Collection and home owner's insurance

Well, technically, insurance does not transfer the risk to the insurance company. Think about this for a moment. What exactly is the risk we're talking about here? This is property insurance and the risk is that of loss. Something is lost in a fire or it is stolen (we'd better not get into natural disasters--just go read the fine print).

Just because you have insurance, it does not change the chance that your house will burn down or your .32 long master peashooter will get stolen. It has no effect on that at all. What happens is that the risk is shared by means of everyone paying a premium for their insurance. There's a lot more to it than that but that should suggest to you that insurance only works when lots of people have it. There's also the concept of risk pools that reduces the exposure that a single insurer bears (because not everyone buys insurance from the same company). Then of course, some things no insurance company will cover because only high risk people would buy it, like flood insurance.

This might be a good place to ask if liability insurance might cover the legal fees incurred defending yourself in a self-defense shooting.
 
I choose not to buy additional insurance for my guns or valuables. I'd rather invest in a better safe. I couldn't replace much of what I have - insurance money isn't going to help me there. Plus, I'm done fighting with insurance companies. Other than HO insurance, medical insurance and some limited life insurance, I'm sworn off of insurance. Its standard operating procedure for an insurance company to do whatever it can to deny, delay, and negotiate and minimize your claim.

I know that I'm going against the grain here, but it's my decision to make, and it is an informed decision.
 
I hate to always be defending corporate interests here (since I know everyone here is anti-business) but insurance companies aren't quite that bad and I've had some experience with them.

A few years ago there was a rather bad and unusual hailstorm in our neck of the woods. A few months later we happened to notice an unusual amount of home repair going on in the neighborhood, things like roofs and siding being replaced. After asking around, it was stuff being replaced because of the storm damage. So we called our friend, the insurance agent.

At least for homeowners insurance, there was no deadline to file a claim and an adjuster was out within the week. We had the roof and siding replaced without any cost to ourselves. But just the same, we've had one claim turned down (read the fine print) and as far as health insurance goes, if I were you, I wouldn't get sick.
 
At least with my homeowners' insurance company, to add a rider for cameras, jewelry, firearms, or anything like that requires giving them a complete inventory of the items to be insured, along with an independent appraisal of current value. Since I have some older SLR cameras that are irreplaceable, getting an appraisal on replacement value was impossible.

As to the notion of giving anyone a list of what firearms I own -- forget it. Unless you have a VERY large/valuable collection, Collectors Insurance does not require an itemized inventory.
 
I keep hearing about companies that require the serial numbers of guns being insured. I've never run into that myself.

I suspect what is going on is that the guns are being insured under some sort of scheduled personal propery rider. Scheduled property means that there is coverage for specified individual items and the premium is determined by the value of whatever is being insured. For instance, someone might schedule valuable jewelry (ie. a gold Rolex) which would probably require an appraisal, photos and a serial number. Scheduled property generally is assigned a stated-value which is paid in the event of a loss as opposed to being paid actual cash value or replacement cost.

I suggest checking into a general rider for sporting equipment. I'm pretty sure most of the major insurers offer this. This is what I have. Such a rider simply expands the cap on coverage for categories of equipment and does not require disclosure of serial numbers, appraisals and photos to the insurer.

--

Someone mentioned that they would prefer to invest in a good safe rather than insurance. In reality, the type of coverage you have may tell you what kind of safe you need. My own policy covers my guns 100% (up to my contents limits, and less my deductible) in the event of fire. But it is capped at $5,000 for theft. So, technically, I need to be more concerned about theft than fire.

I happen to have a fire-proof safe. If I had it to do over again, I'd buy one that wasn't. Fire-proofing only protects contents for a little while. I have never seen a fireproof safe that adequately protected its contents in the event of a major fire. Paper and wood will ignite after awhile in a fire-proof safe, and plastic will melt. (I've seen this, up close, during fire Cause and Origin Inspections.) So if that will happen in a fire proof safe, why buy one if you have full coverage in the event of fire? You aren't going to want to keep burned or melted stuff anyway. In a serious fire, the average fireproof safe isn't going to offer that much more protection than a non-fireproof safe.

Fire-proofing can add hundreds of dollars to the cost of a safe, and hundreds of pounds. The weight may be the difference between a safe you can put inside your house, or one you have to keep in the garage. The price may be the difference that between a safe that is fireprood but offers inadequate theft "proofness" and one that is not fire proof but is a virtual bank vault.

People have their preferences. After working for so long in the insurance business, that's my perspective.
 
The next time I have some extra money to upgrade to a different safe, I will be looking for one that has 1/4" steel body and has a TL-30 UL theft rating. I'd rather not have the fire protection. I live in a block house - and other than the roof trusses, and some furring strips there is little wood to burn and I'm not too concerned about fire - that's a chance I'm willing to take.
 
Had a chat with my agent today.

After reading my policy, I saw no specific mention of firearms. I saw precious metals, heirlooms and jewelry specifically mentioned, but nothing about firearms.

Turns out that Germania considers a firearm as part of my "personal property" and is handled as such if a loss occurs. No need to declare, just need proof of ownership if needed.

And in talking with my agent about my coverage limitations, I added $30K to the personal property limits, $30K to the dwelling and $10K to the out buildings for a grand total of $92/year.

Next fall, I will sit down with my agent and adjust accordingly.
 
Someone mentioned that they would prefer to invest in a good safe rather than insurance
Click to expand...
Or you could always do both. :)

I have done business with CollectInsure and Eastern insurance. Each one's premium is 1% (or less) of actual insured value. I will continue to insure with them.

But I also have a safe, an alarm, and dogs.... :)
 
I suspect what is going on is that the guns are being insured under some sort of scheduled personal propery rider. Scheduled property means that there is coverage for specified individual items and the premium is determined by the value of whatever is being insured. For instance, someone might schedule valuable jewelry (ie. a gold Rolex) which would probably require an appraisal, photos and a serial number. Scheduled property generally is assigned a stated-value which is paid in the event of a loss as opposed to being paid actual cash value or replacement cost.
Click to expand...

That is correct for certain collectables with my insurance company. That was my experience with my photo equipment as the main items (cost wise) were specifically listed. I do not insure my firearms for theft. I take care of that myself. You roll the dice and sometimes your number comes up....

What good does it do to insure what was a $400 gun where run of the mill versions are $1000 now when the actual value is more like $5,000 due to details? The devil is always in the details.

I am in general very anti-insurance. I take responsibility for myself and accept the consequences when it comes to theft. I feel a little differently when it is fire damage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top