How do I buy bundled insurance policies?
You have 3 companies now that you work with. I would start there. Ask one of them to show you what would happen if you bought the other two policies from them.  This may not be something that they will show via the quotes generated on the web page. So you would be better off talking to a person who can generate a quote with that additional information. Make sure that you are comparing exact matches for the limits and options for the policies. Once you have done that with the first then do the same for the other two. I would have to dig into my policy bills for life insurance, but I do know that the bills for the home and auto insurance do show exactly how much I am saving by having multiple polices.
"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""." "It depends.  ""High net worth individuals"" is very subjective.   Lets say a person is worth 1.5 million.  High, but not super high.  For one, they should have an umbrella policy.  Until your net worth is above 300K, you really don't need an umbrella policy.  They should insure their home and cars, but should probably have high deductibles.  Health insurance is a must as a bad illness can wipe them out.  They should have long term care insurance when they reach age 60.   Now lets say a person is worth about 10 million.  They might be able to self insure basic transportation and probably don't need long term care insurance.  However, they may choose to carry the full coverage car insurance, or other lines, because it is a value.   In conclusion insurance needs change based on a person's net worth and income.  It is very hard to make a blanket statement without details of the makeup of one's net worth and how they earn their income. Having said all of that, a high net worth (HNW) individual may never be able to drop certain coverage.  Lets say that a HNW owns a 50K condo, 1K square foot condo.  Given that the outside structure is covered by the HOA the insurance on such a unit only covers the contents and liability.  The contents could easily be floated by the HNW individual, but not the liability.  It is probably a requirement, on their umbrella policy, that they carry the maximum liability protection on their vehicles and properties.  In the case above they would carry a policy for the purposes of liability protection. This could also be true of their dependents.  Say for example, their adult child receives some financial assistance from their parents (like college being paid for).  The HNW individuals should have their child cover the maximum liability on the auto policy. According to this site:  A person with a net worth of 1.5 million would be in the 90-95 percentile, a person with 10 million in the 99th. This article does a decent job of describing what constitutes a HNW person or household.  Namely 1 million in investable assets, which is of course a bit different then net worth." "What you are looking for is a pretty terrible deal for you, so I'd say it doesn't exist because there isn't a market for it, or nobody has noticed there is a market for it. In principle I would happily take the deal you offer from as many people as would let me, put the money into treasury bills, and take half the profits while doing pretty much nothing.    If I had more risk tolerance I would be pretty happy to have half the value of my ""fund"" as zero cost investment capital for more aggressive investments.  My business would then be a lot like an insurance company without the hassle of selling insurance to get hold of float to invest.  Also, most insurance companies actually lose money on policies, but come out ahead by investing the float, so an insurance company with zero cost float is quite a good business. Another answer mentions Berkshire Hathaway.  If you read one of the famous Berkshire Hathaway annual letters to shareholders and read the section about insurance you'll see that very low cost float has a large role in that company's success. So, back to your end of the deal: if the deal is that good for me, how good is it for you?  I'd have to double market returns just for you to break even.  If you're smart enough to pick a financial adviser that can beat the market by that much, how come you aren't able to pick an investment strategy that ties the market?" "Technically, this doesn't seem like a scam, but I don't think the system is beneficial.  They use a lot of half-truths to convince you that their product is right for you. Some of the arguments presented and my thoughts. Don't buy term and invest the rest because you can't predict how much you'll earn from the ""rest""   Also Don't invest in a 401k because you can't predict how much you'll earn They are correct that you won't know exactly how much you'll have due to stock market, but that doesn't mean the stock market is a bad place to put your money.  Investing in a 401k is risky because of the harsh 401k withdrawal rules  Yes, 401ks have withdrawal rules (can't typically start before 59.5, must start by 70.5) but those rules don't hamper my investing style in any way.    Most Term Life Insurance policies don't pay out  They are correct again, but their conclusions are wrong. Yes, most people don't die while you have a term insurance policy which is why Term life insurance is relatively cheap.   But they aren't arguing you don't need insurance, just that you need their insurance which is ""better"" You need the Guaranteed growth they offer  The chart used to illustrate their guaranteed growth includes non-guaranteed dividends.   They invest $10,000 per year for 36 years and end up with $1,000,000.   That's a 5% return!  I use 10% for my estimate of stock market performance, but let's say it's only 8%.   The same $10,000 per year results in over $2 Million dollars.  Using 10.5% (average return of the S&P 500 over it's lifetime) the result is a staggering $3.7 MILLION.   So if I'm looking at $3.7M vs. $1M, It costs me $2.7 Million dollars to give me the same coverage as my term life policy. That's one expensive Term Life Insurance policy. My personal favorite: Blindly following the advice of Wall Street and financial “gurus” such as Dave Ramsey and Suze Orman got you where you are. Are you happy with the state of your finances? Do you still believe their fairytale, “Buy Term (insurance) and Invest the Difference”?  Yes, I sure do believe that fairytale and I'm prospering quite well thank you. :) While I don't think this is a scam, it's outrageously expensive and not a good financial choice." You can get no load annuities through some no-load financial companies like Vanguard so to start with I'd see how what she is being offered compares with something that comes free of a sales load. I'd also question that fixed rate, seems pretty impossible to me, which makes me think there is some catch or 'gotcha' that we are not seeing that either brings down that rate, or makes it delusional (they are kidding themselves) or deceptive in some way.  In any case it's setting off my 'too good to be true' alarm at full volume, along with the 'shark attack' alarm as well. (I would strongly suspect the 'advisor' is advising the product that makes the most money for him, NOT what is in your mother's best interest)  A fixed annuity is an insurance product, not a security, because the insurance company must credit the annuity holder’s account with the specified interest rate for the contractually-stipulated time period, regardless of market fluctuations in actual interest rates. It is the insurance company that bears the investment risk, which it does by investing the annuity holder’s purchase proceeds in fixed-income instruments that the company hopes will provide sufficient return to fulfill its contractual representations to the holder.  THIS is why there is no prospectus (it's not a 'security' they are not required to provide one by SEC) because the risk is entirely with the company. Obviously as pointed out in the comments, the company could easily go out of business (especially of they sell a lot of these and can't find a way to get that kind of return on the invested money).  Now, ask yourself, if I was the insurance company, would I be comfortable guaranteeing that level of return over that much time if I intend to make a profit from it, pay sales comissions, and stay in business?   In terms of 'will they stay in business' I'd have a hard look at their ratings, and go compare where that is on the total range for AM Best (they are lowest 'secure' rating, next thing down is in the 'vulnerable' category) and Standard and Poors (4 places down from their best rating, next thing down is 'marginal' followed by 'poor')   You might also want to see if you can get any idea of historical ratings, is this company's ratings falling, or rising?   Personally, for the amount of money involved, I'd want a company with MUCH higher ratings than these guys..  THEN maybe someone could say 'no risk', but with those ratings?  an no, I don't think so! BTW I'd check over what this bozo (um sorry, that's not fair to clowns) is recommending she do with her own funds as well.  For example is he recommending she take something that is already tax sheltered such as an IRA and investing the stuff inside that in an annuity (kind of pointless to 'double shelter' the money, or lock it up for a period of time when she may be required to make withdrawals) make sure you don't see something there that is actually against what is in her best interest and is only done to make him a comission. As a recent college grad who switched to his own car insurance, many of the things I did myself are reflected here. The #1 thing I did was find out what coverages I had, what coverages some friends of mine had (car enthusiasts mostly - they're the most informed on this stuff), and then figured out what kind of coverages I wanted. From there, I went around getting quotes from anyone and everyone and eventually built out a sizeable spreadsheet that made it obvious which company was going to offer me the best rate at a given coverage level. Something else to remember - not all insurance companies look at past accidents and violations (speeding, etc) the same. In my search, I found some have a 3-year scope on accidents and violations, while others were as much as 5 years. So, if your driving record isn't a shining example (mine isn't perfect), you could potentially save money by considering insurance through a company that will see fewer violations/incidents than another because of the size of their scope. I ended up saving $25/mo by choosing a company that had a 3-year scope, which was on the cusp of when my last violation/incident occurred. Insurance companies will also give out discounts for younger drivers based on GPA average. If you have kids and they maintain a high GPA, you might be able to get a discount there. Not all companies offer it, so if they do it's worth finding out how much it is This depends on the jurisdiction, but such companies are typically subject to regulations (and audits) that require them to keep the customers' accumulated premiums very strictly separated from the company's own assets, liabilities and expenses. Additionally, they are typically only allowed to invest the capital in very safe things like government bonds. So, unless something truly catastrophic happens (like the US government defaulting on its bonds) or people in the company break the regulations (which would invovle all kinds of serious crimes and require complicity or complete failure of the auditors), your premiums and the contractual obligation to you would still be there, and would be absorbed by a different insurance company that takes over the defunct company's business.  Realistically, what all this means is that insurance companies never go bankrupt; if they do badly, they are typically bought up by a competitor long before things get that bad. "Great. 10% of the pre-tax 450 you'd make in a week of 40 hours' work means you could buy about 2 shares a month. I assume they pay bi-weekly, so you can qualify to buy a share.   25% 401k contribution off less than 30k annual salary is peanuts to the company, and peanuts to the employee by retirement. Competitively speaking, thats actually a rather bare-bones retirement package, isn't it?  I hope that health care waves covers deductables 100% - otherwise a yearly checkup will be 10% of your takehome that week in addition to the hours you take off work and get ""points"" under their draconian ""no days off ever"" policy."