My umbrella premium almost doubled this year. 
The underlying problem of course is that both the legal minimum liability insurance for poor-ish folks and the larger typical liability policy amounts that non-poor people choose to carry are both far too small considering the actual cost of a modern accident with injuries.
People just refuse to believe that their insurance cost should double because both they, and the other driver, now have cars that cost 2x as much, that hospital stays cost 2x as much, etc.
The fact someone’s umbrella policy gets invoked in any case less horrific than, say @wguy123’s wife, pretty well suggests their other insurance was already inadequate to cover the modern costs of an accident.
An real umbrella is a great temporary water repellant; it makes a lousy tent though. If umbrella policies are now being invoked often, that suggests their tent is inadequate.
I agree. The minimum auto insurance required by my state would have left us with large debts and wondering if we should sue. Of course, if someone is running around with the min, chances are there isn’t a lot to sue for.
Can you give an example of how this might play out?
Not quite sure what you’re asking. I made two different points. What are you wanting me to write a hypothetical about?
Sorry. I was referring to your comment about the potential for opposite-direction fingerpointing if I have umbrella coverage with a different carrier than my base policies. In a worst case scenario, what could be one carrier’s argument for not paying out?
Two thoughts.
An umbrella policy picks up where lesser insurance leaves off. As such the umbrella coverage includes requirements about the amount of bas insurance it’s backstopping. So it’s e,g. $1m umbrella for UIM on top of $300K base policy coverage for UM. What if the other company sold you a base policy that only pays out $250K for that. What if they have different and incompatible definitions of what they’ll pay for, such that you’re asking the umbrella to pay out in weird corner case X while the base carrier is denying coverage because their fine print excludes that corner case? Or vice versa? Lots less likelihood of coordination screwups if both policies come from the same carrier bought through the same channel.
The other thought is just the general behavior of insurance companies to try to avoid paying if anyone else handy can be identified. They might not have a great basis for arguing that thtey won’t pay, or won’t pay [however] much, but some fraction of carriers and caseworkers will do that. It’s not impossible that the same infighting would occur with both policies at the same carrier, but the likelihood is reduced.
I used to run a condominium. We had ~15 kinds of insurance coming from ~10 different companies. You’d like to think that each carrier covered their bailiwick and there were no overlaps or gaps. It just isn’t that simple. We experienced considerable arguing about whether event X is a water damage claim, or a liability claim that happens to be from water damage. It mattered greatly to those two companies that the other be made to pay, or at least pay first and foremost. Sigh.
Correct, when I was young and naive in the ways of the world, I suffered an injury playing tennis. I did not collide with anyone or anything, nor slip or fall. I suffered some kind of shoulder tear while serving.
For over four YEARS my health insurance company refused to pay for the emergency room treatment because I “wasn’t cooperating with their subrogation efforts”.
They wanted me to say that either the tennis club or one of the other players was involved with my injury. No matter how many times I filled out the forms they sent me, they claimed they were “incomplete” or “not responses” because I kept saying there was no collision, no slippery patch on the court, no loose materials, etc. They wanted to sue the club or the players on my team or the opposing team on my behalf.
In the end I just gave up.
Thank you for explaining that so clearly!