There are at least three reasons for an individual to purchase a personal umbrella policy.

To begin with, the primary policies otherwise available generally do not provide liability limits commensurate with the exposure such individuals may face.

Second, the cost of this excess coverage is comparatively cheap.

Third (and perhaps most importantly), umbrella policies not only provide coverage when losses exceed the available primary limits, but add coverage for certain types of losses, such as "personal injury" claims that generally not covered by primary policies.

Although the limits of homeowners and other forms of personal primary insurance have increased, most only provide coverage with "per occurrence" limits of $300,000 or $500,000. Some companies offer increased limits of liability to $1,000,000. Substantial as that may seem, it is hardly sufficient to satisfy the liability an insured may face due to a serious accident.

Umbrella coverage is also surprisingly affordable. As a result, umbrella insurers are willing to quote coverage of $1 million to as much as $10 million at rates that are proportionally cheaper than primary insurance. Umbrella carriers can quote coverage with the confidence that statistics show their insureds are unlikely to be sued, and any resulting suits are likely to be resolved within the limits of the insured's primary coverage.

Umbrella insurance not only boosts available coverage limits at a relatively advantageous cost compared to dollar limits on primary policies, but it does so with respect to a portfolio of primary risks. Thus, an insured has excess coverage available for serious auto or premises liability claims without having to pay to increase limits on their primary insurance policies that would insure these separate risks.

Umbrella insurance presents a particular feature that separates it from other types of excess insurance.

Umbrella policies (deemed "bumbershoot" policies in the London market) not only provide insurance coverage once the primary limits are exhausted, but they drop down to provide primary coverage for certain types of losses that may not be covered under the insured's primary policy.

For instance, umbrella policies typically include "personal injury" coverage for quasi-intentional tort losses, such as claims for wrongful entry or eviction, defamation or disparagement and malicious prosecution or false arrest that many homeowners policies do not cover. Umbrella policies may also define "bodily injury" to include claims for emotional distress that primary policies do not cover. In these cases, the umbrella insurer will step in to defend the underlying claim and fill the gaps in the insured's coverage profile that might otherwise prove expensive and perilous.

While the decision to purchase umbrella coverage should be an obvious one for most policyholders, deciding whether to buy umbrella coverage from the same company that underwrites your primary policies may be more difficult. Some primary insurers may be willing to discount the cost of such insurance when the policyholder agrees to buy a package of policies. Using the same insurer may also avoid a seamless web of insurance and avoid unexpected gaps due to conflicting wordings.

At the same time, having a different insurer write the excess coverage may be a benefit to the insureds in cases where the primary insurer is reluctant to accept coverage and the excess insurer acts in concert with the policyholder to apply pressure to the primary carrier to pay the loss or defend the case.

Personal umbrella policies can help customize insurance coverage by filling gaps in a client's coverage profile and raise the limits of coverage to safer levels. In short, the answer to the question of whether an insured should buy personal umbrella insurance is not "yes", you should" but rather, "why on earth would you not."

The Albuquerque, New Mexico metropolitan statistical area (MSA) repeats as having the highest per capita auto theft rate in 2017, according to the National Insurance Crime Bureau’s (NICB) latest Hot Spots report.

New to the top 10 this year, the metro areas of St. Joseph, (No. 5) and Springfield, Missouri (No. 10).

NICB notes that an area with a much smaller population and a moderate number of thefts can—and often does—have a higher theft rate than an area with a much more significant vehicle theft problem and a larger population to absorb it. That is how St. Joseph, with 952 thefts, places 5th while Los Angeles, with 60,444 thefts, places 33rd.

Hot Spots examines vehicle theft data obtained from the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) for each of the nation’s MSAs. MSAs are designated by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and often include areas much larger than the cities for which they are named. For example, this year’s number one spot, the Albuquerque, N.M. MSA, includes all thefts within the entire county of Bernalillo, not just the city of Albuquerque.

For 2017, the 10 MSAs with the highest vehicle theft rates were: (thefts in parentheses)

Each year the FBI releases preliminary Uniform Crime Report (UCR) data for the previous year’s January–June time frame. When the preliminary 2017 crime data was released earlier this year, vehicle theft was up 4.1 percent across the nation. NICB said that increase is reflected in this Hot Spots report and it expects that to hold when the final UCR 2017 crime data is published in the fall.

Overall, vehicle theft is down, dramatically, across the nation. The historic peak year for vehicle theft was 1991, with 1,661,738 reported thefts. In 2016, the total was 765,484. That is a 54 percent reduction since 1991.

 While the final result for 2017 is expected to be higher than 2016’s number (although the rate of increase is decreasing), the vehicle theft environment across the country has improved significantly since the 1990s.

Teenage driver are eight times more likely to be involved in a collision or near miss during the first three months after getting a drivers license, compared to the previous three months on a learner's permit, suggests a study led by the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Teens are also four times more likely to engage in risky behaviors, such as rapid acceleration, sudden braking and hard turns, during this period. In contrast, teens on a learner's permit drove more safely, with their crash/near crash and risky driving rates similar to adults.

"Given the abrupt increase in driving risks when teenagers start to drive independently, their findings suggest that they may benefit from a more gradual decrease in adult supervision during the first few months of driving alone," said Bruce Simons-Morton, Ed.D., M.P.H, senior investigator at NIH's Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) and one of the authors of the study.

The study is one the first to follow the same individuals over time, from the beginning of the learner period through the first year of independent driving, while continuously collecting information using software and cameras installed in the participants' vehicles.

The study also evaluated parents' driving in the same vehicles, over the same time, on similar roads and under similar driving conditions as their children. Near-crash events were those requiring a last-moment maneuver to avoid a crash, while crashes were physical contact between the driver's vehicle and another object.

The study enrolled 90 teenagers and 131 parents in Virginia, and data collection system was developed by the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute, Blacksburg.

Overall, the study found that the crash/near crash rate for teenagers did not decline over the first  year of independent driving, while the rate of risky driving modestly declined. According to the researchers, if teenagers were learning from their experiences, one would expect that the driving risks would consistently decline over time.

Teenagers also had a higher risky driving rate under favorable conditions - daytime or dry roads - compared to less favorable conditions - nighttime or wet roads. This finding implies that teenagers may be more careful and less inclined to take risks during unfavorable driving conditions.

When comparing male to female teens, the study team found that the risky driving rate did not differ by gender during the learning period. However, when teenagers entered independent driving stages, males had a higher risky driving rate. This rate did not consistently decrease over time for males but did decrease for females. The crash/near crash rate was similar across genders and driving periods.

"During the learner's permit period, parents are present, so there are some skills that teenagers cannot learn until they are on their own," said Pnina Gershon, Ph.D., the study's lead author. "We need a better understanding of how to help teenagers learn safe driving skills when parents or other adults are not present."

The researchers aim to identify factors that may improve safety and reduce specific driving risks. They plan to address whether the duration and quality of practice driving can predict future outcomes in the independent driving period. They also will explore how passengers influence driving risk during learner and independent driving periods.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is a component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. NIH is the primary federal agency conducting and supporting basic, clinical, and translational medical research.

Source: Gershon P. Ehsani JP, Zhu C, Klauer S, DIngus T, and Simons-Morton B. Journal of Adolescent Health DOI