Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't know why someone would drop that, it is pretty cheap, like $200 a year.
The purpose of a $1 million umbrella policy is to protect those with a net worth over $1 million. I no longer have a net worth over a million. Who, in his right mind, would purchase a policy to cover [unprotected] assets he does not have? Purchasing such a policy, without have the requisite assets to protect, does nothing except make a party a target for a potential lawsuit.
If I had unprotected assets greater than $1 million, I would consider purchasing such a policy. The first step a plaintiff's attorney takes is to determine the net worth of the defendant to determine whether the potential payout is worth accepting the case. In my case, that would be a no.
I'm a semi-retired attorney. I am well aware of liability risks in Maryland. Unlike most states, Maryland is a "contributory negligence" state. Absent strict liability, a Plaintiff who is even 1% at fault does not get a dime. IOW, it's all or nothing. But even strict liability has exceptions. For example, if my dog bites someone who trespassed on my property or abused my dog by pulling its tail, the doctrine of strict liability no longer applies and the case is determined using the a contributory negligence standard.
The bottom line is there is a good reason for me NOT to purchase an umbrella policy, regardless of its cost.
Purchasing such a policy, without have the requisite assets to protect, does nothing except make a party a target for a potential lawsuit.
How would the victim know you had the umbrella policy? For your policy to make you a target, the person suing you has to know you have the policy. How do they shop for targets if they don't know who has an umbrella policy and who doesn't?
The purpose of a $1 million umbrella policy is to protect those with a net worth over $1 million. I no longer have a net worth over a million. Who, in his right mind, would purchase a policy to cover [unprotected] assets he does not have? Purchasing such a policy, without have the requisite assets to protect, does nothing except make a party a target for a potential lawsuit.
If I had unprotected assets greater than $1 million, I would consider purchasing such a policy. The first step a plaintiff's attorney takes is to determine the net worth of the defendant to determine whether the potential payout is worth accepting the case. In my case, that would be a no.
I'm a semi-retired attorney. I am well aware of liability risks in Maryland. Unlike most states, Maryland is a "contributory negligence" state. Absent strict liability, a Plaintiff who is even 1% at fault does not get a dime. IOW, it's all or nothing. But even strict liability has exceptions. For example, if my dog bites someone who trespassed on my property or abused my dog by pulling its tail, the doctrine of strict liability no longer applies and the case is determined using the a contributory negligence standard.
The bottom line is there is a good reason for me NOT to purchase an umbrella policy, regardless of its cost.
WOW, Maryland must be the ONLY state that has that law. And btw......an umbrella policy is not only for people with a net worth over $1Mil. For example.....If you have only $300k liability on your auto insurance and you get in an accident and kill someone (don't say it won't happed as it very well could) your auto policy will only pay out $300k. If the deceased had medical bills, etc before dying from the injuries it could surpass the $300k easily. Not to mention you are liable for the persons death! An umbrella policy would kick in AFTER the auto policy pays out the max of your policy. Same with the home owners insurance. The deceased estate can then go after ANY assets you have to pay the difference. AND trust me one little accident can easily top over $1 mil in medical bills. As another poster stated, an umbrella policy is only about $200-$300 annually. Just makes sense. Maybe not in your case, but I'm sure for most!
There could be so much more to it. Like the guy who was breaking into a school and decided to come through the skylight. He fell, sued the school, and won.
Maybe the neighbor was bitten on the lady's property. Our dog was chewing a bone in her own yard and the neighbor kid came over and was teasing the dog. My dad told him three times to go home, but he didn't and was bitten. The neighbors called the cops and threatened a lawsuit. The only reason they didn't go through with it was because A) the cops refused to file a report making our family responsible (they said the kid was at fault) and B) this was way back when before lawsuits became popular and stupid lawsuits didn't win if they did go to trial, unlike today.
It could also be that the lady was refused insurance because of the type of dog she owned.
It's a lead cinch bet that after the biting, if she had insurance in the first place, it would be cancelled or raised to such a huge amount she couldn't afford it afterwards anyway.
Most states have a law that I highly approve of. It imposes strict liability on the owner of a dog if it bites another person. Usually, the only exceptions recognized are the situation you described above. That would be a burglar being attacked while he is on your property. Some states will allow the fault, if any, of the injured person to be compared with that of the owner of the dog. For example, a person who was found to 40% at fault for causing his own injuries would have his damages cut by 40%.
Let's start with the notion that no one has to own a dog in the first place. If you do own a dog, I regard that act as essentially making a promise to others that the dog will not bite them seriously enough to cause an injury. If that promise is broken, you are legally responsible for the damages that occur.
I have represented hordes of small kids bitten by dogs owned by irresponsible dog owners. Oh the excuses, I hear. "Why did that child walk on the sidewalk in front of my yard?" "Why did that five year old attempt to pet my dog when it was sitting there wagging its tail?" "Why did that child go from his yard to my unfenced backyard to play 'hide and seek'?"
If someone like this doesn't have insurance, I have little sympathy for them.
No insurance? Get rid of your dog. Or, be prepared to pay personally for the damage it does.
Most states have a law that I highly approve of. It imposes strict liability on the owner of a dog if it bites another person. Usually, the only exceptions recognized are the situation you described above. That would be a burglar being attacked while he is on your property. Some states will allow the fault, if any, of the injured person to be compared with that of the owner of the dog. For example, a person who was found to 40% at fault for causing his own injuries would have his damages cut by 40%.
Let's start with the notion that no one has to own a dog in the first place. If you do own a dog, I regard that act as essentially making a promise to others that the dog will not bite them seriously enough to cause an injury. If that promise is broken, you are legally responsible for the damages that occur.
I have represented hordes of small kids bitten by dogs owned by irresponsible dog owners. Oh the excuses, I hear. "Why did that child walk on the sidewalk in front of my yard?" "Why did that five year old attempt to pet my dog when it was sitting there wagging its tail?" "Why did that child go from his yard to my unfenced backyard to play 'hide and seek'?"
If someone like this doesn't have insurance, I have little sympathy for them.
No insurance? Get rid of your dog. Or, be prepared to pay personally for the damage it does.
WOW, Maryland must be the ONLY state that has that law. And btw......an umbrella policy is not only for people with a net worth over $1Mil. For example.....If you have only $300k liability on your auto insurance and you get in an accident and kill someone (don't say it won't happed as it very well could) your auto policy will only pay out $300k. If the deceased had medical bills, etc before dying from the injuries it could surpass the $300k easily. Not to mention you are liable for the persons death! An umbrella policy would kick in AFTER the auto policy pays out the max of your policy. Same with the home owners insurance. The deceased estate can then go after ANY assets you have to pay the difference. AND trust me one little accident can easily top over $1 mil in medical bills. As another poster stated, an umbrella policy is only about $200-$300 annually. Just makes sense. Maybe not in your case, but I'm sure for most!
There are actually four states in addition to D.C.
You still don't understand. It doesn't matter what state you are in if the defendant does not have the assets or insurance to cover the damages. A judgment on paper means nothing unless it is collectible. In our state (and probably most, if not all states) the judgment/debt can be recorded and renewed periodically in case the defendant eventually inherits/wins the lottery sometime in the future. However, I can "decline" my inheritance and allow it to pass directly to my children and I'd have no issue in turning over my lottery proceeds if I played the lottery, but I don't. If I were in the position that I was still working for an employer and a portion of my paychecks could be attached, I'd file for bankruptcy. As I noted, my retirement funds are exempt from creditors.
Which raises the question...How many "average" people carry an umbrella policy in addition to their homeowner's/renter's insurance and auto insurance? Probably more than a few of my affluent colleagues, but none of my working class family members or acquaintances.
There are actually four states in addition to D.C.
You still don't understand. It doesn't matter what state you are in if the defendant does not have the assets or insurance to cover the damages. A judgment on paper means nothing unless it is collectible. In our state (and probably most, if not all states) the judgment/debt can be recorded and renewed periodically in case the defendant eventually inherits/wins the lottery sometime in the future. However, I can "decline" my inheritance and allow it to pass directly to my children and I'd have no issue in turning over my lottery proceeds if I played the lottery, but I don't. If I were in the position that I was still working for an employer and a portion of my paychecks could be attached, I'd file for bankruptcy. As I noted, my retirement funds are exempt from creditors.
Which raises the question...How many "average" people carry an umbrella policy in addition to their homeowner's/renter's insurance and auto insurance? Probably more than a few of my affluent colleagues, but none of my working class family members or acquaintances.
I DO UNDERSTAND and I don't appreciate you telling me I don't. If you don't have the assets, then you should have insurance like a normal responsible human being. Insurance is not just to protect your assets, it's also to make sure in the case that you are responsible for someone getting hurt you DO have the resources to make them whole again for medical and pain and suffering. If you purposely do not have adequate insurance than that is down right shameful.
BTW....I'm an insurance agent and about 60% of our clients have an umbrella because it is just makes smart financial sense and it is cheap to purchase one. As I stated in a previous post, one car accident can be a million dollars in medical/hospital bills. If you're responsible for that accident and don't have enough coverage to pay that persons medical bills, then I hope you're never on the other end of the stick!!
I DO UNDERSTAND and I don't appreciate you telling me I don't. If you don't have the assets, then you should have insurance like a normal responsible human being. Insurance is not just to protect your assets, it's also to make sure in the case that you are responsible for someone getting hurt you DO have the resources to make them whole again for medical and pain and suffering. If you purposely do not have adequate insurance than that is down right shameful.
BTW....I'm an insurance agent and about 60% of our clients have an umbrella because it is just makes smart financial sense and it is cheap to purchase one. As I stated in a previous post, one car accident can be a million dollars in medical/hospital bills. If you're responsible for that accident and don't have enough coverage to pay that persons medical bills, then I hope you're never on the other end of the stick!!
Ahhh, now I understand. You sell insurance policies to earn a living. Go figure.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Purchasing such a policy, without have the requisite assets to protect, does nothing except make a party a target for a potential lawsuit. 
FANTASTIC POST!!!
