but if you've got assets auto generally isn't close to enough to deal with the ambulance chasers for whom every accident derails the career of the next Bill Gates.

sue. If you have a net worth over 250k you absolutely need an umbrella policy. As I described in my top post -- one event can ruin your entire life if you don't have one. $250 per year covers that use case.

If you have over 1 MM of assets combined with ability to pay -- you need 3 MM to 5 MM policy. Don't forget ability to pay. If you are working and making 100k per year and are young-ish (below 40) they will factor that in and will sue for more than you have, get a judgment and then put a lien on your future earnings. Ultimately driving you into a settlement above what your assets are but below what a 20-30 year payment plan would have been.

I know this first hand from people that have been sued for what their kids have done -- car accidents of adult aged kids.

a negligent entrustment theory of liability, but as a rule, no, you're not liable for your kid's tort.

In Texas, for example, your entire homestead, one car for each licensed driver in the household, $30K in personal property, retirement accounts, 529 accounts, most insurance, annuities, pensions, and a smorgasborg of farm animals. And your wages can't be garnished.

There's plenty of people in Texas with million dollar homes who would be pretty difficult to collect on.

That being said, the downside of being kept in a suit where your insurance company is defending you is low compared to the downside of having your assets taken from you. If you're unsure, the extra couple hundred bucks a year for an umbrella policy is probably not a bad decision.

I just don't think there is any firm rule to go by for this stuff, and reject the idea that anyone can say what sort of product is a "must" without getting that fuller picture.