Good Price for Jewelry Insurance?

[Jambalaya]

OK, it's that time of year again. Renewing my home contents insurance along with a jewelry policy (bundled together). For the jewelry portion only, do you think that $100 per month is a fair price to insure $75k worth of jewelry? That's what it works out at. I don't want to start the Great Jewelry Insurance debate - let's assume that I'm clear in my own mind that I do want to insure, and for this amount.

I have no idea what others pay. It's a blanket policy, the cut-you-a-check type. Saves me the hassle of itemizing everything.

So it's $16 per 1k of coverage. Fair price? Or no? Thanks for letting me know any of your experiences with premiums! You don't have to say what you pay - I'd just like to know how this stacks up against what others with jewelry insurance pay.

 

[ame]

That seems plenty fair to me. Regionally driven valuation is also part of it, I am sure. And cash out--definitely.

 

[distracts]

That seems fair to me as well, especially since it's a cash-out policy.

 

[kenny]

I self-insure
Cost: zero.

I do this with every not-legally-mandated insurance.
I also reject those 'extended warranties' offered to me by most sellers of gizmos, houses and cars.
When the mortgage is paid off I'll stop insuring the house too ... most of the what the house is worth is not in the house at all but in the location of the dirt ... not what's on the dirt.

So far so good.
All those premiums that I've never paid have been invested and are generating income.
If I ever experience a loss I'll just write a check from this to cover it.
There is only a tiny chance there WILL be a loss.
But companies know that people (well, nearly all people) easily fall victims to fear, the most powerful human emotion.

I'm not much for that fear stuff.

I enjoy peace of mind because I don't entertain fear.
People who let fear in have to PAY for insurance to enjoy the exact same peace of mind.

 

[Jambalaya]

So since you don't insure, you wouldn't be the best person to ask about jewelry premiums, Kenny, but I hear you on the fear factor. Interesting to learn that at least two others think the premiums are a fair price. Any others with experience of these costs?

 

[UrsTx]

It's a better rate than my insurance premium. My rate is about $21/1k of covg - not a cash out policy and is not a part of my homeowners policy.

 

[Tacori E-ring]

Sounds fair to me. I am a fear based person so love insurance (all types) Having actually used my jewelry insurance policy, I am even more of a fan. The cash really does help heal the loss.

 

[Dancing Fire]

I self-insure
Cost: zero.

I do this with every not-legally-mandated insurance.
I also reject those 'extended warranties' offered to me by most sellers of gizmos, houses and cars.
When the mortgage is paid off I'll stop insuring the house too ... most of the what the house is worth is not in the house at all but in the location of the dirt ... not what's on the dirt.

We have a severe drought here in California and some people still purchase flood insurance... as for jewelry ...I can't afford the $270 per $10K coverage...

 

[ckrickett]

seems fair.


I am so torn with insurance. for appliances I will get extended. I know its a bit of a bummer but when I need it I need it. and some of my appliances are EXTREMELY pricy (hello almost $4k cook top), for other things I like the bare minimum, or none at all if I am feeling trusting.

 

[jordyonbass]

As someone who has worked in the Aussie insurance industry and seen many people get rejected by red tape, policy and process - here are a few recommendations/tips:

1. READ YOUR POLICY CAREFULLY!!!! I can't stress this enough as this is where you may find out that certain items need to be individually listed on your insurance policy. Not listed = kiss it and it's value goodbye.

2. BE AWARE OF MAXIMUM PAYOUT: although you have your jewelry listed, the insurer may have a maximum payout amount for jewelry items. You'll want to know this as even if your jewelry is worth 50k - of your policy says maximum of $5k then that's all you can get.

3. INSURER LIABILITY: The amount you paid for the item is not necessarily equal to the amount the insurer is liable to payout. If you are not willing to accept their replacement item then they will offer a cash settlement based off their own quotes. Don't be surprised if they can get your same ring for only half the price you have. But when you think about it, that is kind of fair; they are essentially saying 'I can replace this for x amount, if you won't take the replacement then I will give you x amount'. It's surprising how many people are upset by this policy as they expect to get the RRP reimbursement, which just isn't going to happen if the insurer can find

Not all policies are created equally, different policies and providers have different strictness on policies and you'll generally find the more it costs, the less stringent the requirements. So pick the best one that suits you!!

 

[ame]

I self-insure
Cost: zero.

I do this with every not-legally-mandated insurance.
I also reject those 'extended warranties' offered to me by most sellers of gizmos, houses and cars.
When the mortgage is paid off I'll stop insuring the house too ... most of the what the house is worth is not in the house at all but in the location of the dirt ... not what's on the dirt.

We have a severe drought here in California and some people still purchase flood insurance... as for jewelry ...I can't afford the $270 per $10K coverage...

If you guys end up getting some deluge of rain from a weather pattern change, that drought will turn into a flash flood in a heartbeat, so it's not that whacko of an investment.

 

[Jambalaya]

Thank you so much for everyone's advice and opinion - especially Jordy for typing all that out! Awesome!! Much appreciated.

Excellent point, Ame, about the flood/drought relationship. I've never been flooded but it looks heartbreaking. Pretty much everything in your house caked in mud and ruined, and no quick fix as you have to wait for a very wet house to dry out - and unlike a fire, where you can exit the house to a safe distance, a flood is likely to be everywhere around you. I feel so bad for those poor people in Texas.

 

[ame]

Been through it TWICE now, and we're even up high. It can happen to ANYONE.

 

[Jambalaya]

Been through it TWICE now, and we're even up high. It can happen to ANYONE.

Oh my God, ame, how awful. Did you have to replace all your possessions? Hope you had good insurance. When you say you're up high, do you mean your house is on high ground, or that you live in a condo a floor or two up? How did you get flooded?

 

[Dancing Fire]

I self-insure
Cost: zero.

I do this with every not-legally-mandated insurance.
I also reject those 'extended warranties' offered to me by most sellers of gizmos, houses and cars.
When the mortgage is paid off I'll stop insuring the house too ... most of the what the house is worth is not in the house at all but in the location of the dirt ... not what's on the dirt.

We have a severe drought here in California and some people still purchase flood insurance... as for jewelry ...I can't afford the $270 per $10K coverage...

If you guys end up getting some deluge of rain from a weather pattern change, that drought will turn into a flash flood in a heartbeat, so it's not that whacko of an investment.

I fear of an earthquake hitting our area more than flood. I remember about 15 yrs ago it rained for like 12 straight days and I wasn't afraid then not gonna be afraid now, but you live in a different part of the country.

 

[diamondringlover]

I think mine runs about $12-$15 per thousand..but I am sure premiums are based on where you live.

 

[kenny]

I 'self-insure'.
Cost: zero.

If there is was loss I'd pay out of pocket for a replacement, or more likely just shed 4 tears and then let it go and be happy for the years that I got to enjoy the bauble.

Chances of a loss: nearly zero.
Chances of coming out ahead; nearly 100%.

Not insuring is a gamble.
But insuring is a gamble too.
You're betting there will be a loss.
The insurance company is betting there won't be.
Problem is THEY set the premium to cover ALL losses PLUS pay for all their employees, fancy buildings, health insurance for employees 401Ks, then trillions in profits so their CEO's daughters can get a new Prosche when hers gets dirty.
Odd are with the house.

But you don't have to operate out of fear and gamble.

Have I ever had a loss? NO.
All that money I have not spent on non-mandatory insurance, not-bought extended warranties, etc., has been invested and has been growing over a lifetime.

The only loss I fear is loss of all that the money I'd waste on insurance premiums.
Keeping the money I'd otherwise waste gives me great peace of mind.

 

[Jambalaya]

Thanks, Kenny. As you know, people vary. So operating on the assumption that a person does want to insure, because they have their own reasons, I think that $16 per 1k of coverage seems fair. I guess anyone with experience of these premiums who is going to reply has done so, but are there any more for any more?

 

[kenny]

Thanks, Kenny. As you know, people vary. So operating on the assumption that a person does want to insure, because they have their own reasons, I think that $16 per 1k of coverage seems fair. I guess anyone with experience of these premiums who is going to reply has done so, but are there any more for any more?

Definitely.
If you like it buy insurance.

Not a peep in my post that what I do is right for others, or that others should not buy insurance.

That's the elephant in the room, people assuming your what you say is groovy for you is by definition a sermon that everyone else should adopt your way.
IOW, I'm just adding another choice to the table, not pushing other choices off the table.

But when you truly get that people vary others stating what they like is not a threat or interpreted as a sermon.
It's nice that there is rarely one single right way that applies to everyone.

 

[Tacori E-ring]

Thanks, Kenny. As you know, people vary. So operating on the assumption that a person does want to insure, because they have their own reasons, I think that $16 per 1k of coverage seems fair. I guess anyone with experience of these premiums who is going to reply has done so, but are there any more for any more?

Definitely.
If you like it buy insurance.

Not a peep in my post that what I do is right for others, or that others should not buy insurance.

That's the elephant in the room, people assuming your what you say is groovy for you is by definition a sermon that everyone else should adopt your way.
IOW, I'm just adding another choice to the table, not pushing other choices off the table.

But when you truly get that people vary others stating what they like is not a threat or interpreted as a sermon.
It's nice that there is rarely one single right way that applies to everyone.

Not sure if you noticed but you posted an almost identical post two days ago. So may feel you are pushing your POV on others.

 

[chrono]

Another consideration is the difficulty in making claims and getting reimbursed or cash out. It is one thing to insure, it is another thing to get what you think you paid for (fine print in the policy and etc). Making a claim is uncommon because understandably, nobody wants a loss or damaged item but it seems that the consumer has to have all their ducks lined in a row and even then, not all goes as expected or without a fight.

 

[Jambalaya]

Thank you for everyone's input and also advice about the $16/$1k premium!

 

[House Cat]

I self-insure
Cost: zero.

I do this with every not-legally-mandated insurance.
I also reject those 'extended warranties' offered to me by most sellers of gizmos, houses and cars.
When the mortgage is paid off I'll stop insuring the house too ... most of the what the house is worth is not in the house at all but in the location of the dirt ... not what's on the dirt.

We have a severe drought here in California and some people still purchase flood insurance... as for jewelry ...I can't afford the $270 per $10K coverage...

We had a severe drought right before all of the flooding in Sacramento DF, what was that? In 1996 or 1997? I remember how many people were flooded out of their homes. I worked for an insurance company at the time who was handling a huge amount of the claims and had to fly in special catastrophic teams of insurance agents just to handle them.

Droughts don't last forever and floods do happen. We live in one of the worst flood areas in the nation, second only to New Orleans. You and I might not be in the path, but the people over in Natomas and Rio Linda are sitting ducks.

 

[Dancing Fire]

[quote="House Cat|
We had a severe drought right before all of the flooding in Sacramento DF, what was that? In 1996 or 1997? I remember how many people were flooded out of their homes. I worked for an insurance company at the time who was handling a huge amount of the claims and had to fly in special catastrophic teams of insurance agents just to handle them.

Droughts don't last forever and floods do happen. We live in one of the worst flood areas in the nation, second only to New Orleans. You and I might not be in the path, but the people over in Natomas and Rio Linda are sitting ducks.[/quote]


Yes I'd remember (97?) it rained for like 12 straight days almost non stop but the water barely touched my front lawn. It could have rained for another week and still wouldn't have reached my front door. Natomas and Rio Linda are high risk areas, and that is the reason why their flood insurance premium is through the roof.