What value is "worth" insuring?

[FightGravity]

After 6 years of marriage, I finally got my rings appraised so I can insure them, but now I'm having second thoughts. We could easily afford to replace both rings if they were lost or damaged (I don't know that I would decide it was worth spending the money if faced with that, but we could definitely afford it).

Is it worth insuring in this scenario? Or just put the funds I would use to pay premiums in a bling fund instead?

What value is your baseline for insuring? Or do you insure everything (or nothing!)?

 

[distracts]

My baseline is what I can't easily afford to replace without affecting necessary expenses or savings.

 

[rubybeth]

If you can easily afford to replace and wouldn't mind paying that amount to replace, then insurance may either be not needed, or it might be very cheap and just offer peace of mind. For example, when DH and I got married, we got all our rings insured (my e-ring, and both our wedding bands). Total value was under around $3k, so I think it cost about $20/year to insure. Flash forward a few years and my husband had to have his wedding band cut off his finger (injury caused swelling and doctor couldn't treat with the ring on). Insurance paid to repair the whole thing, saving us around $150. We got way more out of that cheap policy to get that ring repaired, that's for sure!

 

[whitewave]

I insured my 12k ring for the replacement cost of 22k. It's 120.00 a year. As I am buying more, I will go get two more policies because if we get robbed, it would cost more than I am willing to pay to replace everything.

 

[ChristineRose]

Insurance is always a losing game for the consumer. The company will never pay out more than it takes in. But that's for all their customers, not just you.

From your point of view, you are trading a small risk of a large loss for a small but certain loss. Whether or not it is worth it depends on you can and want to do if the piece is lost.

If you lost your ring would you replace it? Would you want a ring of similar or greater value? Would the expense hurt your finances? Would you feel bad and not replace the ring but feel better if you got a cash payout?

You really have to crunch some numbers, and that includes speculating on how likely a loss is and how willing you are to accept it. But the general rule is not to insurance anything you can afford to replace without insurance.

 

[FightGravity]

Insurance is always a losing game for the consumer. The company will never pay out more than it takes in. But that's for all their customers, not just you.

From your point of view, you are trading a small risk of a large loss for a small but certain loss. Whether or not it is worth it depends on you can and want to do if the piece is lost.

If you lost your ring would you replace it? Would you want a ring of similar or greater value? Would the expense hurt your finances? Would you feel bad and not replace the ring but feel better if you got a cash payout?

You really have to crunch some numbers, and that includes speculating on how likely a loss is and how willing you are to accept it. But the general rule is not to insurance anything you can afford to replace without insurance.

If I lost both rings, we can afford that replacement financially no problem; mentally, shelling out that much is a different story.

While I would love at some point to have a big oec solitaire (and the payout would probably be enough to get me to the size range I want) I'm never going to spend the money on it, and realistically I'd replace with a blingy 5 stone (for maybe a third of the total amount), keep the difference, and leave it at that. Without insurance I'd just buy the 5 stone - I would not be able to stomach paying out the total if I made a mistake and lost/damaged my rings. The risk of robbery is (I think) very low.

I don't know how to estimate the probability of damage, but I agree that insurance is a better deal for the insurer over the average insured!

 

[sonnyjane]

My premium is so low that I don't mind much. I have three pieces insured with JM for less than $100 annually. If I were to lose, damage, or be robbed of them, we *could* replace them, but would have to sacrifice other things and because of that I'm not sure that I would.

 

[kenny]

Whatever value YOU feel is worth insuring.

People vary.

I buy no insurance that is not required by law.

 

[Rockdiamond]

I agree with those that say insurance is like a casino- the providers know the odds going in. And they're stacked against you.
In spite of this I can attest to the value of the right jewelry insurance, in certain circumstances.
Say you have an expensive setting.
Say you damage the setting.
In many cases a setting can be repaired. If it's done very well, you might not even be able to see it was ever repaired.
But repeated repairs will weaken a ring- especially in the case of pavé.
We've had clients who had Jewelers Mutual coverage. I found JM to be far more knowledgeable than your typical insurance adjuster.
We were able to demonstrate that the damage, if repaired, would leave the ring in a weakened state. In a case where a repair was feasible, they allowed the client a new ring.
So it's not just about loss.]]
ETA- FightGravity- your setting looks less likely to suffer the type of damage I was referring to, if that matters

 

[Dancing Fire]

I can't afford the insurance. Besides, where should I draw the line? Do I insure our rings or my watches?. and then you must update with a new appraisal every few yrs? . IMO, just waste of money.

 

[rubybeth]

FightGravity, I wonder if you got a "feel good" appraisal and if you've looked for comps online to see actual replacement cost. Keep in mind that most appraisals are inflated, and that does you no good from an insurance perspective--you pay more to insure a piece, and when it is lost/stolen/damaged, the insurer merely works directly with a vendor to pay less than retail anyway. So it's better to have a "real world" appraisal for replacement, and not an inflated "feel good" appraisal. Then, you pay less and no more than you really need.

It sounds like it might be more comforting to have insurance. Have you gotten some quotes (with your homeowners insurance or Jewelers Mutual)? For me, I think my total jewelry insurance for the year is around $100 (I have my diamond studs insured, along with my 5-stone and a few other significant pieces). I could definitely "afford" to replace any of my jewelry at this point in our lives, but I'd feel bad about spending that money on jewelry when we have other priorities.

 

[FightGravity]

FightGravity, I wonder if you got a "feel good" appraisal and if you've looked for comps online to see actual replacement cost. Keep in mind that most appraisals are inflated, and that does you no good from an insurance perspective--you pay more to insure a piece, and when it is lost/stolen/damaged, the insurer merely works directly with a vendor to pay less than retail anyway. So it's better to have a "real world" appraisal for replacement, and not an inflated "feel good" appraisal. Then, you pay less and no more than you really need.

It sounds like it might be more comforting to have insurance. Have you gotten some quotes (with your homeowners insurance or Jewelers Mutual)? For me, I think my total jewelry insurance for the year is around $100 (I have my diamond studs insured, along with my 5-stone and a few other significant pieces). I could definitely "afford" to replace any of my jewelry at this point in our lives, but I'd feel bad about spending that money on jewelry when we have other priorities.

I don't think it's an inflated appraisal - I checked comps and it looks pretty accurate. I haven't checked yet to see what the insurance cost would be, and you're right, it makes sense to do that first.

ETA: I know part of why this feels complicated for me is the fact that my wedding band and the center stone are both family heirlooms, and my setting was made by a goldsmith friend, now retired, at cost as a wedding present - so our total investment was about $2.5k, and much of the value in the pieces is sentimental, and irreplaceable even with insurance.

 

[PierreBear]

Hello! I asked a similar question in a different thread and am going through the same discussions with my husband. In addition to considering what value is "worth" insuring, we were also factoring the durability of the ring and the chance of damaging. We decided to keep the ering insured but not the 5 stone band. However, this doesn't address a ring being lost/stolen though, which can be in any situation whether of how the ring is constructed. I think those chances are lower but you just never know. Hope you circle back and share what you decided to do.

 

[RaiKai]

In deciding to insure a piece I look at whether, if I lost or damaged that piece, I would:

1. Want to replace it; and
2. Be able to easily replace it (and/or want to) from my own funds (self-insuring).

If the answer to 1 is Yes, and 2 is No, then I insure.

If the answer to 1 and 2 is both Yes, then I don't insure.

If the answer to 1 is No, then I don't insure.

My antique ring in my avatar is insured. As is my art deco dinner ring. My answer for both of those items in my little questionnaire above was Yes to 1, and No to 2. I know neither can be replaced exactly in the same sense as both are antiques, but I would rather have insurance to help me replace them with something than just wave goodbye to them and what value *I* ascribe to them (whether it is what I paid for them, or how I enjoy wearing them day to day, etc). I have these rings specifically insured under Jeweler's Mutual.

For items that I could replace with my own funds, or would not want or care to replace if something happened to them, I don't separately insure (depending on the loss/damage they may fall under my homeowners, or they may not, but I am not too worried about it).

Since you raised the sentimental aspect...as an example, I have some very sentimentally valuable, but not very monetarily valuable pieces (mostly just heirloom pieces) that I don't separately insure as while I could afford to replace the item with something similar if I hunted around on antique/vintage sites I could not replace the sentimental aspect which is what is important to me. So for those, my answer to my questionnaire was a mixed Yes/No to 1, as I would ideally want to replace them, but I practically couldn't really replace them in a way that made them "valuable" to me again, if that makes sense?

Now and then I pick up little baubles on LT or DB or whatever that I also just don't bother to insure. They are more just for fun and if something happened to them, I would either not bother replacing it, or would just get something else entirely. I am just not that attached to them.

I HAVE made a loss claim for a ring before, and I was very glad to have insurance (via Jeweler's Mutual) when it happened. It is personal preference, but I am someone who regularly insures against various risks in my life if to it makes sense to do so, and so to do so for certain jewelery is no different.

 

[Rivendell]

I've insured mine although it pains me to pay the premium