Is there a rule of thumb to help “Sanity check” insurance costs?
Your best bet would be to find an independent Property and Casualty Insurance agent and buy through him/her. Insurance agents make a commission, yes - BUT - the cost to consumer is THE SAME whether you buy through an agent or through directly through the company. Any P&C agent would be happy to run your numbers for you and tell you what the cheapest deal is. Just make sure you find someone who writes for several different large insurers. Obviously, some P&C Insurance agents are slick salesy types, which can get annoying, but if you find someone nice, he or she can help you out at no cost to you (they are paid by the insurance company they place the business with). If you are straightforward with the agent about exactly what your needs, they can get you quotes quickly and save you a lot of time and hassle.
Insurance is for events that are both and Unexpected and, for many people, catastrophic events are, for example, sickness, disability, death, car accidents, house fires, and burglaries, for which you may buy health, disability, life, auto, home, and renter's insurance.  It may be catastrophic for a family relying on a very old earner for that earner to die, and you can buy life insurance up to a very old age, but the premiums will reflect the likelihood of someone of that age dying within the covered period.  The more expected an event is, the more anything referred to as insurance is actually forced savings. Health insurance with no copays on regular checkups expects the insured to use them, so the cost of those checkups plus a profit for the insurance company is factored into the premiums ahead of time.  A wooden pencil breaking may be unexpected. Regardless of foreseeability, no one buys insurance on wooden pencils, as the loss of a pencil is not catastrophic. What is catastrophic can be context dependent. Health-care needs are typically unforeseeable, as you don't know when you'll get sick. For a billionaire, needing health-care, while unforeseeable, the situation would not be catastrophic, and the billionaire can easily self-insure his or her health to the same extent as most caps offered by health insurance companies. If you're on a fixed budget buying a laptop, if it unexpectedly failed, that would be catastrophic to you, so budgeting in the cost of insurance or an extended warranty while buying your laptop would probably make sense. Especially if you need that $2000 laptop, spending an extra 17.5% would safeguard against you having to come out of pocket and depleting your savings to replace it, even though that brings you to a grand total of $2350 before taxes. However, if you're in that tight of a situation, I would strongly recommend you to find a less expensive option that would allow you to self-insure. If you found a used laptop for much less (I can even see Apple selling refurbished Macs for less than $1000) you might decide that your budget allows you to self-insure, and you could profit from being careful with your hardware and resolving to cover any issues with it yourself. "As others have pointed out, it's all about a fixed, small cost versus the potential of a large cost. If you have insurance, you know you will pay a fixed amount per month. There is a 100% probability that you will have to pay this premium. If you don't have insurance, there is a large chance that you will have no cost in any given month, and a small chance that you will have a large cost. Like my home-owners insurance costs me about $50 per month. If I didn't have insurance and my house burned down, I would be out something like $100,000. What's the chance that my house will burn down this month? Very small. But I'd rather pay $50 and not have to worry about it. On the other hand, I just bought a filing cabinet for $160 and the store offered me an ""extended warranty"" for something like $20 a year. What's the probability that some accident will happen that damages my filing cabinet? Pretty small. Even if it did, I think I could handle shelling out $160. I can imagine my stomach in knots and lying awake at nights worrying about the possibility of losing $100,000 or finding myself homeless. I can't imagine lying awake at nights worrying about losing $160 or being force to stuff my files under the bed. I'll take my chances. When I was young and had even less money than I have now, I bought cars that cost me a thousand dollars or. Even poor as I was, I knew that if the car was totaled I could dig up the cash to buy another. It wasn't worth paying the insurance premium. These days I'm driving a car that cost me $6,000. I have collision and comprehensive insurance, but I think it's debatable. I bought the car with cash to begin with, and if I had to I could scrape up the cash to replace it. Especially considering that my last payment for my daughter's college tuition is due next month and then that expense is gone. :-)" "Life Insurance can be a difficult decision.  We have to first assess the ""want"" for it vs. the ""need"" for it, and that differs from person to person.  Any Life licensed agent should be happy to do this calculation for you at no cost and no obligation.  Just be sure you are well educated in the subject to make sure they are looking after YOUR needs and not their wallets. For the majority of clients, when looking at ""needs"" we will be sure to look at income coverage (less what the household needs with one less body) as well as debt coverage, education costs etc.  More importantly make sure you are buying the RIGHT insurance, as much as the right amount." Some things you missed in your analysis:   How will financing change your insurance costs?  I.e. what is the difference between the insurance that you would buy for yourself and what they require?   Note that it is possible that your insurance preferences are more stringent than the financing company's.  If so, this isn't a big deal.  But what's important is to consider if that's true.  Because if you'd prefer to drive with only the legal minimum insurance and they insist that you have full coverage with no more than a $1000 deductible, that's a significant difference.   Remember that you don't have $22.5k for six years.  You have an average of $10.5k (($22.5k + -$1500)/2) for six years.  Because you make payments ($24k) throughout.  So you start with $22.5k and subtract $333.33 a month until you reach -$1500.  That neglects both investment gains and potential losses.   It's not the $333 payment that will freak out mortgage companies.  It's the $24k debt.  But that's offset by your $22.5k in assets at the beginning.  And the car of course counts as an asset, albeit at lower than its sale value.  I.e. from the bank's perspective, paying $22.5k for a car out of savings is almost as bad as borrowing $24k for a car.  Both reduce your net worth.   Watch out for hidden fees.  In particular, 0% interest can often change into higher interest under certain circumstances.   If we assume a 7% return for the six years, that's about $1400 the first year and less each year after.  Perhaps $4500 over six years.  But you aren't going to get a 7% return if you keep $24,000 in a bank account in case you have to pay off the loan.  Instead, you'll get more like 1%, less than inflation.  Even five year Certificates of Deposit are only about 2%, right around inflation (1.9% for previous twelve months).   You can't keep the $24,000 in a securities account and be sure that it will be there when you need it.  If the market crashes tomorrow, your $24,000 might be worth $12,000 instead.  You'd have to throw in extra money from elsewhere.  Instead of making $4500 at the cost of $1500, you'd have paid $25,500 for $12,000.  Not a good deal.  So for your plan to work, that $24,000 needs to be in an account that won't fall in value.   You either need to compromise on the idea of a separate account that is always there when you need it, or you have to accept rather low returns.   Personally, I would prefer not to have the debt and not to pay extra on the insurance.  But that's me.  The potential investment returns are not worth it to me.  If you give up the separate account, you can make a few thousand dollars more.  But your risk is higher. "Here's my thought - call the insurance company back. Ask them to just tell you what the ""reasonable and customary"" approved payment would be. Offer that exact amount to the hospital, it's what they would have gotten anyway, and you learned a cheap lesson." "The two questions inherent in any decision to purchase an insurance plan is, ""how likely am I to need it?"", and ""what's the worst case scenario if I don't have it?"". The actuary that works for the insurance company is asking these same questions from the other end (with the second question thus being ""what would we be expected to have to pay out for a claim""), using a lot of data about you and people like you to arrive at an answer. It really boils down to little more than a bet between you and the insurance company, and like any casino, the insurer has a house edge. The question is whether you think you'll beat that edge; if you're more likely than the insurer thinks you are to have to file a claim, then additional insurance is a good bet. So, the reasons you might decide against getting umbrella insurance include: Your everyday liability is low - Most people don't live in an environment where the ""normal"" insurance they carry won't pay for their occasional mistakes or acts of God. The scariest one for most is a car accident, but when you think of all the mistakes that have to be made by both sides in order for you to burn through the average policy's liability limits and still be ruined for life, you start feeling better. For instance, in Texas, minimum insurance coverage levels are 50/100/50; assuming neither party is hurt but the car is a total loss, your insurer will pay the fair market value of the car up to $50,000. That's a really nice car, to have a curbside value of 50 grand; remember that most cars take an initial hit of up to 25% of their sticker value and a first year depreciation of up to 50%. That 50 grand would cover an $80k Porsche 911 or top-end Lexus ES, and the owner of that car, in the U.S. at least, cannot sue to recover replacement value; his damages are only the fair market value of the car (plus medical, lost wages, etc, which are covered under your two personal injury liability buckets). If that's a problem, it's the other guy's job to buy his own supplemental insurance, such as gap insurance which covers the remaining payoff balance of a loan or lease above total loss value. Beyond that level, up into the supercars like the Bentleys, Ferraris, A-Ms, Rollses, Bugattis etc, the drivers of these cars know full well that they will never get the blue book value of the car from you or your insurer, and take steps to protect their investment. The guys who sell these cars also know this, and so they don't sell these cars outright; they require buyers to sign ""ownership contracts"", and one of the stipulations of such a contract is that the buyer must maintain a gold-plated insurance policy on the car. That's usually not the only stipulation; The total yearly cost to own a Bugatti Veyron, according to some estimates, is around $300,000, of which insurance is only 10%; the other 90% is obligatory routine maintenance including a $50,000 tire replacement every 10,000 miles, obligatory yearly detailing at $10k, fuel costs (that's a 16.4-liter engine under that hood; the car requires high-octane and only gets 3 mpg city, 8 highway), and secure parking and storage (the moguls in Lower Manhattan who own one of these could expect to pay almost as much just for the parking space as for the car, with a monthly service contract payment to boot). You don't have a lot to lose - You can't get blood from a turnip. Bankruptcy laws typically prevent creditors from taking things you need to live or do your job, including your home, your car, wardrobe, etc. For someone just starting out, that may be all you have. It could still be bad for you, but comparing that to, say, a small business owner with a net worth in the millions who's found liable for a slip and fall in his store, there's a lot more to be lost in the latter case, and in a hurry. For the same reason, litigious people and their legal representation look for deep pockets who can pay big sums quickly instead of $100 a month for the rest of their life, and so very few lawyers will target you as an individual unless you're the only one to blame (rare) or their client insists on making it personal. Most of your liability is already covered, one way or the other - When something happens to someone else in your home, your homeowner's policy includes a personal liability rider. The first two ""buckets"" of state-mandated auto liability insurance are for personal injury liability; the third is for property (car/house/signpost/mailbox). Health insurance covers your own emergency care, no matter who sent you to the ER, and life and AD&D insurance covers your own death or permanent disability no matter who caused it (depending on who's offering it; sometimes the AD&D rider is for your employer's benefit and only applies on the job). 99 times out of 100, people just want to be made whole when it's another Average Joe on the other side who caused them harm, and that's what ""normal"" insurance is designed to cover. It's fashionable to go after big business for big money when they do wrong (and big business knows this and spends a lot of money insuring against it), but when it's another little guy on the short end of the stick, rabidly pursuing them for everything they're worth is frowned on by society, and the lawyer virtually always walks away with the lion's share, so this strategy is self-defeating for those who choose it; no money and no friends. Now, if you are the deep pockets that people look for when they get out of the hospital, then a PLP or other supplemental liability insurance is definitely in order. You now think (as you should) that you're more likely to be sued for more than your normal insurance will cover, and even if the insurance company thinks the same as you and will only offer a rather expensive policy, it becomes a rather easy decision of ""lose a little every month"" or ""lose it all at once""." "People's value of money is not always linear.  Consider an individual with $1000 in the bank.  I'm going to look at amounts of debt by orders of magnitude: Now its pretty easy to see a order of magnitude increase in impact from $100 to $1000, and it becomes slightly worse for the $10,000 case due to debt.  However, one more order of magnitude, going to $100,000, and suddenly it becomes hard to argue that there's a mere ""order of magnitude more hurt"" than the $10,000 case.  From the cases I've read, those sorts of situations can be far far worse than the monetary cost could convey. Insurance companies are in a good position to absorb $100,000 of debt if something happens, far better position than the individual.  They rely on the central limit theorem: in general, they don't have to pay out all at once. The insurance companies have their limits too.  When hurricane Katrina came through, the insurance companies had a tremendously difficult time dealing with so many claims all at once.  Just like the individuals, they found a sudden change in how much value they had to put on their monetary debts!" "These policies are usually called dread disease policies or critical illness insurance, and they normally aren't a good deal. Furthermore, with the passage of the Affordable Care Act, such policies may become less common or disappear entirely. These policies aren't a great deal because of the effects of adverse selection and asymmetric information, two closely related concepts in the economics of insurance. When you purchase an insurance policy, the insurance company charges you a premium based on your average risk level or the average risk level of your risk pool, e.g. you and your fellow employees, if you get insurance through your employer. For health insurance, this average risk level is the average probability that you'll incur healthcare costs. The insurer's actuaries calculate this probability from numerous factors, like your age, sex, current health, socioeconomic status, etc. Asymmetric information exists when you know more about this probability than the insurance company does. For example, you may look like a relatively low-risk individual on paper, but little does the insurance company know, BASE jumping is one of your hobbies. Because you know about your hobby and the insurance company doesn't, you secretly know that your risk of incurring healthcare expenses is much higher than the insurance company expects. If the insurance company knew this, they would like to charge you a much higher premium, if they could. However, they can't, because a) they don't know about your hobby, and b) the premium may be decided for the entire group/risk pool, so they can't increase it simply because a few individuals in the group have higher risk levels. Adverse selection occurs when individuals with higher risk levels are more likely to buy insurance. You may decide that because of your dangerous hobby, you do want to take advantage of your employer's healthcare plan. Unfortunately for the insurance company, they can't adjust their price accordingly. Adverse selection is a major factor in insurance markets, so I didn't go into much detail here (too much detail is probably off-topic anyway). I can point you towards more resources on the topic if you're interested.  However, the situation is different when you purchase a dread disease policy.  By expressing interest in such a specific policy, e.g. a cancer insurance policy, you signal to the insurance company that you feel you have a higher risk of facing that disease. In your case, you're signaling to the insurance company that your family probably has a history of cancer or that you have habits that make you more susceptible to it, and your premiums will be higher to compensate the insurance company for bearing this additional risk. Since the insurance company already has a rough estimate of your chances of developing that illness, they may already know that you have a higher chance of facing it. However, when you express interest in a disease-specific policy, this signals the existence of asymmetric information (your family history or other habits), and the insurer assumes you know something they don't that elevates your risk level of that specific disease. Since these policies are optional policies often sold as riders to existing policies, the insurance company has more flexibility in pricing them. They can charge you a higher premium because you've signaled to the insurer that you have a significantly above-average risk of contracting a specific disease*. Also, the insurer can do a much better job of estimating the expected costs of insuring you since they need only focus on data surrounding one disease. The policy will be priced accordingly, i.e. in such a way that isn't necessarily beneficial to you. Furthermore, most dread disease policies aren't guaranteed renewable, which means that even if you are willing to keep paying the premiums, the insurance company doesn't have to keep insuring you. As your risk of developing the specific disease grows, e.g. with age, it may pass the point where insuring you is no longer an acceptable risk. The company expects you to develop the illness with the next few renewal cycles, so they decide not to renew your policy. The end result? The insurance company has the premiums you've paid previously, but you no longer have coverage for that illness, and ex post, you've suffered a net loss with no reduction of risk for the foreseeable future.  Dread disease policies are changing under the Affordable Care Act. According to healthcare.gov Starting in 2014, ... all new health insurance plans sold to individuals and small businesses, and plans purchased in the new Affordable Insurance Exchanges, must include a range of essential health benefits. The essential health benefits include quite a few areas of coverage; since this applies to policies offered on the state insurance exchanges and those offered outside of it, dread disease policies wouldn't seem to qualify. For more information, you can read the linked page on healthcare.gov or see Section 1302, subsection b), titled ""Essential Health Benefits Requirements"" in the law itself (p87). I imagine more details will be available on a state-by-state basis through 2014 and into 2015.  One legal source (see the discussion on p24) states that: whatever else the ACA does with excepted benefit policies, including specific disease and fixed dollar indemnity policies, it does explicitly provide that such policies do not count as minimum essential coverage for purposes of the ACA This seems pretty straightforward; a dread disease (or ""specific disease"" policy, as it's referred to in the article), won't count towards the minimum essential requirements. This may not be an issue for you, but for others, it's important to understand that you'll still need to pay the penalty if you only purchase one of these policies. The ACA spells this out in Section 5000(f) (see p316, which states that ""excepted benefit policies"" are excluded and defines them using the definition in the Public Health Service Act (PHSA). **The PSHA specifically includes ""Coverage only for a specified disease or illness"" in their definition of ""excepted benefit policies"" (see section 2791(b), paragraph 3A on p82, so it's probably a safe bet that such policies won't count towards the minimum. Also, as Rick pointed out in the comments, the Affordable Care Act also forbids lifetime limits on most insurance plans, so assuming you find an insurance policy with adequate coverage for the specific disease you're worried about, such a plan should cover the related expenses without a lifetime limit. Deductibles, annual limits, and other factors may complicate this somewhat.  In the section about lifetime limits (Sec. 2711, p2), the Affordable Care Act states that: A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage may not establish ... lifetime limits on the dollar value of benefits for any participant or beneficiary.  However, the law states in the next paragraph that the preceding statement should not be construed to prevent a group health plan or health insurance coverage from placing annual or lifetime per beneficiary limits on specific covered benefits that are not essential health benefits under section 1302(b) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, to the extent that such limits are otherwise permitted under Federal or State law The section also contains similarly vague caveats about annual limits, so the actual details and limits may vary once individual states finalize their policies. The law is intentionally vague because the vast majority of the law's implementation is left up to individual states. Furthermore, certain parts of the law specify actions involving the Secretary of Health and Human Services, so these may require further codification in the future too. You should still read the fine print of any insurance policy you buy and evaluate it as you would any contract (see the next section).  Since a dread disease policy probably isn't a good idea, you'll probably want to evaluate the healthcare plans offered by your employer or individual plans offered in your area (if your employer doesn't offer coverage). I've tried to include the basic points offered in these articles to give you or future visitors some idea of where to start. These points may change once the Affordable Care Act is implemented, so I'll try to keep them as general as possible.  Services - Above and beyond the minimum essential requirements, what services does the plan offer? Are these services a good match for you and/or your family, or do they add unnecessary cost to the premium with little or no benefit? For example, my health insurance plan offers basic dental coverage with a small co-pay, so I don't need a separate dental plan, even though my employer offers one.  Choice - What doctors, clinics, hospitals, etc. are preferred providers under your plan? Do you need a referral from your primary care doctor to see a specialist, or can you find one on your own? Are the preferred providers convenient for you? In my first year of college (about five years ago), my student health insurance only covered a few hospitals that were in the suburbs and somewhat difficult for me to reach. This is something to keep in mind, depending on where you live.  Costs - This is a major one, obviously. Deductibles, copays, maximum cost limits over a year or your lifetime, out-of-network costs, etc. are all variables to consider.  There are other factors, but since I don't have a family, other members of the site can provide more detailed information about what to look for in family policies.  In place of a dread disease policy, you're likely better off purchasing a comprehensive health insurance policy, perhaps a catastrophic coverage policy with a high deductible that will kick in once you've exhausted your standard insurance policy. However, this may be a moot point since the passage of the Affordable Care Act may significantly reduce the availability of such policies anyway." There is not necessarily a need to prevent what you describe - 'turning insurance on before high risk situations'. They just need to calculate the premiums accordingly. For example, if an insurance needs to take 50$/year for insuring your house against flood, and a flood happens in average every 10 years, if you just insure the two weeks in the ten years where heavy rain is predicted, you might pay 500$ for the two weeks. The total is the same for the insurance - they get 500$, and you get insurance for the dangerous period. In the contrary; if a flooding (unexpectedly) happens outside your two weeks, they are out. From the home owners view, 500$ for two weeks when heavy rains and floods are expected, and nothing otherwise sounds pretty good, compared to 50$ every year. It is the same of course, but psychology works that way. "This is a very interesting question.  Unfortunately, in the way you wrote the question the answer is no.  Essentially, you would be asking someone to give you a ~20% return for your cash on something that is almost guaranteed when holding your cash only gets them a <1% return.  Would anyone take the other side of that deal? Interestingly though, you can to some extent hedge surprises in health care costs.  For instance, investing in the healthcare industry as David Rice suggests is a partial hedge.  The prices of those industry stocks already has future expected cost increases included. However, if costs were to jump even higher than expected you would gain some of the added cost you would pay in healthcare back. Not that I recommend this strategy, as you lose diversification, but this is a valid and reasonable reason to slightly overweight american healthcare companies for someone in your situation.   Note that the Wiki article you mention talks about hedging surprises as well.  ""If at planting time the farmer sells a number of wheat futures contracts equivalent to his anticipated crop size, he effectively locks in the price of wheat at that time.""  Thinking that way you may actually be able to buy health insurance now for two or three years in the future essentially locking in expected price increases today.  Probably not the answer you were looking for, but the best analogy for what financial hedging truly does." "One way to look at insurance is that it replaces an unpredictable expenses with a predictable fees. That is, you pay a set monthly amount (""premium"") instead of the sudden costs associated with a collision or other covered event. Insurance works as a business, which means they intend to make a substantial profit for providing that service. They put a lot of effort in to measuring probabilities, and carefully set the premiums to get make a steady profit*. The odds are in their favor. You have to ask yourself: if X happened tomorrow, how would I feel about the financial impact? Also, how much will it cost me to buy insurance to cover X? If you have a lot of savings, plenty of available credit, a bright financial future, and you take the bus to work anyway, then totaling your car may not be a big deal, money wise. Skip the insurance. If you have no savings, plenty of debt, little prospects for that improving, and you depend on your car to get to work just so you can pay what you already owe, then totaling your car would probably be a big problem for you. Stick with insurance. There is a middle ground. You can adjust your deductible. Raise it as high as you can comfortably handle. You cover the small stuff out of pocket, and save the insurance for the big ticket items. *Insurance companies also invest the money they take as premiums, until they pay out a claim. That's not relevant to this discussion, though." Theres obviously a ton of licensing/certifications that go into an insurance company. I'm wondering anyone has experience with a start up or small insurance company and can speak to the pros and cons of it.   More specifically, is there a certain rule about how much money should be set aside as float assuming a policy limit of 10 million? I'd imagine it depends on the type of coverage to a large degree.   Just beginning to start the process of researching this based on an unexpected bit of news/opportunity. Thanks. "You don't mention what kind of insurance you're talking about, but I'll just address one angle on the question. For some kinds of insurance, such as health insurance (in the US), auto insurance, and homeowner's insurance, you may be insuring against an event that you would not be able to pay for without the insurance.  For instance, if you are at fault in a car accident and injure someone, they could sue you for $100,000.  A lot of people don't have $100,000.  So it's not even a matter of ""I'll take the risk of having to pay it when the time comes""; if the time comes, you could lose virtually everything you own and still have to pay more from future earnings.  You're not just paying $X to offset a potential loss of $Y; you're paying $X to offset a potential derailment of your entire life.  It is plausible that you could assign a reasonable monetary value to that potential ""cost"" that would mean you actually come out ahead in the insurance equation. It is with smaller expenses (such as insuring a new cellphone against breakage) that insurance becomes harder to justify.  When the potential nonfinancial ""collateral damage"" of a bad event are less, you must justify the insurance expenses on the financial consequences only, which, as you say, is often difficult." If you can not support yourself should your father die, an insurance policy may make sense as a safety net. As an investment, it is a bad bet unless he knows something about his health that would somehow not cause his premiums to be increased tremendously yet not cause them to claim he was attempting to defraud them and refuse payment. In other words, it is a bad bet, period. Insurance is a tool. If the tool doesn't do something you specifically need, it's the wrong tool. "You're asking for opinions here, because it's a matter of how you look at it. I'll give it a shot anyway. For insurance purposes - there's a clear answer: you insure based on how much it would cost you to replace it. For some reason, you're considering as a possibility negotiating with the insurance company about that, but I've never heard of insuring something at a ""possible sales value"" unless you're talking about a one of a kind thing, or a particularly valuable artifact: art, jewelry, etc. That it would be appraised and insured based on the appraised value. Besides, most of the stuff usually loses value once you bought it, not gains, so insuring per replacement costs makes more sense because it costs more. As to your estimations of your own net worth to yourself - its up to you. I would say that something only worth what people would pay for it. So if you have a car that you just bought brand new, replacing it would cost you $X, but you can only sell it for $X-10%, because it depreciated by at least 10% once you've driven it off the dealer's lot. So I would estimate your worth as $X-10% based on the car, not $X, because although you spent $X on it - you can never recover it if you sell it, so you can't claim to have it as your ""net worth""."