They'd based their life on a simple philosophy - look after family and friends and help our where you can. During their lives they'd done pretty well for themselves considering where they'd started from, which was ground zero.
They had a nice house and were feeling comfortable with their lot. They'd been blessed with two children and now they even had grandchildren which they loved dearly.
Setting up a family trust is something they never considered because they didn't understand how it might remove risk At the age of 60, tragedy struck. Julie had a heart attack and died.
The family rallied around and helped Bruce as much as they could. Two years later the family suffered another blow - Bruce got diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease. It was awful for everyone to watch as slowly Bruce forgot who they were.
Eventually, the family had no choice but to put Bruce in a rest-home where he could get the care and support he needed 24 hours a day. Trouble was, rest home care was expensive - really expensive. $850 per week was what the rest home wanted and that didn't include any extras such as taking Bruce out for day trips.
The family approached the Ministry of Social Development and requested a residential care subsidy be granted to Bruce. The Ministry told them that before Bruce was eligible for a subsidy, he had to use his own assets as they only granted subsidies to people who had less than $180,000 worth of assets.
This threshold of assets was a real problem. Bruce owned the house he had been living in and it was worth around $310,000. After much discussion, things were worked out.
The subsidy would be granted the Ministry said. The downside to the solution was the subsidy would be treated like a loan. So when Bruce finally died, the house would be sold and the loan would have to be repaid back to the Ministry.
Bruce lived for another 6 years in the rest home. The total amount of his rest home care came to $265,200. By the time real estate agents fees were paid and the loan was paid back to the Ministry there wasn't much left. - only around $35,000.
The sad part about this story is that Bruce and Julie would have wanted the house to have gone to their children. They'd worked hard to create a life and leave their children an inheritance and that had all been lost to the Government. What could have been done to protect the children's inheritances?
Well, taking some sound professional asset planning advice wouldn't have gone astray. Putting the home into a Trust before Bruce needed care would have definitely have helped. Anyone wanting to protect their assets and the inheritances they want to leave their children should take steps to implement an asset protection programme.
In general, we do a terrible job of assessing the risks we face in everyday life. But let's not be too hard on ourselves. After all, recent research indicates that much of this is due to our genetic hardwiring. We're simply predisposed to miscalculate the odds that this or that event will occur. And I suppose if we sat around all day trying to imagine what horrible disaster was lurking around the next corner, we'd never get much of anything accomplished anyway.
One of my biggest professional challenges as an insurance consultant and attorney is to try to get individuals and organizations to understand that the main purpose of insurance and risk management is protection against financial devastation NOT merely financial irritation (having to come up with $500 may be irritating but coming up with $500,000 would be downright devastating). Since this article deals with homeowners insurance, I've made my points by examining the potential financial devastation exacted when people make three huge and all too common miscues when purchasing this type of coverage.
Confusing real estate value with replacement cost
According to Marshall & Swift/Boeckh, a worldwide provider of building cost data, 58% of all homes are undervalued by an average of 21%. I believe this is due primarily to neither the general public nor many in the insurance industry understanding how to properly estimate the replacement cost of a house. The problem is exceptionally egregious where an older home's real estate value may be, for instance, $200,000, but to rebuild the home would cost much more than that.
To go a step further and illustrate the financial hardship this could ultimately cause, let's assume that your house is insured for $200,000 (because you figure you could sell it for that amount). If it is one of the 58% that is underinsured by 21%, you have an uninsured exposure of $42,000. Therefore, if your house burns down, you get a check for $200,000 instead of the $242,000 required to rebuild. I don't know about you but coming up with an extra $42,000 qualifies more in the catastrophe category than the irritant category. And even if you have a guaranteed replacement cost rider on your house, there is still a very good chance you will not be fully reimbursed due to other policy penalties for being vastly underinsured.
Trying to save money by buying minimum liability limits
Let's be honest, the chances of you getting sued for a million dollars (or more) are pretty remote. Unfortunately, few folks ever ask themselves what would happen if they did and how much would it actually cost to protect them from this possibility?
Do you have a pet? Consider that almost 1/3 of all homeowners claims come from dog bites. Have a pool? Approximately 45,000 people a year are injured in swimming pools. The trouble with liability claims is that they are so difficult to quantify. Until disaster strikes, you have no idea how much you may be sued for. Despite the fact that the risk may be remote, your potential exposure is unlimited. My advice is to buy as much liability insurance as you can. Won't that be expensive? Heck no! One major insurance company in Pennsylvania charges only $10 a year more for a $1,000,000 limit than for a $500,000 limit.
The most common objection I hear is that people feel they will somehow become a target of an unscrupulous plaintiff's attorney if they "over insure". Believe me, you already have a target on your back. That's why you need to create as big of a buffer zone as possible between your insurance limits and your personal assets. This is NOT the place to skimp. Insisting on a low deductible
Let's take a few steps back and revisit what I wrote earlier. Insurance should be used to protect you from financial catastrophe not financial inconvenience. Your deductible allows you to save money by self-insuring against small losses while still protecting yourself from financial oblivion. Yet there are a significant number of homeowners who still want a $250, $500, or even a $1000 deductible.
My basic rule for choosing a deductible is simple; if you had a loss tomorrow, how much difficulty would you have in coming up with the money to cover your deductible. If the answer is none or very little, you need to raise your deductible.
For many years this didn't make as much sense as it does today. The savings associated with raising your deductible was relatively minor compared to the number of claims you could submit with no negative repercussions from your insurance company. However, as more and more homeowners figured that out, the insurance companies wised up too. Recently, most companies have begun surcharging your policy after 1 or 2 claims, no matter how small.
OK. That stinks but it's really not devastating. Not until you attempt to obtain a price for homeowners insurance for that new house you want to buy. If you've had multiple claims, your current company may use this as an opportunity to dump you. Now you're forced to scramble to get coverage before the deal falls through. And if you are able to get coverage, you may find yourself paying 5-10 times what you planned on. While maybe still not devastating, it's certainly traumatic.
The three instances I pointed out above are hardly an exhaustive list of all the mistakes I've seen made over the years. However, they are certainly some of the most common, dangerous, and avoidable.
Both Paul Easton & Eric Patrick are contributors for EditorialToday. The above articles have been edited for relevancy and timeliness. All write-ups, reviews, tips and guides published by EditorialToday.com and its partners or affiliates are for informational purposes only. They should not be used for any legal or any other type of advice. We do not endorse any author, contributor, writer or article posted by our team.
Paul Easton has sinced written about articles on various topics from Engagement Rings, Herbal Supplements and Cosmetic Surgery. Paul Easton is an Online Marketer working with Gillgan Rowe + Associates. They are recognised and LAQC expert in New Zealand leads the Trusts and Estate. Paul Easton's top article generates over 201000 views. to your Favourites.
Eric Patrick has sinced written about articles on various topics from Small Business, Legal Matters and Tax Deductions. The author, Eric D. Patrick, is an attorney and Chief Operating Officer of Consumers Insurance Agency Inc.