Should I carry less renter's insurance if I can self-insure?
I believe your statement is mostly correct:  ...all the expert recommendations are based on an inflexible conventional wisdom that presumes that all renters are relatively resource-poor. When you purchase a $50 electronic item at the store and are offered an extended warranty for $3, most people turn it down, not only because they don't think it's worth it, but also because in the event that the item fails between say years 1 and 3, they don't worry enough about that $50 to care if they have to buy a new one, or live without it. The percentage of your net worth also matters. For example, if you had an entire loss tomorrow, you'd be out $20K if you needed to re-purchase your possessions. (30K minus 10K in current coverage.) $20K is approximately 1/44 or 2.3% of your net worth. If a catastrophe occurs and you only lose 2.3% of your net worth, some might consider that lucky, so from that point of view it isn't really a big deal. But on the flip side, if the extra insurance only costs you $50 more per year, you may not even notice that dent in your net worth either. I think for most people, the value of items in their home may be their net worth, or at least a much larger percentage of it, in which case the insurance makes more sense. For someone in your position, it probably doesn't make much difference either way. If you had $300K in valuables in your house, perhaps your point of view would be different.
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. "Many answers here have given what look to be useful perspectives on your question.  I want to point out an interesting technical issue. If an employer contracts with an insurer, it agrees to cover all employees (or all that fill some pre-specified definition and no one else), and to offer only a limited range of options. If you buy insurance directly, you obviously have a huge range of choices, including the (technically illegal) one of no insurance at all. Your first thought is probably, ""Hey, that's great! More options, more chances to pick the plan that's right for me."" Sorry, no.  Yes, you have more options, but so does everyone else. If you are working for some large company, you get insurance, period. If you suspect you have an expensive health condition, you cannot buy more insurance; if you believe yourself to be healthy as a horse, you cannot get skimpier insurance and pocket the difference.  Healthy people and sick people are all in the same predictable pool. If you buy insurance freely, the insurer knows that the sicker you are, the more likely you are buy insurance, a phenomenon called adverse selection.  As a result, the premiums (fees) a person buying his own insurance pays are much higher, because most of his fellow policy-holders are sickly -- even if he himself is just risk-averse. On the other hand, if you are risk-neutral, if you can survive a $10,000 bill if it happens to arise, you can save big by finding the skimpiest imaginable insurance, where all your fellow policy-holders will be hale and healthy people like yourself." http://www.ehow.com/about_4625753_cobra-as-selfemployed-health-insurance.html This link makes it clear... it has to be itemized, and is subject to the > than 7.5% AGI rule. Your basic point is correct; the savvy move is to use insurance only to cover losses that would be painful or catastrophic for you. Otherwise, self-insure. In the specific example of car insurance, you may be missing that it doesn't only cover replacement of the car, it also covers liability, which is a hundreds-of-thousands-of-dollars risk. The liability coverage may well be legally required; it may also be required as a base layer if you want to get a separate umbrella policy up to millions in liability. So you have to be very rich before this insurance stops making sense. In the US at least you can certainly buy car insurance that doesn't cover loss of the car, or that has a high deductible. And in fact, if you can afford to self-insure up to a high deductible, on average as you say that should be a good idea. Same is true of most kinds of insurance, a high deductible is best as long as you can afford it, unless you know you'll probably file a claim. (Health insurance in particular is weird in many ways, and one is that you often can estimate whether you'll have claims.) On our auto policy, the liability and uninsured motorist coverage is about 60% of the cost while damage to the car coverage is 40%. I'm sure this varies a lot depending on the value of your cars and how much you drive and driving record, etc. On an aging car the coverage for the car itself should get cheaper and cheaper since the car is worth less, while liability coverage would not necessarily get cheaper. So far all insurances start from the perspective of the insurance taker. However, I find it much more intuitive to look from the perspective of the insurance giver: Note that the exact amount may differ, but management fees of a few dozen percent are quite realistic. Note that it is not as unreasonable as it may sound at first, some costs: And of course most insurance companies will want to keep some profit as well. If you are completely risk averse, typically it is only financial beneficial to get insurance if you have a significantly higher risk profile. Examples of this (not an expert on boats): Note that piece of mind may also be worth getting the insurance for, for instance if you frequently put others in the position to crash your boat, and don't want to create an awkward financial discussion when they do. "&gt;Most small business lawsuits are a result of either gross negligence on the business owners part (which would be justified) or terrible or misleading service (again justified). If you're going to do honest business, take responsibility for the work done, and do your due diligence to manage what goes on in your four walls, you'll be fine.   Either that or they are over very ""silly"" things that general liability insurance will handle -- stuff like slips/falls in front of your retail storefront, etc." 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. "Short answer: Yes. Longer answer: There may or may not be a medical exam, or a physical, as with a life insurance policy. But your medical history is considered in the underwriting process. Disclosure: I once worked as a financial advisor, and held an insurance license for life, annuity and long-term care. It has been 8 years since I left that line of work. There are some ""knock-out"" questions that the salesperson is encouraged/required to ask just to see if there would be anything obvious that would disqualify you. The only one I can remember from that list is COPD. If you have that as a diagnosis in your personal medical history, the instruction to the salesperson is to not waste anybody's time. There were several other conditions, all with very long technical names.   If you're not disqualified by the no-brainer knock-out questions, your medical history will likely be included in the underwriting process.  Not every serious illness is an automatic disqualifier, including cancer. It may cause your premiums to be a little higher, as the underwriters will take a closer look and increase your risk profile due to the history. There may be some group policies where underwriting is limited or not required at all. As with all group insurance policies, the healthy members in the group are paying more in premiums than they otherwise would, in order to ""subsidize"" the premiums of the less healthy members. It's almost always cheaper to get your own personal policy unless you know you wouldn't qualify for it. Then, the group policy might be your only chance for some coverage. Age 60-62 is statistically the best time to purchase LTCI. On average, if you make it to 62, you have a very high chance of making it to 90. (These were the numbers available to me 8 years ago when I was in the business.) After 62, the prices go up a lot faster with each year of age.  I can't answer with anything helpful about your spouse's specific situation. It would be good to talk to a licensed insurance broker about it (not a salesman from a specific company). The broker is not necessarily bound to disclose personal details you might have shared with them. The company salesman would be obligated to disclose it to their company." "You are kind of thinking of this correctly, but you will and should pay for insurance at some point.  What I mean by that is that, although the insurance company is making a profit, that removing the risk for certain incidents from your life, you are still receiving a lot of value.   Things that inflict large losses in your life tend to be good insurance buys.  Health, liability, long term care, long term disability and property insurance typically fall into this category.   In your case, assuming you are young and healthy, it would be a poor choice to drop the major medical health insurance.  There is a small chance you will get very sick in the next 10 years or so and require the use of this insurance.  A much smaller chance than what is represented by the premium.  But if you do get very sick, and don't have insurance, it will probably wipe you out financially.  The devastation could last the rest of your life.   You are paying to mitigate that possibility.  And as you said, it's pretty low cost.   While you seem to be really good at numbers it is hard to quantify the risk avoidance.  But it must be considered in your analysis. Also along those lines is car insurance.  While you may not be willing to pay for ""full coverage"" it's a great idea to max out your personal liability if you have sufficient assets." Not all miles carry the same amount of risk. A survey by Progressive indicated that accidents are most likely to occur within 5 miles of home, and 77% of accidents occur within 15 miles of home. Only 1% of accidents occurred 50 or more miles from home. That's from 2002, but it seems unlikely to have changed much. Since the miles closest to your home carry more risk, they cost more, and low-mileage discounts reflect that. There are per-mile insurance options in a few states which could save you money, but they do constant monitoring via that ODB2 telematics device, and other insurers offer discounts if you accept their monitoring either in perpetuity or for a limited period of time.  Without monitoring, insurers don't know if that 4,000 miles of driving is spread into a few mid-day trips each week, or maybe you're doing all that driving from midnight to 4am on weekends (fatalities far more likely), or from 5-7pm during weekdays (accidents far more likely). Personally, I save ~10% by being a 'low-mileage' driver, and am currently in the middle of a 90-day monitoring, so might go lower, but given that accidents are far more likely close to home, 10% feels pretty significant and appropriate. Others have already made good points, so I'll just add a few more: You say that if you bought it, your mortgage, insurance, and taxes minus the rental income from the bottom floor would leave you with costs of 1/4 of your current rent. That means you're getting a fantastic deal on the purchase price. I suspect you may be underestimating some of those costs. So, get exact figures on the mortgage, insurance and taxes and do the math. If it is that good, go for it, just make sure to get that home inspection (in case there's major problems and they're trying to get out while the gettin's good) Also, some advice: Be prepared to cover that entire monthly cost for a few months. Units can stand empty for a while. Also, you may want to rent out slowly - a good tenent found after a couple months is much better than a bad tenent found quickly. Also, have some money set aside for maintenence. As a renter, you've never really had to think about that before, but as a homeowner you do. As a landlord, it's even more important - you can not fix something in your own home for a while if you needed to wait, but in a tenent unit, you have to fix it immediately.  Finally, taxes: You do get to deduct interest, and so on, but it'll work a little differently than you think. You'll have to split it in half (if the units are the same size) and deduct half the interest as a normal homeowner deduction, the other half as a business expense. Same for PMI, insurance, and property taxes. If you do maintenance that effects both units, like fixing the roof, half will be deductible, the other half not. However, maintenance that only affects the tenant unit is fully deductible.  You can claim depreciation, but only for half. So, your starting amount you can depreciate would be (purchase price - land value)/2. Same thing here - half is your home, the other half is a business.  Note that some things you'd think of as maintenance costs actually can't be deducted, only depreciated over time. Take that leaky roof, for example. If you replaced it instead of repairing it, you could not deduct your replacement costs. It counts as an improvement, and gets added to your cost-basis, where you depreciate it along with (half!) the house.  If your tenant's refrigerator went out, and you replaced it, you couldn't deduct that either. However you can depreciate all of it on another schedule (seperate from home depreciation). If you repaired it instead, you can deduct all of it immediately.  Taxes suck. "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""." I understand that, but there are so many mitigating factors now that I don't feel safe. It's more like thinking that airplanes are safe, but if you're walking through the airport and you notice the pilot at the bar and them see him with his shirt untucked as he bumps his head getting into the airplane you might not get onto that airplane.   I wouldn't give this advice to someone in their 20s, but we are in our 50s. We have enough to live on comfortably with savings and my husband's pension and social security and passive income from the rental. It's just not worth the risk. As it is I am retired and can travel and eat whatever I want whenever I want. And the rental property is our hedge against inflation. I just see no reason to risk that. "There are (at least) two problems with the argument suggested in the OP. First, the ability to cover the cost, doesn't mean willingness, ease, or no major side effects of doing so. Second is the mitigation of ""upside risk"". It might be true that the most usual loss is small and manageable, but 10% of incidents could be considerably larger and 1% may be very much larger - without limit.  Your own attitude to risk and loss will determine how much these are seen as unlikely+ignore, or worst case situation+avoid." At their age, the likely did not even need the coverage anymore unless they were doing some major estate planning.  If that's the case then it sound like they purchased the wrong policy to begin with since OP's account of the information makes it sound like a term policy.  If it is a term policy, the term was also probably about to end as well.    In the end, this will likely not be a bog deal.