Sole Proprietor vs LLC (single-member)
I switched from an SP to an SMLLC a few years ago, but was recently told that it was effectively pointless because the liability protection doesn't really hold up as well for SMLLC as it does for Multi-member LLCs. I should have stayed an SP and just had gotten good insurance. I'm essentially wasting $800 on an SMLLC fee in California. Thoughts?
My understanding is that SMLLCs still allow liability for deliberate or negligent torts. It will still protect you from other kinds of tort, which can save your bacon in many situations. $800 is cheap for what could amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars of protection.
If you're at all unclear on which kinds of action you're protected from you need to talk to a lawyer regardless.