Policy is better - or rates are better - or what they actually deliver is better???

I have "the best of the best" homeowners policy, did not make a bit of difference when they refuse to pay for actual losses covered under the policy, that did not exceed the limits of the policy.

Now, after dealing with a $450K fire loss, am convinced the "worst policy by the best company" is better than the "best policy by the worst company."

"The Ten Worst Insurance Companies in America."

http://www.cjadvertising.com/includes/worst-insurance-providers/TenWorstInsuranceCompanies.pdf

kitasei, there's no reason I know of to limit how many companies you buy insurance from. Be sure you understand what you're buying. If you're getting auto and the umbrella from difference companies, though, make sure there's no gap in your liability coverage between the amounts where the auto policy ends and the umbrella begins. One thing that sometimes affects these choices is the multi-product discount all the companies give but I'm sure you've considered that.

"did not make a bit of difference when they refuse to pay for actual losses covered".

mdlin, if an insurance company doesn't comply with the terms of its own policies, you could bring an action against them and win. More likely there were aspects of the coverage or the mechanics of calculating/substantiating the loss that weren't well explained to you or understood by you?

I'm going to take issue with the two "information" sources you site. The more concerning is the second. The linked pdf was prepared by the American Association for Justice, the organization representing the most double-talking and euphemism-using group of lawyers in the US - personal injury lawyers who represent plaintiffs only and only for a contingent fee. These are the nation's ambulance chasers. I would read their list of insurance companies upside down from normal - if these are their lowest rated insurance companies (presumably because they give injury lawyers a hard time), those are the ones I'd want to get a policy from.

The first is a Consumers' Report survey that I also personally have limited respect for. People tend to answer their surveys to either justify their own decisions (I only choose the best) or to gripe when they have a problem. Just as with Yelp and Trip Adviser reports, read them for information but take ratings with skepticism.

I have had such terrible experiences with both homeowners and auto insurance now that it seems the best thing to do is just find the cheapest, not even think about filing a claim unless it's catastrophic or until I'm at the end of my policy-holding life. It certainly is disconcerting that Allstate is rated worst. How do I start to find something better than Travelers, which has double our premium, added a 500/year surcharge for an automobile accident with no injuries involved, and denied a claim for water damage after a record rainfall.

@ Snidley, You have disagreed with me in the past and I have no interest in debating your OPINION with you. When you have your experience, please feel free to share it. Attacking my experience does not make you right. You may have no respect for those sources; however, what they report is consistent with my personal experience. Yes, litigation (at my expense) will be required to get them to meet their obligations.

I didn't say if I did or didn't agree with your suggestion, I only said I had a different opinion of what you considered to be useful information sources and I explained why. There was no attack and I'm sorry if you thought so. Nor was there an invitation to debate.

You're as welcome to your views as I am to mine.

If you purchase your umbrella policy from a different company, you better make damn sure they will cover your home and auto policies that are insured elsewhere. Typically, it is a resounding no. It puts them on the hook for what, excess policy of, at minimum, $1,000,000, for what, a $300 a year premium? Not financially sound on the company side.

Now, I have seen instances (I've been on the company side, and now on the agency side) where we've been able to extend an umbrella over other companies policies, with the stipulation being that all policies are written with the company that holds the umbrella by the next renewal date. Off of that premise, it wouldn't make sense to do.

What's the premium difference between the two companies, and what are there underlying liability limit requirements? Most companies require 500k liability limit for the umbrella, to avoid a gap in coverage.

I ended up getting auto and H/O policies from Allstate with liability of $1 mil each, with no umbrella. That turned out to be the cheapest. I hope I'm not missing something important.

Obviously, if we knew what was going to happen in the future, you'd know if $1m is sufficient or not. Most would guess it probably is, but no one can be sure. Glad you got it figured out though, even if that meant increasing liability limits in lieu of getting an umbrella, which most companies offer at a pretty darn cheap rate.