Actually there is a real distinction. For self insurance you would periodically set aside funds that would accumulate and build up to a sizable portion of the estimated or depreciated value of the property. Maybe a better way of looking at it is as a function of wealth. If you can't afford the loss, you buy full insurance. If you can afford a part of the loss, you get a High Deductible policy. If you can afford most of the loss, OR if you feel you can actually control the likelihood of a loss, you self insure and set up a funding mechanism. If you're not particularly financially concerned about the loss, you self insure and "expense" the loss. While you and I would not be likely to insure a potted plant on the front porch, the Federal Government would be unlikely to insure its automobile fleet. So regardless of how the terms are sometimes commonly used, "self insurance" and "no insurance" are definitely not synonymous. Phil OK then a very wealthy person doesn't put any money aside and doesn't buy insurance by your definition he is not self insured but simply UN insured. But if the same wealthy person puts money aside then he is not UN insured but self insured? Either way he pays his own loss either by money he has or money he's saved or by the loss of his boat. Like I said kind of silly. Brian Palmetto FL

I probably should have added that self insurance wouldn't normally apply to just a single exposure (such as one boat) but rather many exposures (such as the government car example). Your absolutely correct in that it would not make any sense for one guy and one boat, so in that sense it really doesn't apply any of us. I guess I was focused too much on the actual definitions rather than our application of the options. Phil Trainman484848@aol.com wrote: > Actually there is a real distinction. For self insurance you would > periodically set aside funds that would accumulate and build up to a > sizable portion of the estimated or depreciated value of the property. > > Maybe a better way of looking at it is as a function of wealth. If you > can't afford the loss, you buy full insurance. If you can afford a part > of the loss, you get a High Deductible policy. If you can afford most > of the loss, OR if you feel you can actually control the likelihood of a > loss, you self insure and set up a funding mechanism. If you're not > particularly financially concerned about the loss, you self insure and > "expense" the loss. While you and I would not be likely to insure a > potted plant on the front porch, the Federal Government would be > unlikely to insure its automobile fleet. > > So regardless of how the terms are sometimes commonly used, "self > insurance" and "no insurance" are definitely not synonymous. > > Phil > > OK then a very wealthy person doesn't put any money aside and doesn't buy > insurance by your definition he is not self insured but simply UN insured. > > But if the same wealthy person puts money aside then he is not UN insured but > self insured? > > Either way he pays his own loss either by money he has or money he's saved or > by the loss of his boat. Like I said kind of silly. > > Brian Palmetto FL > _______________________________________________ > http://lists.samurai.com/mailman/listinfo/trawlers-and-trawlering > > To unsubscribe send email to > trawlers-and-trawlering-request@lists.samurai.com with the word > UNSUBSCRIBE and nothing else in the subject or body of the message. > > Trawlers & Trawlering and T&T are trademarks of Water World > Productions. Unauthorized use is prohibited.