen many different methods, from how much you make a year times 2 or 3, how many assets you have, how much your house is worth, etc. I would rather find something that fits within your budget and within your abilities to pay if it DID exceed your limits. In general most people need insurance that would cover them if they damaged a car with more than two people in it. Usually those costs will be around $100,000. $50,000 per person, $100,000 a total accident. For me, I would love if that were the bare minimum because it does fulfill MOST peoples needs in MOST situations. Higher is better of course, but 50/100 is a good amount for the young person or young family. If you have a lot of assets that you could lose, that is where you want the higher liability limits. Generally, unless something truly catastrophic happens, you're not going to pay out more than a few hundred thousand in an accident unless you specifically have something to lose or someone to go after. If you're Bill Gates and a lawyer represents someone that Bill hits, you can bet they are going for everything they can because they know the insurance company is on the hook and that Gates has assets. If it's a regular joe, not so much because of litigation costs and assets to pull from. There is no magical amount though. I hate to sound like a shill, but this is what us independents do, we go over your insurance needs and find out what would be appropriate based on assets and your budget. If you are concerned about it, send me an email (it is posted below) and I can help out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2012 23:08
|
|
|
Paying $65 through gently caress farm; one vehicle, oldish. Bodily injury/property damage liability. Personal injury protection. Comprehensive. 250 Deductible. At 29 years, no speeding tickets, zero moving violations in the past 7-8 years or more. Motorcycle endorsement. I've considered switching insurance to "save money," as we are told.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2012 21:58
|
|
|
Initio posted:How much liability (auto) insurance should someone buy? I get that it's important and can be supplemented with an umbrella policy, but most web sites I've seen don't give a number or a method to calculate what you need, but instead say something like 'Buy a lot! If you don't have enough you'll get sued for all of your assets'. Get a quote for a few different limits. You will likely find that there is not a huge difference between really low limits (like 15/30), more reasonable limits (50/100) and higher ones (100/300, 250/500). I go for 250/500 myself because I work in the medical field, and in this day and age settlements for even relatively minor problems frequently exceed $30,000 and often $100,000 x multiple people. Many people out there are trying to cash in on their pre-existing chronic injuries/pain. I think 250/500 will cover most people in most situations but it could depend on where you live and how much these things cost.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2012 22:21
|
|
|
What is the difference between the life insurance I have and the ADAD insurance they want me to add to it? Doesn't the life insurance already pay me for dying? Is ADAD like a parlay bet that I die in an accident?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2012 22:32
|
|
|
Postmastergeneral posted:Paying $65 through gently caress farm; one vehicle, oldish. Bodily injury/property damage liability. Personal injury protection. Comprehensive. 250 Deductible. At 29 years, no speeding tickets, zero moving violations in the past 7-8 years or more. Motorcycle endorsement. I'm having a difficult time parsing your post. What are you trying to ask here? As far as ADAD? Accidental Death Insurance? Is that something they are offering through auto? If you're talking about that, then it is kind of like Life Insurance. They pay out an extra amount if you are killed in a car accident. Usually it's a paltry amount, but functions the same as life insurance. Never use an accidental plan to replace life insurance. Dollar for dollar it is no where near as good. Consider it just some extra cash, not an actual plan. If you mean something else, let me know.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2012 22:57
|
|
|
I was involved in a hit-and-run (not my fault) and I was able to grab the make/model and tag numbers off of the car and take a picture of it as it sped away... police track down the car, but the person it's owned by/had the insurance policy wasn't the person driving the car (hit-and-runner was male, policy owner was female) and she wasn't giving anyone up; she claimed to not even know that the car had been used despite being at home all day... she also didn't file a police report that the car was missing and when police did go to her house 2~ hours after the crash, the car was there, so......  Anyway, I go though the whole insurance thing by paying for repairs through my insurance company (Geico) with the expectation that her insurance company (esurance/Allstate) will get me back for my deductible since it was her car that was involved in the crash. Unfortunately, today I received a letter from esurance/Allstate claiming that they "have determined that this policy does not afford coverage for [my] loss." Doesn't even the bare minimum auto insurance cover some amount damage to other vehicles? Is there some weird rule that the insured themselves must be driving the insured vehicle for them to cover damages?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 22:38
|
|
|
zenintrude posted:I was involved in a hit-and-run (not my fault) and I was able to grab the make/model and tag numbers off of the car and take a picture of it as it sped away... police track down the car, but the person it's owned by/had the insurance policy wasn't the person driving the car (hit-and-runner was male, policy owner was female) and she wasn't giving anyone up; she claimed to not even know that the car had been used despite being at home all day... she also didn't file a police report that the car was missing and when police did go to her house 2~ hours after the crash, the car was there, so...... No, in fact in most cases when you borrow someone's car you also borrow their insurance. There are, however, exclusions in most auto policies for both stolen vehicles and excluded drivers. It's most likely the Allstate denied coverage as the driver was added onto an excluded list (crazy ex-boyfriend, for example). It'd be pretty hard for them to deny liability coverage for a "stolen vehicle" if charges were not pressed for auto theft. Additionally, it's somewhat state specific. Depending on the jurisdiction the driver's auto insurance may be primary or the coverage may be worked out pro-rata (shared responsibility for the owner/driver's insurance companies).
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2012 00:27
|
|
|
zenintrude posted:I was involved in a hit-and-run (not my fault) and I was able to grab the make/model and tag numbers off of the car and take a picture of it as it sped away... police track down the car, but the person it's owned by/had the insurance policy wasn't the person driving the car (hit-and-runner was male, policy owner was female) and she wasn't giving anyone up; she claimed to not even know that the car had been used despite being at home all day... she also didn't file a police report that the car was missing and when police did go to her house 2~ hours after the crash, the car was there, so...... If the boy borrowed the car from the girl, the girls insurance is still liable. If she had filed a police report and the vehicle was then "stolen" the it all goes on the boy. Since that is not the case, and it appears the boy was driving with the girls knowledge, she is pretty much on the hook here. Her insurance company can most definitely deny the payment since he is probably not listed on the policy. What this mean is that your uninsured/underinsured coverage kicks in. It also means either you or the insurance company can most definitely go after her for any and all damages since both of them are liable for the damage since insurance has stepped away. If it were me I'd go after the boy. File a case against him with the police like you have and pursue it. It will keep him off the streets (and maybe her if she loses the car) and you have a shot at getting money back. He's guilty of a hit-and-run and I doubt going to court over that and losing his license is worth more than the few hundred for your deductible. Keep in mind that this may still raise YOUR rates too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2012 09:46
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:
Also keep in mind that uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage, in the vast majority of states, only covers injuries and does not cover damage to your property. So, yes, it sucks and if you want to get your car fixed you may be out your deductible, but them's the breaks sometimes. If the person was actually using the vehicle without the owner's permission, find out who the driver was and pursue them and/or their insurance for the damages.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 02:54
|
|
|
sheri posted:Also keep in mind that uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage, in the vast majority of states, only covers injuries and does not cover damage to your property. Really? I thought that uninsured / underinsured effectively took the place of their liability insurance and would cover both medical and property damage to me. So if I get hit by someone uninsured and I have no collision, I am just screwed? I'm carrying liability, comprehensive, and underuinsured / uninsured on an older vehicle right now. Learning this is making me question my Dad's wisdom of "I've never been at fault in 40 years of driving so I won't carry collision on a brand new car." He had just been starting to win me over after he hit a deer and it was covered under comprehensive. Twerk from Home fucked around with this message at 16:31 on Sep 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 16:12
|
|
|
Weinertron posted:Really? I thought that uninsured / underinsured effectively took the place of their liability insurance and would cover both medical and property damage to me. So if I get hit by someone uninsured and I have no collision, I am just screwed? I'm carrying liability, comprehensive, and underuinsured / uninsured on an older vehicle right now. Really. There are very few states that require property damage in their UM/UIM coverage requirements (called UMPD). UM/UIM are for injuries only. You need UMPD to have the damages to your vehicle covered. So, yes, if you don't have collision coverage or UMPD coverage and someone without liability coverage hits you, your choices are to eat the costs or work out a deal with the at fault party to pay for your damages (or take them to small claims court). A lot of times you have to specifically ask for UMPD, so if you are in a state that offers it, and you want the coverage, make sure to ask for it and make sure you didn't sign a form indicating you didn't want it. Here is a list of states that offer the coverage... http://www.insure.com/car-insurance/uninsured-motorist-damage-coverage.html Edit: Comp coverage is really good to have. And I'd suggest carrying collision coverage if you would be hard pressed to replace your vehicle in the event you have an at fault accident (or in the event you have an accident where the other party denies fault). Once your insurance company pays for your damages, they then attempt to collection the damages from the at fault party, including your deductible. If you get into a dispute about who is at fault for something (which happens a lot), at least you would always have the option of having your insurance company pay for your repairs and then attempt to collect on your behalf. If you could easily pay for several thousand in repairs or a replacement vehicle in the event something happened to yours, then by all means skip collision. sheri fucked around with this message at 23:10 on Sep 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2012 23:07
|
|
|
I thought insurance in the UK was confusing, but it seems to be way more complicated over in the US! For car insurance, we pretty much only have fully comprehensive, 3rd party, and 3rd party, fire & theft. Do you guys have big comparison sites like gocompare and comparethemarket? One thing that's confused me recently with my recent quotes has been that fully comp has been cheaper than 3rd party in some cases. Any idea why this might be?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 00:18
|
|
|
sheri posted:And I'd suggest carrying collision coverage if you would be hard pressed to replace your vehicle in the event you have an at fault accident (or in the event you have an accident where the other party denies fault). Once your insurance company pays for your damages, they then attempt to collection the damages from the at fault party, including your deductible. If you get into a dispute about who is at fault for something (which happens a lot), at least you would always have the option of having your insurance company pay for your repairs and then attempt to collect on your behalf. If you could easily pay for several thousand in repairs or a replacement vehicle in the event something happened to yours, then by all means skip collision. Also, when there is a liability dispute, if you do not have your insurance pay for the repairs, your insurance carrier cannot pursue the other carrier or really assist you with any recovery. They may be nice and make a call to the other carrier and discuss the reasons for the dispute and relay that info to you. But they cannot go any further than that. They cannot act on your behalf in pursuit of any money. They can only deny liability and refuse to pay the other guy. Really, its best to have collision coverage unless you have an old car that would be considered a total if damaged at all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 02:01
|
|
|
Weinertron posted:Really? I thought that uninsured / underinsured effectively took the place of their liability insurance and would cover both medical and property damage to me. So if I get hit by someone uninsured and I have no collision, I am just screwed? I'm carrying liability, comprehensive, and underuinsured / uninsured on an older vehicle right now. Sheri has pretty much answered the question really well here. UM/UIM is for liability, property is under UMPD. Usually they are the cheapest part of a policy if your looking good already. For example if you're rates are $300/yr for 100/300/100 insurance, then I'd expect UIM/UM/UMPD to all be about another $60 combined. Definitely worth it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2012 04:28
|
|
|
So this has always bugged me. How can everybody save save so much on car insurance? I'm sure there were a lot of inefficiencies in the system that the online companies (geico, progressive, esurance) worked out lowering rates overall for everybody, but at some point insurance is insurance, right? Do the different companies use wildly different formulas for calculating risk?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2012 05:39
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:So this has always bugged me. Yes and no. It depends on how a particular company segments their base. Lets take a geico for example. Their entire premise is to insure as many people as possible, even some high risk drivers. They count on you being uninformed, not paying an agent (usually), and fighting claims. This doesn't mean they are necessarily a BAD insurance company, you just need to know what you're buying. If you can find a rate with another company that is in the "preferred" market (no tickets, no accidents, good record) that is comparable, go there. As far as "saving" they only say they can save you. They always quote you the lowest rate with a perfect record. It's a lot of the "people that don't like the thing they buy, buy on price alone". That is why you see all the saving stuff. Then you have the introductory deals, etc. It's all about your record, your segment, and the company.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2012 09:22
|
|
|
If we don't get Employer backed Life Insurance, where are some reputable sites to look at pricing/info for it? I get poo poo from AAA all the time about life insurance but that gets lumped into my brain as just junk mail. I've never had life insurance except for a brief time in the military but now I have a child on the way and a wife depending on my income, so it's time to gamble on the possibility of death in my future. 40/Secsi/CA.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2012 00:49
|
|
|
This is more of a question about the job than the insurance itself, but you said you were a broker. If any of your industries offered a captive spot (as in, you sell only that company's plans and only that line of insurance) would you? If not, why? I'm currently in health and trying to build up my resume and experience enough to get a captive position, but a lot of brokers seem like they'd sacrifice the salary for the ability to sell what they want without sales deadlines (for example, Medicare company's sales number requirements during the Lock In where most wouldn't qualify anyway is pretty bullshit). They're to offer a variety of products rather than just throwing up their hands and saying "welp" if the company's plan doesn't suit their client. My company is strong and there are many companies in the same industry offering positions, but I'm wondering if going full broker would be a better option.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2012 15:16
|
|
|
I've had renter's insurance for years now and still not sure how it works if my apartment went up in flames. Do I then make a list of my stuff for the insurance or do they just give me a check for how much I was covered for? I don't save receipts or anything and would probably forget a bunch of stuff if I had to list it out. How does that all work? Should I just take pictures of all my stuff? For auto - I have an SR25 or whatever flag it's called, got a ton of tickets and had my license suspended way back in the day. I've been a clean driver for the last six years though. Does that go away and will my rates ever come down? This was all before I was 25 if that matter, now I'm 28. My rates aren't too bad with Progressive/Geico, but I'm told with State Farm or the other big agent firms my rates would be horrific. Will that ever change?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2012 19:24
|
|
|
Why is it that insurance companies will not give me a quote for coverage that is even remotely competitive with my current rates? It seems like at least one of the other big companies would be interested in my business and quote me into their preferred rates, but every time I try, I get a number that's anywhere from 50-80% higher than my current rates. It's strange. I'm a 48 y.o. single male with a very clean driving record, 3 vehicles (yea, I'm that guy), and a house. I'm currently with State Farm Mutual insurance (I've been with them now for 20+ years), and they are fine, but I occasionally will get a couple competitive quotes to make sure I'm not getting hosed, and I never get anything even close.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 08:34
|
|
|
The Locator posted:Why is it that insurance companies will not give me a quote for coverage that is even remotely competitive with my current rates? It seems like at least one of the other big companies would be interested in my business and quote me into their preferred rates, but every time I try, I get a number that's anywhere from 50-80% higher than my current rates. It's strange. I had a similar experience getting Commercial General Liability and Workmans Comp. I got a quote from an insurance agent that has worked with my family before and it was several thousand dollars less than any other agent I contacted. Other agents were quoting 6+K and already putting in exclusions. The guy I knew quoted $1,500 no problem. I didn't get it at all. Sperg Victorious fucked around with this message at 21:27 on Oct 11, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 21:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 08:35 |
|
|
I also work in insurance, but as a Web developer. Mostly dealing with claim intake, and adjusters though. I know very little about what are agents do on a day to day basis so this has been a great read. Thank you! Here's a question for you : A coworker was sued just a day before the statute of limitations kicked in over an injury in an accident his son had while on his policy for a six figure sum. I decided that I wanted to be protected from that sort of thing, like god forbid someone was killed in an accident I was involved in. I bought an umbrella policy for a million in coverage. Did I overreact or was it a good idea? The cost as you said in the OP is very low and not a problem.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 22:41
|
|