speaking of liability protection

[tryan]

Tried getting an umbrella but no one will talk to you if you have >=6 rental properties.

Just don't qualify ... yet.

[Empty Pockets]

Tryan, try taking out a separate General Liability Policy on just the rental properties. You should be able to get a $1,000,000 policy for around $250.

Then check and see if a company will offer you an umbrella.

With that many rental units, you may want to keep them off your personal liability policy anyway. Then slip & falls, and other misc. claims will not impact your Homeowners Policy.

[spideyrdpd]

My company has the umbrella with over 6 properties. Maybe you need to shop insurance ?

I have read that is one advantage of leasing a car. Its not titled in your name.

I would also wonder the advantages if your not involved in things that would be considered litigeous ?
Although florida has a lot of people being hit by cars lately. I wonder if they sue and what they get ?

[JustCurious]

Laurence and Lazy: let me explain what I meant, and let me dispel some misinformation. First, there is no list for plaintiff's attorneys to find out who has an umbrella policy. That is ridiculous, the insurance companies don't make their list of insureds public information. Second, even if an attorney were to somehow find out that you have an umbrella, it's meaningless information unless you do something to create liability, ie., cause a serious motor vehicle accident. The mere presence of insurance means nothing without liability.

As far as my statement, I did not mean that having umbrella coverage or high liability limits somehow makes you a target, or an "attraction" for lawsuits in the abstract. That is simply not true. What I meant was, in the event you did have an accident or do something which may cause you to be liable to someone else, and in that event, and only in that event, if the injured party gets a lawyer and the lawyer finds out that you have very high liability coverage, it then becomes more likely, not less likely, that you will be sued. Because if you had say a 10k policy, it is likely that the insurance company will simply offer the limits and the plaintiff's attorney will settle, knowing that it is unlikely he or she will ever collect any money from you. However, if you have a 500k policy, it is unlikely the insurance company will readily agree to pay such high limits without you first being sued, and the plaintiff's attorney going through the litigation process and setting up the real possibility that you will lose at trial. Only then (in my experience) will insurance companies agree to pay a large settlement on the eve of an impending trial. Of course this is after you have gone through 2 plus years of litigation because the insurance company doesn't want to pay it's high limits. Ironically, if you had low limits, the case may have settled without a lawsuit being filed.

Some of this may not be intuitive if you are not familiar with the insurance defense litigation system. Also, I freely admit that if you have substantial non-exempt assets, you should get high enough liability limits so that you feel comfortable, even though the chances of needing such high limits, in my experience, is very remote.

In my experience, in Florida (a very debtor protective state) it is the extremely rare situation where someone has any significant non-exempt assets such that the plaintiff's attorney wants to try and collect against the individual defendant. 99.5 percent of the time, it's the policy coverage limits that control.

[laurence]

Well JC, we simply pointed out how your posts came across. I think we were just holding up a mirror, as our thoughts were exactly what your latest post has made clear. So you are telling us from this latest post that "Ironically, if you had low limits, the case may have settled without a lawsuit being filed."

-but it may not have. So each person has to weigh the inconvinience of a court case because the attorney discovered your umbrella insurance vs. the risk he sues anyway and takes your house, your cars, garnishes your wages, etc.

You admit yourself you come from a state that is not friendly to these types of lawsuits. I'm in California - lawsuit capital of the world. So let's see, a couple of bucks and a hassle of a lawsuit vs. the chance of losing everything....I hear what you are saying about probably "getting over" on the plaintiff, but the 1% chance of being sued isn't much comfort if it's you that gets served!

[tryan]

No sure how many on this board have been sued - I have a few times - MOST start with a letter from a lawyer which basically says "Please provide us with your liability insurance company contact." One tactic I've seen used to avoid these suits (for small expected claims < 10k) is simply throw the letter away ... make them FIND you and drag you into court. You must be summoned in person; an address/POB cannot be summoned to court. The dollars involved simply do not permit a manhunt. Now if it's your nieghbor ... well ...

Yes I keep liability on all the rentals (100k policy runs about $200/unit). Figure I'll get the same representation as the guy with 1/2 million policy ... but less representation than the guy with >1 million on the line.

What insurance company allows umbrella's for people with >= 6 rentals ??

[donheff]

Originally Posted by JustCurious

As far as my statement, I did not mean that having umbrella coverage or high liability limits somehow makes you a target, or an "attraction" for lawsuits in the abstract. That is simply not true. What I meant was, in the event you did have an accident or do something which may cause you to be liable to someone else, and in that event, and only in that event, if the injured party gets a lawyer and the lawyer finds out that you have very high liability coverage, it then becomes more likely, not less likely, that you will be sued.

I'm not buying it. First, having the large umbrella policy makes it likely that the insurance company will bring out the big legal guns to protect their assets. So, the holder seems well protected in any event. Second, even if you are correct, the hapless retiree with a $2M portfolio and meager insurance is a much bigger target in a juicy liability case. If the case is solid, the insurance company may conclude that they are going to be out the max coverage (say $300 K) anyway and see no value in mounting a vigorous defense to protect the customer's $2M personal assets. The ambulance chaser will recognize this and see you as a more attractive target -- and your assets are pretty easy to ferret out. With the umbrella, at least you are assured of a vigorous defense.

[lazygood4nothinbum]

ibid & how would they find out about the umbrella insurance policy at all? wouldn't the suit first be defended by the insurance company responsible for the lower amount covered before the umbrella policy would kick in? or do all the held policies, and their associated lawyers, come into play at once?

[ziggy29]

Originally Posted by lazygood4nothinbum

ibid & how would they find out about the umbrella insurance policy at all? wouldn't the suit first be defended by the insurance company responsible for the lower amount covered before the umbrella policy would kick in? or do all the held policies come into play at once?

The only thing I can think of is that if they know the insurance company's lawyer is defending you, then you potentially have a LOT of money at stake, either personally or through your liability policy. If you had minimum legal liability on auto insurance, for example, the insurance company might not bother mounting a legal defense and just pay out. But when they defend you (and themselves) vigorously, you can bet there's probably a few zeroes behind the policy limits.

[d]

don't mean to prolong this thread, but i just received my premium notice and it reminded me of a "parallel product": unisured/underinsured motorist coverage ... so that if you need to collect, and the yahoo who rear-ended you does not have sufficient coverage ...

[REWahoo]

Originally Posted by d

don't mean to prolong this thread, but i just received my premium notice and it reminded me of a "parallel product": unisured/underinsured motorist coverage ... so that if you need to collect, and the yahoo who rear-ended you does not have sufficient coverage ...

Yep. http://early-retirement.org/forums/i...7940#msg227940