Insurance: Her Policy or Mine?

[adh]

I am close to buying an engagement ring for my girlfriend but I want to get this insurance thing taken care of before I make a move. I have a question that I could not find an answer to on the forum:

I own a condo (insured) and she lives in an apartment (not sure if she has renter's insurance, though I doubt it...should probably figure this out...discreetly, of course). Anyway, I am looking at three scenarious here:

1) Rider on my policy
2) Rider on her renter's if she has it
3) Stand-alone policy for the ring

Second, we live in different states, for now, so why would an insurance company insure it under my condo policy? If it's a stand-alone policy, who's name is it under, and is it insured for the city in which the RING resides, not me?

Thanks for the input.

 

[zdrastvootya]

I''m not an insurance expert, but here''s what my insurance co. told me:

You can insure the ring on your policy before you give it to her.

Once you give it to her, it needs to go on her insurance unless you live together.

My fiancee lives at home and they rent the house from one of the brothers, who doesn''t live there, but whose name the insurance is in. I''m not sure how the contents are covered when the insurance is in his name instead of the people who live in the house. He kind of flipped when he found out how much it was to insure the e-ring. I offered to pay for the additional insurance. My fiancee wouldn''t believe that the insurance would cover the ring outside the house. The insurance agent laughed at me and tried to talk me into buying a non-diamond replica ring. With all this resistance, I''m holding out to when she moves in with me and I''ll get the ring added to my policy. Meanwhile, I''m keeping my fingers crossed.

(Sorry, devolved into a rant there.)

Make sure you check into the replacement policy on the ring. You may not have much choice on where you buy the replacement, or how picky you can be on the replacement. I hear Chubb is good, if you can find an agent who''s willing.

Z.

 

[denverappraiser]

Andrew,

Great question.

Insurance is a pretty competitive business and there are quite a few different products on the market that are superficially similar. Make sure to read the fine print in the section about how claims will be handled. This can make a difference of 2-3x in the price depending on what you decide you want. Use the search box at the top right hand corner for ‘insurance’ and you should get plenty to read about on this topic.

Personal property is insured on what the companies call ‘inland marine’ type policies. The PP component of your insurance policy actually has separate rules from the insurance on the building, even though you bought them as a bundle. Renters policies are pretty much the same program, and from the same companies as the homeowners policies but without the building.

As long as the owner of the policy can with a straight face claim to be the owner of the property, it won’t matter which one you go with. In theory, a company could limit their loses that occur in certain states but, in practice, I’ve never heard of such a thing so I don’t think this will be a deciding issue. Your agent should be able to tell you if there are any restrictions on insuring property that primarily located in another state as well as answer the question about who is the 'owner' of the ring and whether this has an effect on their policy.

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ISA NAJA
Independent Appraisals in Denver

 

[WinkHPD]

Or you could go with a Jewelers Mutual policy which allows you to pay the premium and to tell them who will be wearing the ring and where. They will charge you the premium based on the state where the wearer lives.

You can get these policies with jewelers who are insured by Jewelers Mutual. The jeweler makes nothing on the sale of the policy, but you will be sent directly to the selling jeweler for replacement, no traipsing around to three different jewelers for quotes.

You can ask the person you are buying the ring from if they are covered by JM or not. If they are it is a very convenient way to get coverage.

Wink

 

[ICAA]

I just insured an engagement ring on Friday and my findings were as follows:

When you hold the ring, prior to actually giving it to her, you should insure it under your policy.

Once you give it to her, you should have her insure it under her policy as it is no longer "yours".

Make sure you have a "mysterious disappearance" clause as many people make the mistake of assuming their home/apartment policy will cover the ring under all perils. A regular policy will not cover it as soon as it leaves the apartment in your pocket, her finger, etc.

Also, the item must be scheduled as a regular policy has a fairly low limit for jewellery items specifically. The general rule of thumb is anything over $5,000 should be scheduled (at least in Canadian dollars, I am sure there is a US rule of thumb).

The problem with her having to insure it is that she has to discuss with her insurance agent and therefore know the appraised value, if that is an issue.

 

[denverappraiser]

Here’s a random digression for people here who are into such things. Adh, I apologize for hijacking your thread and please feel free to chime in if your question wasn’t sufficiently answered above.

There’s an interesting body of law surrounding this topic. Courts have decided that an engagement ring actually belongs to the man until the day of the wedding under the logic that this is part of a contractual relationship that isn’t complete until the actual marriage. By receiving the ring, the woman has agreed to marry but, until she actually does it, the contract is not complete. At the point that they become married, the ring then becomes the property of the woman, until then it’s a loan. It turns out that with expensive items this is an important detail. Gifts from boyfriends of over $11,000/year must be reported as taxable income while gifts from a husband have no limit. Were this not to be the rule, an expensive engagement ring would come along with a substantial tax burden for the recipient.

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ISA NAJA
Independent Appraisals in Denver

 

[baltneu]

I insured the ring under my policy, no change since she is wearing it, and does not live with me. BUT.........

Interestingly enough, when the rider was complete, it was billed in both names! Still under my policy.

Denver--- I think you are correct about who owns the ring, my carrier asked me if she lives with me, I said no, perhpas that is why it is in both names, also interesting, they wanted to know her name.

 

[adh]

Neil,

Thanks for your interesting insight on this matter. This was actually something that I wondered about and now that you meantion it, it makes perfect sense. The "marriage contract" does not begin until the marriage licenses are obtained and the couple becomes a legal entity, until that time, an engaged couple is no better than two single people in the eyes of much of the law.

It sounds like, in my case, that it may just be easier to go with insurance seperate from my homeowner''s or her renter''s (which I found out does not exist). Since I own the ring and she would be wearing it in another state it just makes me a bit worried about collecting on a claim in my name. I could see the insurance company telling me to go pound sand since I basically "loaned" the ring to someone not covered under my policy. Perhaps I am still ignorant of how this situation works but it just sounds like going with JM or Chubb seems to be the best option for peace of mind.

As a side note, we both live in probably the two most expensive-to-insure counties in the US...ughhh.