Is accident insurance worth it for my kids who play sports
"The general answer to any ""is it worth it"" insurance question is ""no,"" because the insurance company is making a profit on the insurance.* To decide if you want the insurance, you need to figure out how much you can afford to pay if something happens, how much they cover, and how badly you want to transfer your risk to them.  If you won't have trouble coming up with the $4000 deductible should you need to, then don't get this extra insurance.  * I did not mean to imply that insurance is always a bad idea or that insurance companies are cheating their customers. Please let me explain further.  When you buy any product from a business, that business is making a profit. And there is nothing wrong with that at all. They are providing a service and should be compensated for their efforts.  Insurance companies also provide a service, but unlike other types of businesses, their product is monetary. You pay them money now, and they might pay you money later. If they pay you more money then you spent, you came out ahead, and if you spend more money then they give you, it was a loss for you.  In order for the insurance company to make a profit, they need to bring in more money than they pay out. In fact, they need to bring in a lot more money then they pay out, because in addition to their profit, they have all the overhead of running a business.  As a result, on average, you will come out behind when you purchase insurance. This means that when you are on the fence about whether or not to purchase any insurance product, the default choice should be ""no.""  On average, you are financially better off without insurance.  Now, that doesn't mean you should never buy insurance. As mentioned by commenter @xiaomy, insurance companies spread risk across all of their customers. If I am in a situation where I have a risk of financial ruin in a certain circumstance, I can eliminate that risk by purchasing insurance. For example, I have term life insurance, because if I were to pass away, it would be financially catastrophic for my family. (I'm hoping that the insurance company makes 100% profit on that deal!) I also continue to buy expensive health insurance because an unexpected medical event would be financially devastating. However, I always decline the extended warranty when I buy a $300 appliance, because I don't have any trouble coming up with another $300 in the unlikely event that it breaks, and I would rather keep the money than contribute to the profits of an insurance company unnecessarily.  In my original answer above, I pointed out how you would determine whether or not to purchase this particular insurance product. This product pays out a bunch of relatively small amounts for certain events, up to a limit of $4000. Would this $4000 be hard for you to come up with if you needed to? If so, get the insurance. But if you are like me and have an emergency fund in place to handle things like this, then you are financially better off declining this policy."
That's totally different.  Woods and Vick continue to play popular sports at a high level. Cycling just isn't that popular, and the only reason Armstrong got to be a superstar is because he dominated the sport and had the cancer story.   His dominance is tarnished and he's retired and banned from his sport. I don't see him making much of a comeback endorsing products. "On top of the given answers, the type of referral will also factor in. When you're up for renewal and go to a comparison site (in the UK: CompareTheMarket, MoneySupermarket, Confused, GoCompare, ... ) and struggle accurately through all their lists of questions, you see that some of the data differs (e.g., not all the same jobs can be entered; if you have had an accident, not all ask whose fault it was and/or don't leave the option ""not yet resolved"" --possibly forcing you to guess which way it will be adjudicated,-- and/or what the total repair cost was).  So as these referrers feed slightly different data to roughly the same set of insurance providers, you will get slightly different quotes on the same providers. And expect your own provider to offer a slightly better quote than you'll get in reality for renewing: The referrer's (one-time) cut has to be still taken off, but they count it as a new client so somebody gets a bonus for that --- you they disregard as a captive client and give what boils down to a loyalty penalty. [Case in point: I had an unresolved car accident, resolved months later in my favour. With all honest data including unresolved claim and its cost and putting my 'accident-free years' factor at 0 instead of 7, my old provider quoted about 8% more than the previous year on comparison sites; but my renewal papers quoted me 290% more, upon telephone enquiry the promised to refund the difference if court found in my favour though they refused to give this in writing. So: No thanks!] Then the other set of referrals they get is from you directly going to their website asking for a quote. They know what type of link you've followed (banner, or google result, etc), they may know some info from your browser's cookies (time spent where) or other tracking service, and from your data they may guess how tech-savvy and shop-wise you are, and scale your offer accordingly. [Comparison-site shoppers are lumped together at a relatively high savvy-level, of course!]. Companies breaking down your data and their own in a particular way can find advantages and hence offer you better terms, as said in the main answer (this is like Arbitration in stock exchanges, ensuring a certain amount of sanity: if there's something to exploit, somebody will, and everybody will follow). It may be that they find a certain group of people maybe more accident-prone but cheaper to deal with (more flexible in repair-times, or easy to bully in accepting shared-fault when they weren't at fault), or they want a certain client (for women, for civil servants, for sporty drivers, for homeowners --- often for cross-selling other insurance services). Or they claim to want pensioners because the company can offer them 'a familiar voice' (same account manager always contacting them) while they're easier to bamboozle and less likely to shop around when offered a rubbish deal. Also, 100% straight comparison of competing offers isn't possible as the fine details of the T&Cs (terms & conditions) would differ, as well as various little pinpricks in the claims handling process.  And depreciation of a car, and various ways of dealing with it: You insure it for the buying prices, but two years later it's worth about 40% less on paper --- so in case of total loss, replacing like-for-like will cost you still at least 80% of the value for which you've been insuring it while they'll probably offer you the 100-40= 60%. Mostly because instead of your trusted car you have something unknown that may have hidden defects, or been mistreated and about to die. [Case in point: My 3-y-old dealer-bought car's gearbox died just outside the 6month warranty period, notwithstanding its ""150-item inspection you can rely on"". In the end the national brand agreed to refund the parts (15% of what I paid for the car) but not the labour (a few hours).] And any car model's value differs (in descending order) from its ""forecourt price"", ""private selling price"", ""part exchange price"", and ""auction price"". Depending on your ompanies may happily insure you for forecourt price (=what you paid to dealer) but then point out that the value of that car is the theoretical P/X value, i.e., the car without anybody's profit, far less than you've been paying for. [Conversely, if you crash it after insuring below market value, they can pay you your stupidly low figure.]" You are not asking for insurance purposes. So I'll go with this - I have two asset numbers I track. All investments, retirement accounts, etc, the kind that are valued at day's end by the market, etc. From that number I subtract the mortgage. This produces the number that I can say is my net worth with a paid in full house. The second number simply adds back the house's value, give or take.  Unless I owned art that was valued in the six figures, it seems pointless to me to add it up, except for insurance. If my wife and I died tomorrow, the kid can certainly auction our stuff off, but knowing that number holds no interest for us. When most people talk 'net worth', I don't see them adding these things up. Cars, maybe, but not even that. "Great answer by @duffbeer. Only thing to add is that the option itself becomes a tradeable asset. Here's my go at filling out the answer from @duffbeer. ""Hey kid... So you have this brand-new video game Manic Mazes that you paid $50 for on Jan 1st that you want to sell two months from now"" ""Yes, Mr. Video Game Broker, but I want to lock in a price so I know how much to save for a new Tickle Me Elmo for my baby sister."" ""Ok, for $3, I'll sell you a 'Put' option so you can sell the game to me for $40 in two months."" Kid says ""Ok!"", sends $3 to Mr Game Broker who sends our kid a piece of paper saying: The holder of this piece of paper can sell the game Manic Mazes to Mr Game Broker for $40 on March 1st. .... One month later .... News comes out that Manic Mazes is full of bugs, and the price in the shops is heavily discounted to $30. Mr Options Trader realizes that our kid holds a contract written by Mr Game Broker which effectively allows our kid to sell the game at $10 over the price of the new game, so maybe about $15 over the price in the second-hand market (which he reckons might be about $25 on March 1st). He calls up our kid. ""Hey kid, you know that Put option that Mr Game Broker sold to you you a month ago, wanna sell it to me for $13?"" (He wants to get it a couple of bucks cheaper than his $15 fair valuation.) Kid thinks:  hmmm ... that would be a $10 net profit for me on that Put Option, but I wouldn't be able to sell the game for $40 next month, I'd likely only get something like $25 for it. So I would kind-of be getting $10 now rather than potentially getting $12 in a month. Note: The $12 is because there could be $15 from exercising the put option (selling for $40 a game worth only $25 in the second-hand market) minus the original cost of $3 for the Put option. Kid likes the idea and replies: ""Done!"". Next day kid sends the Put option contract to Mr Options Trader and receives $13 in return. Our kid bought the Put option and later sold it for a profit, and all of this happened before the option reached its expiry date." "Yes, and the math that tells you when is called the Kelly Criterion. The Kelly Criterion is on its face about how much you should bet on a positive-sum game. Imagine you have a game where you flip a coin, and if heads you are given 3 times your bet, and if tails you lose your bet.  Naively you'd think ""great, I should play, and bet every dollar I have!"" -- after all, it has a 50% average return on investment.  You get back on average 1.5$ for every dollar you bet, so every dollar you don't bet is a 0.5$ loss. But if you do this and you play every day for 10 years, you'll almost always end up bankrupt.  Funny that. On the other hand, if you bet nothing, you are losing out on a great investment.  So under certain assumptions, you neither want to bet everything, nor do you want to bet nothing (assuming you can repeat the bet almost indefinitely). The question then becomes, what percentage of your bankroll should you bet? Kelly Criterion answers this question.  The typical Kelly Criterion case is where we are making a bet with positive returns, not an insurance against loss; but with a bit of mathematical trickery, we can use it to determine how much you should spend on insuring against loss. An ""easy"" way to undertand the Kelly Criterion is that you want to maximize the logarithm of your worth in a given period.  Such a maximization results in the largest long-term value in some sense. Let us give it a try in an insurance case. Suppose you have a 1 million dollar asset.  It has a 1% chance per year of being destroyed by some random event (flood, fire, taxes, pitchforks). You can buy insurance against this for 2% of its value per year.  It even covers pitchforks. On its face this looks like a bad deal.  Your expected loss is only 1%, but the cost to hide the loss is 2%? If this is your only asset, then the loss makes your net worth 0.  The log of zero is negative infinity.  Under Kelly, any insurance (no matter how inefficient) is worth it.  This is a bit of an extreme case, and we'll cover why it doesn't apply even when it seems like it does elsewhere. Now suppose you have 1 million dollars in other assets.  In the insured case, we always end the year with 1.98 million dollars, regardless of if the disaster happens.  In the non-insured case, 99% of the time we have 2 million dollars, and 1% of the time we have 1 million dollars. We want to maximize the expected log value of our worth.  We have log(2 million - 20,000) (the insured case) vs 1% * log(1 million) + 99% * log(2 million). Or 13.7953 vs 14.49.  The Kelly Criterion says insurance is worth it; note that you could ""afford"" to replace your home, but because it makes up so much of your net worth, Kelly says the ""hit it too painful"" and you should just pay for insurance. Now suppose you are worth 1 billion.  We have log(1 billion - 20k) on the insured side, and 1%*log(999 million) + 99% * log(1 billion) on the uninsured side. The logs of each side are 21.42 vs 20.72.  (Note that the base of the logarithm doesn't matter; so long as you use the same base on each side). According to Kelly, we have found a case where insurance isn't worth it. The Kelly Criterion roughly tells you ""if I took this bet every (period of time), would I be on average richer after (many repeats of this bet) than if I didn't take this bet?""  When the answer is ""no"", it implies self-insurance is more efficient than using external insurance.  The answer is going to be sensitive to the profit margin of the insurance product you are buying, and the size of the asset relative to your total wealth. Now, the Kelly Criterion can easily be misapplied.  Being worth financially zero in current assets can easily ignore non-financial assets (like your ability to work, or friends, or whatever).  And it presumes repeat to infinity, and people tend not to live that long. But it is a good starting spot. Note that the option of bankruptcy can easily make insurance not ""worth it"" for people far poorer; this is one of the reasons why banks insist you have insurance on your proprety. You can use Kelly to calculate how much insurance you should purchase at a given profit margin for the insurance company given your net worth and the risk involved.  This can be used in Finance to work out how much you should hedge your bets in an investment as well; in effect, it quantifies how having money makes it easier to make money." "There is an economic, a social and a psychological side to the decision whether to buy insurance or not, and if yes, which one. Economically, as you say already in your question, an insurance is on average  a net loss for the insured.  The key word here is ""average"". If you know that there are many cancer cases in your family buy health insurance by all means; it's a sound investment. If you are a reckless driver make sure you have extensive coverage on your liability insurance. But absent such extra risks: Independently of somebody's wealth insurance should be limited to covering catastrophic events.  What is often overlooked is that the insurance by all means should really cover those catastrophic events. For example the car liability minimums in many states are not sufficient. The typical upper middle class person could probably pay the 15k/30k/10k required in Arizona with a loan on their house; but a really catastrophic accident is simply not covered and would totally ruin that person and their family.  Insuring petty damage is a common mistake: economically speaking, all insurances should have deductibles which are as high as one could afford to pay without feeling too much pain.  That ""pain"" qualification has an economical and a social aspect. Of course any risk which materialized is an economical damage of some kind; perhaps now I can't buy the PS4, or the diamond ring, or the car, or the house, or the island which had caught my eye. I could probably do all these things, just perhaps without some extras, even if I had paid for insurance; so if I don't want to live with the risk to lose that possibility I better buy insurance. Another economical aspect is that the money may not be available without selling assets, possibly on short notice and hence not for the best price. Then an insurance fee takes the role of paying for a permanent  backup credit line (and should not be more expensive than that).  The social aspect is that even events which wouldn't strictly ruin a person might still force them to, say, sell their Manhattan penthouse (no more parties!) or cancel their country club membership. That is a social pain which is probably to be avoided. Another socioeconomic aspect is that you may have a relationship to the person selling you the insurance. Perhaps he buys his car at your dealership? Perhaps he is your golf buddy? Then the insurance may be a good investment. It is only borderline bad to begin with; any benefits move the line into the profit zone. The psychological aspect is that an insurance buys peace of mind, and that often seems to be the most important benefit. A dart hits the flat screen? Hey, it was insured.  Junior totals the Ferrari? Hey, it was insured. Even if the house burns down having fire insurance will be a consolation." Everyone is usually better off without insurance.  A very few people are much better off with insurance.  Insurance is a gamble and when you lose, you win.  Very few people lose badly enough to win.  Most people just pay money into insurance and never get as much back as they pay in.  For most people, in most lives, insurance is a bad deal.  The reason people crave insurance is because they cannot calculate the probability of something bad happening as well as an actuary can do so.  The gap in knowledge between you and and actuary is what make insurance providers rich and you poor.  They are smart, you are not.  You think some terrible thing is going to happen to you, they know it probably won't.  So they sell you a product you probably will never need.  Anyhow, most people can't understand probability, and how to analyze risk, so they won't get what I'm saying here. Understanding the real cost of risk is the first lesson in understanding money and wealth.  Rich people usually understand the value and cost of risk.  Hence, they only buy insurance when they expect to lose, that is, to win.  We rich people do everything only when we know already we are going to win.  We don't gamble, unless we are the house.  When a self-made rich man buys something, its because he knows already he is going to come out ahead on it, most probably. 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