Why Do I Need Disability Insurance?

Your career is a direct result of hard work and a substantial investment of time and money. Doesn t it make sense to fully protect it? A disability could render you helpless by taking away the one thing that you need to safeguard all of your assets: your income. Home, auto, life, and health insurance are certainly valuable investments, but failure to couple them with disability insurance will jeopardize your full financial security. For example, health insurance might cover the potential fiscal pitfalls of the medical bills that result from a disability, but the rest of your financial obligations are not going to come to a halt. Vehicle payments, mortgages, insurance premiums, and even savings for the future are all important expenses that cannot be ignored just because you are disabled. Unfortunately, the chances of becoming disabled might be greater than you think.
According to the 1994 Statistical Abstract of the United States, in the course of a year, odds are that 1 in 10 people between the ages of 25 and 64 will suffer a disability. When comparing that ratio to the odds of being victim of a house fire (1 in 122); injured in an automobile accident (1 in 160); or even of death (1 in 117), the advantage of disability insurance is clear. A February 2000 article in the New York Times reported that 1 in 7 people between the ages of 35 and 60 will become disabled for five years or more. Despite these glaring statistics, many people still take a substantial risk by ignoring the benefits offered by a disability insurance policy. In 2000, a survey by The Consumer Federation of America and The American Council of Life Insurers found that 82 percent of people do not have long-term disability insurance or believe their coverage is inadequate.
The alternatives to disability insurance all carry a degree of risk or have some sort of drawback. Social Security benefits are difficult to qualify for and the disability must prevent you from working in any occupation. Worker s compensation benefits are limited and only cover job-related sickness or injury. Other options relying on savings, family, and/or friends are not guaranteed and have considerable downside. Guard your assets don t leave yourself vulnerable by neglecting to protect your income.
For more information, visit An excellent Disability Insurance resource



Bookmark it:

Travel Insurance - Travel Scott Free of Any Worries

Holidays are primarily meant to be stress busters that extract the pent up energies through some fun filled activities, although they are not always successful. One of the biggest reasons behind the failure of potentially successful holidays is the occurrence of some unfortunate incidents that can leave you completely frustrated. Travelling over to your much desired destination for some fun times and ending up as a victim to serious problems like illness, accident or stolen belongings can take its toll on you. This is why the insurance industry came out with the perfect solution in the form of travel insurance to relieve you from such sticky situations.
There is no doubt that the insurance industry has grow big time and is continuing to do so. The participation of an increasing number of companies, and some big names at that, has given the leverage to this growth. Realising the popularity of travelling as quite a relaxing activity among more and more travel buffs around the world, the insurance companies have put their best foot forward for universal benefit. The travel insurance has been introduced to do away with the problems that the tourists face as effectively as possible.
The benefits of a travel insurance differ from company to company, although the bottom line is to cater to the avid travellers in the best way possible. Some of the usual advantages of such an insurance happen to be round the clock assistance throughout the year, medical cover for big sums, cover on cancellation of trips, cover on stolen goods and special tariffs for special categories.
As some of the most reputed players are applying their expertise into the field of travel insurance, you have all the chances of grabbing a highly lucrative deal. Just collect the quotes available over the Internet and compare the prices to zero in on the best deal for you.
Allan Elvin is an MBA in Finance and has a rich experience of writing on topics related to finance. He professes special interest and expertise in Travel Insurance and in guiding you on its various details.



Bookmark it:

You Can Be Penalyzed For Lying About Insurance Coverage

Article
NOTE: Potential problems are highlighted like this and this.
You Can Be Penalized Beyond Actual Damages For Lying About Insurance Coverage in California
In a recent case (November 2006), the California Court of Appeal held that an assessment of punitive damages against a general contractor is warranted for lying about insurance coverage to the detriment of the property owner.
In the case of Kelly v. Haag, San Diego County Superior Court Case No.GIC830629, the property owner employed his friend to do work on his condominium. The property owner asked the contractor if he had insurance, and the contractor said he did. During demolition work one of the workers broke a fire sprinkler head.
The fire sprinkler head leaked for 15 to 20 minutes, because the worker did not know where the water shut-off valve was. The condo as well as the condos underneath were damages. After the incident the contractor confessed that he was actually uninsured.
The condo owner filed a lawsuit and among other things alleged fraud. The court assessed $159,140.22 in compensatory damages against the contractor and a subcontractor. The court also assessed $75,000 in punitive damages against the contractor individually, finding he had a minimum net worth of $750,000.
The contractor appealed and the Court of Appeal reversed the punitive damages assessment. The court of appeal reiterated the purpose of punitive damages.
The court stated that an award of punitive damages hinges on three factors: the reprehensibility of the defendant s conduct; the reasonableness of the relationship between the award and the plaintiff s harm; and, in view of the defendant s financial condition, the amount necessary to punish him or her and discourage future wrongful conduct.
The court stated that it is obvious that the punishment must be severe enough to keep the contractor from engaging in that conduct, but the punishment must not be so excessive such that the defendant does not have the ability to pay. In determining the proper assessment of punitive damages the defendant s actual financial condition is essential.
The assessment of punitive damages should be based on the defendant s net worth, but that other factors must also be considered such as income. The financial condition at the time of trial is what is relevant, not what the financial condition could be or was.
In this case the only evidenced presented was oral testimony from the plaintiff s sister. The plaintiff s sister worked for plaintiff s real estate development company and oversaw the condominium remodel. Even though the court did not address the relationship it clearly can be construed as biased opinion instead of admissible evidence.
She testified that the contractor purchased a large home and that he owned a home in San Diego for eight to 10 years. She had no knowledge of the equity or debt of the defendant.
In this case the contractor did not testify and the plaintiff s attorney failed to obtain information from the contractor through a process called discovery. So there was insufficient evidence to show what if any property the contractor owned and what if any debt was on the property. Basically the contractor s financial status was unknown.
The court of appeal dismissed the punitive damages assessment on the grounds that the condo owner failed to produce enough evidence as to the wealth of the general contractor, but the court essentially stated that the assessment would stand if the property owner had presented sufficient evidence to establish the financial position of the contractor.
The condo owner asked for a retrial on the issue of punitive damages, but the court denied the request. The court declined to allow the plaintiff to pursue a second trial on the issue of punitive damages, because the plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to present the case and plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the wealth of the defendant.
In California punitive damages are usually assessed when there is fraud, oppression, or malice. Any type of deception is generally considered fraud. In this case punitive damages were approximately 10% of the net worth of the defendant. Punitive damages are capped based on the underlying claim. A multiplier of more than 5-7 times the underlying claim is generally considered too excessive.
In this case the 75,000 assessment was less than a multiplier of one, so there was no problem as far as the amount of the award. If the contractor had a wealth in excess of $1.5 million the court would have been able to assess about $700,000 in punitive damages. How much is assessed depends on how bad the conduct is. Knowledge and intent of conduct usually results in greater punishment.
Contractors usually generate more complaints than any other industry and as a result have caused the California Legislature to enact very complicated rules and regulations pertaining to contractors and juries are less likely to look favorably to a contractor when deciding on punitive damages.
In this case the critical part was proving the net worth and general financial status of the contractor and there was no jury to decide punitive damages.
If punitive damages are assessed and paid, then they have be shared with the State of California. California law was changed to increase revenues to the State from windfalls to plaintiffs from punitive damages.



Bookmark it: