|
Jastiger posted:I'm the other way around. Claims seems a bit more up my alley and I'm trying to get into that from Sales. UW seems good, but there are a lot of low, low level jobs and then there are a very super high jobs and not much in between. Claims seems to have a bit more of a career path built in and you can learn a lot more that way. Yea I am an Account Manager in an agency, so I get a nice Salary to be a CSR AND I can sell my own accounts and make what Producers do. I am VERY lucky to be in the agency that I am...they are a VERY good company that gives a lot back to all of us. I worked in Claims and as an Office Manager for State Farm and will never do either for them again...
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 17:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 15:53 |
|
|
I've always been told sales is cake and money once you get your clients. I mean, I could never do it because I am lovely at selling anything. Claims definitely has more variety to it, which leads to more skills and more avenues of advancement. I only deal with personal auto and some homeowner stuff. There are a hundred other types of policies that I don't know anything about. Once you get your foot in the door, I don't see any problem with switching between the various areas because there is always some overlap, where just enough previous experience can carry you into another area. However, I think I would research the companies first. I don't think I'd work for one of the big ones because its just too much. I used to work for a company that had about 7 million customers. That's pretty small but it was overwhelming. Just endless calls and work. I could have worked 100 hours a week if I wanted. I can't imagine working for Geico or something. I now work for a company that has less than a million customers and its so much better. The pay and hours is the same and its still busy but not insane. We also don't deal with high risk people, only members of certain professional groups. So the level of morons and scammers is lower.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 05:53
|
|
|
Once you get set up Sales/Account Manager/Account Executive are the jobs to have. But you hit the ground running pretty loving hard and its a lot of legwork to get to that point. We had a business development position open up that I knew I wasn't going to get and didn't want but kinda went for anyways. Account Exec basically had to turn around a block of lovely brokers and an account exec from another city took it because she wanted to move here. This account exec was set up extremely well and would consistently send stuff in that sold, now I get nothing from her other than "We need x changes to a policy to try and make an inroad with this broker" and she just looks increasingly frustrated as the weeks go by.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 06:09
|
|
|
Sales is all about who you know, like any job where you have to convince people to give you money. Its gravy if you have a large and relatively wealthy clientele. Its 60 hour work weeks if you don't. But when its gravy, its GRAVY. Oh hey, you bought a new house? Sure, I'll insure it and score an easy $200 commission of a basic home policy with my admin assistant doing literally all the work. But it becomes a grind otherwise as you mention above. If you lose a client that is that much more work you need to do to get that income back up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 06:45
|
|
|
Yea if you want to SELL assume that the first 3 years are going to be HARD work. You will be working for commission and busting rear end to make money, but once you have that client base it gets a lot easier. Soon you will see that your clients send you business and before long it multiplies. You have to be dedicated and work hard to get to that point though. I myself have a small book right now of about 100 policies, but 30% of those are commercial. I don't have quite the scramble as being a full producer because I make a good salary, but most of my day is spent doing service work instead of being out selling. It will be a slower climb for me, but it won't be nearly as stressful being a 29 year old pushing to sell insurance all the time. I still stand by working for a smaller company too when it comes to claims or underwriting. State farm, Natinowide, Geico and Progressive just sound like terrible places to work. If I were to do it again I'd definitely aim for ACUITY, Westfield, Grange or State Auto to work for. The few things I've done with each of those companies and the people I've talked to make it sound like the smaller ones are the ones that give the most back to you as a person.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 17:28
|
|
|
OssiansFolly posted:Yea if you want to SELL assume that the first 3 years are going to be HARD work. You will be working for commission and busting rear end to make money, but once you have that client base it gets a lot easier. Soon you will see that your clients send you business and before long it multiplies. You have to be dedicated and work hard to get to that point though. I myself have a small book right now of about 100 policies, but 30% of those are commercial. I don't have quite the scramble as being a full producer because I make a good salary, but most of my day is spent doing service work instead of being out selling. It will be a slower climb for me, but it won't be nearly as stressful being a 29 year old pushing to sell insurance all the time. I'm over at Nationwide and the company seems pretty nice, but I'm over in sales and this part of it sucks. Just high turn over and its the entry level job here. I'm in the main corporate area though so its all call center stuff for the most part on the sales side. I'd be interested in a smaller company for sure once I got more experience in the corporate world. I can imagine it'd be a comparatively sweet gig after this grind.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 17:49
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:I'm over at Nationwide and the company seems pretty nice, but I'm over in sales and this part of it sucks. Just high turn over and its the entry level job here. I'm in the main corporate area though so its all call center stuff for the most part on the sales side. I've learned the big companies don't offer nearly as much as the small ones for the work you do. Even CSR and call center people get treated better at those companies. Once you get the experience I bet if you go somewhere else you will see the difference. The big companies know they will make the money with or without you...the smaller ones know that even that guy answering the phone plays a role in their success.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 17:55
|
|
|
So i've been paying for collision and comp on both of my cars for quite a few years, but as their value drops I'm just not sure I *want* to keep paying for it. I have an 01 Z28 Camaro and an 05 Grand Prix GXP, and I can save almost 500 a year dropping that and sticking with liabilities, which are generous. I just feel like if one car gets totalled, I don't really mind if it doesn't get covered to be fixed since the value is dropping, and I drive the Camaro less than 1k a year anyway. I own them both straight up. Thoughts? Stick with full or?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
Dubious posted:So i've been paying for collision and comp on both of my cars for quite a few years, but as their value drops I'm just not sure I *want* to keep paying for it. That is a loaded question for an insurance agent. For E&O reasons we will rarely give advice like that, BUT I can provide you with information that you can use to make an educated decision. Take each vehicle, and then look up their Blue Book Value (use Dealer Trade In for values). Take the amount that you pay each year for the comprehensive and collision insurance on that vehicle and the deductibles (you'd lose that much on a loss), then subtract that from the vehicle value. If you can look at that number and go "I can lose that", then drop the full coverage. Some other options you may consider: Drop Collision only. Comprehensive is substantially cheaper than Collision coverage. You won't save $500/year but saving $350 makes it sting less. If you only drive the Camaro rarely consider putting it in "storage" coverage while not in use. There would be no Liability coverage while it is in storage and you'd have to speak with an agent to put coverage back on it and drive it. That would be a legit method of decreasing premiums. Just for my own sake I will say that my advice is based on the few states I operate and you should absolutely speak with an agent about your state laws before making these changes...I know my OH, PA, MI, FL and KY laws pretty good, but speaking with your local agent is always the best course of action to protect yourself.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 15:29
|
|
|
An exercise i often do with customers that are unsure is the kbb check and compare it to the costs. It's a good, non bias way of finding out what exactly it is you're paying for. As Ossians said, see how much it's worth minus the deductible and go from there. Everyone values their vehicles differently so it's a choice you have to me. Also be sure to consult your agent before you do remove coverage. It isn't uncommon that comp and collision are required for other benefits like roadside and rental car coverage, and you may not want to automatically lose those.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 15:38
|
|
|
Hey Jastiger/all, trying to get some insight here. Cross posting from another thread: I'm looking up term life @ Zander for 20 years, and a $750,000 policy seems to average about $60-$70/mo. Does anyone have opinions on that? 28 male, overweight currently, quit smoking last November and haven't touched tobacco since. Also does a bad heart valve count as cardiovascular disease? My dad died of a botched surgery from a bad heart valve, but I'm not sure if that counts as their criteria of a parent dying under the age of 60, and especially the additional criteria of cardiovascular disease. Should I just call an agent?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 01:45
|
|
|
Knyteguy posted:Hey Jastiger/all, trying to get some insight here. Cross posting from another thread: I'd call an agent. They'll pull medical records so they'll find out the circumstances with you and your diagnoses. As long as you are clear that your father died from non-natural causes you should be alright to get a policy (Sorry about your dad:( ) $60-70 for $750K isn't bad I'd say for the other criteria you listed. Just make sure its of course locked in, not a variable term policy, and that you know exactly what is expected of you going in.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 02:47
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:I'd call an agent. They'll pull medical records so they'll find out the circumstances with you and your diagnoses. As long as you are clear that your father died from non-natural causes you should be alright to get a policy (Sorry about your dad:( ) OK, I'll call an agent. Thanks for the help.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 03:18
|
|
|
Knyteguy posted:OK, I'll call an agent. Thanks for the help. Try to find a local independent. Those guys typically have more products and companies to work with that may react differently to your situation. Take initial quotes with a grain of salt...the process is to quote you on initial interview, then a medical interview, then a physical with blood and urine, then an underwriter will review that info along with your medical history they will pull, and FINALLY you will get an offer from them. Then and only then will you have a solid number. Remember you are NOT locked in even at this point. You will have a minimum of a 30 day look back period to back out with no loss in money to you once they offer that premium. Good for you quitting smoking though!
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 15:12
|
|
|
My buddy is going out of town for a week, and has a car that he has not insured in Washington yet (he just cancelled his Montana insurance, gonna insure the car when he gets it back). Would there be a relatively easy way to get insurance on it for just a week? I'm guessing the answer is "no."
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 01:42
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:My buddy is going out of town for a week, and has a car that he has not insured in Washington yet (he just cancelled his Montana insurance, gonna insure the car when he gets it back). Would there be a relatively easy way to get insurance on it for just a week? I'm guessing the answer is "no."
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 02:16
|
|
|
SiGmA_X posted:Sign up and cancel a week later. Simple. You can do this but it pisses me off as an agent. Keep a cheap policy on it or keep a garaged policy on it. Week long policies only are offered by not-good companies so there is thay.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 02:46
|
|
|
SiGmA_X posted:Sign up and cancel a week later. Simple. I work in the insurance industry, I'd prefer not to burn any bridges.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 04:06
|
|
|
What about doing that through an agentless service like GEICO online or Progressive Direct? Would that be as badly received?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 04:10
|
|
|
Wickerman posted:What about doing that through an agentless service like GEICO online or Progressive Direct? Would that be as badly received? It still looks bad on your history to bounce around like that, but at least this way you're not screwing any one individual.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 05:53
|
|
|
Wickerman posted:What about doing that through an agentless service like GEICO online or Progressive Direct? Would that be as badly received? To get a little deeper into it for you... When you sign up for insurance the agent/rep will look at your prior carrier report to see who you were with, how long and the limits you carried on that policy. All of those will impact your rates/discounts going into the new policy. If you have a whole week on the prior report you will be leaving longevity discounts, prior carrier discounts and likely impact your insurance score by doing something like that. It is DEFINITELY better than carrying NO insurance for a week, but bouncing around like that will definitely hurt things somewhere... If you are moving and need short term coverage I would recommend that you go with the same carrier for your short term coverage as you plan to use or you currently carry...if you go from State Farm to a short term State Farm policy it will look better because at least you stuck with the same company.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 15:08
|
|
|
OssiansFolly posted:To get a little deeper into it for you... Many of the decent insurance companies report to credit as well. If you have a bunch of little blips on your history bouncing around again and again and again and again it doesn't look good either, and could lower your overall credit report. This isn't a HUGE deal, but does come into play when you DO want to settle down with an insurance company, or make a major financial decision. Lenders look at that history and see someone flaky which doesn't bode well for them, so you get higher rates.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 15:36
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Many of the decent insurance companies report to credit as well. If you have a bunch of little blips on your history bouncing around again and again and again and again it doesn't look good either, and could lower your overall credit report. This isn't a HUGE deal, but does come into play when you DO want to settle down with an insurance company, or make a major financial decision. Lenders look at that history and see someone flaky which doesn't bode well for them, so you get higher rates. Credit hits for insurance are soft hits and shouldn't impact your credit score too negatively if done within a 30 day window. The way soft hits work is if they are all for one thing and performed within a 30 day window all of those hits count as a single hit on your report. They do this because they know people shop and this is a required part of the shopping process. Outside that 30 day window though you are correct that it will absolutely hit your credit to be looking all the time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 16:11
|
|
|
OssiansFolly posted:Credit hits for insurance are soft hits and shouldn't impact your credit score too negatively if done within a 30 day window. The way soft hits work is if they are all for one thing and performed within a 30 day window all of those hits count as a single hit on your report. They do this because they know people shop and this is a required part of the shopping process. Outside that 30 day window though you are correct that it will absolutely hit your credit to be looking all the time. Exactly, they are soft hits like when you apply for a job or are signing up for a cell phone or whatever. The difference is that you actually are binding and then moving time and again, and that is what hurts you. It isn't the shopping, its the signing a contract then immediately renege on that time and again. Absolutely insurance companies are going to ding you, but do it a lot and it can hit credit as well, especially for homeowners. I get so many calls from people that complain their rates are high but their buddies are low, then I look at their history and they've had 6 companies in the past 2 years. Its the equivalent of SQUIRREL! everytime they see a shiny new ad promising low prices.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 16:18
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Exactly, they are soft hits like when you apply for a job or are signing up for a cell phone or whatever. The difference is that you actually are binding and then moving time and again, and that is what hurts you. It isn't the shopping, its the signing a contract then immediately renege on that time and again. Absolutely insurance companies are going to ding you, but do it a lot and it can hit credit as well, especially for homeowners. Yea I tell people that make those calls that comparing your rates to a friends is like comparing an apple to a pinecone. Unless you are LITERALLY the EXACT same person in the EXACT same home the rates will NEVER be comparable. The only time you can compare rates is from one company to another on yourself...
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 16:42
|
|
|
OssiansFolly posted:Yea I tell people that make those calls that comparing your rates to a friends is like comparing an apple to a pinecone. Unless you are LITERALLY the EXACT same person in the EXACT same home the rates will NEVER be comparable. The only time you can compare rates is from one company to another on yourself... Which is why I'm posting all this stuff here, so people can see this and stop calling me with these kinds of mindsets heh, heh.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 16:59
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Which is why I'm posting all this stuff here, so people can see this and stop calling me with these kinds of mindsets heh, heh. Good luck with that...I had a lady call today and complain about her rate increase...her premiums went down $3/term.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 17:39
|
|
|
Two more questions, then: I don't own a car, and want renters insurance (currently live in a house). Are most of the big carriers pretty much the same? And does anyone have any experience with MetroMile? They're a carrier in a few Western states that charge per-mile for insurance, mostly for people who don't drive much. Good idea, or bad idea?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 18:44
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:Two more questions, then: Renters should be fairly inexpensive almost anywhere you go, so the differences should be like $3-5/month. Get renters with a company that you trust and make sure you carry at least $300,000 in Liability. Just be careful with pay as you go type stuff...I've never heard good things about them, but I guess it could work better if you work from home.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
OssiansFolly posted:Renters should be fairly inexpensive almost anywhere you go, so the differences should be like $3-5/month. Get renters with a company that you trust and make sure you carry at least $300,000 in Liability. Agree on both counts. I'd call to a few places for renters though. I find USAA is routinely horrible for property values but GREAT for auto. My USAA renters was going to be $350 a year and every other company was under $200 for example. GEnerally they are pretty close, make sure you grab $300K in liability and make double triple quadruple sure its REPLACEMENT COST on all of your property. None of that ACV nonsense. Personally, any company that is willing to charge by the mile, by the day, or even by the week, is likely not reputable (outside of specialty situations like insurance for sailors or something like that that aren't home a lot). Its shady as hell and will generally screw you if you have anything serious change like you need the policy for longer than you thought or you go over the amount you thought you would. Often times the premiums aren't that different when you compare them, and the utility you get from a monthly policy is worth the ~$5 you would have saved otherwise. Just in my experience.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
I should clarify that MetroMile is a regular insurance company, with a base monthly fee. They just charge a per-mile fee on top of that. They only exist in California, Oregon, Washington, and Illinois, though. I had read about them in this article on TechCrunch. Maybe you guys are right, though they don't sound too shady.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 20:16
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:I should clarify that MetroMile is a regular insurance company, with a base monthly fee. They just charge a per-mile fee on top of that. Oh THAT. That isn't different than the Smartride Nationwide offers or Snapshot that Progressive offers. Not a bad way to go. To clarify, they look at specific aspects of your driving and give you a discount/surcharge based on how you do. Often the discount is applied AFTER the first term so they can get some data on your habits. In CA they DO look at mileage for policies so I could see that being very effective there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Oh THAT. That isn't different than the Smartride Nationwide offers or Snapshot that Progressive offers. Not a bad way to go. This is actually a little different from the Smartride or Snapshot. It is explicitly a per-mile charge, and they don't monitor your driving habits (i.e. how hard you're breaking, if you speed, etc.), just your mileage. The mileage monitor has a GPS device that can be disabled if you choose, even.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:I should clarify that MetroMile is a regular insurance company, with a base monthly fee. They just charge a per-mile fee on top of that. Yea as was stated those are more of a data tool to adjust discounts depending on some variables. MOST of those devices capture mileage, speeds in excess of XX mph (each company is usually different), hard braking and acceleration, time you are driving (like do you dive during major rush hour times or between 12am and 3am), and how long the vehicle is moving. I know that there are quite a few companies that offer those systems now (State Farm, Progressive, Safeco, Nationwide, Allstate and Westfield to name a few).
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
I'm shopping for Home Insurance + Auto for me and my wife and I have almost no way to distinguish between companies. I've never filed a claim for anything, so I don't have anything to go off of. If Liberty Mutual, Nationwide, and Amica are all within 10% in price for me, which should I go with? I'm leaning towards Amica since a former electrician I work with said they were way better and always paid out on time. And they seem to have fewer complaints in Texas than the other companies. Buit I still feel like I'd be making an uninformed decision.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 07:19
|
|
|
Jimmy James posted:I'm shopping for Home Insurance + Auto for me and my wife and I have almost no way to distinguish between companies. I've never filed a claim for anything, so I don't have anything to go off of. You should call me immediately and let me get that sweet commission for a Texas home policy with Nationwide. But really they are all good companies. I know Amica has consistently high customer service ratings and stuff. Nationwide is usually up there too (hem hem). Liberty Mutual I've heard both great things and some not so great things. We routinely beat them on price year over year though on property. Auto its hit or miss. What in particular are you looking for in a company?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:
A company that's going to make money off of me on the front end with the annual fees and due diligence, and not with jailhouse lawyering and stretched headcounts on the claims end of things. I want stability in my costs. I don't want to have to shop my insurance around every couple of years due to fee hikes (like I've had to do with car insurance a few times). I'm the kind of customer that's only going to file claims if something catastrophic happens, so I would want to not have to worry in the event something happens. Because of that, low deductibles are not super important for me. I would think the companies financial health is important because we could be talking about tropical weather which affects thousands, if not millions, of homes in a short period of time. I was also kind of hoping I could find a policy that had good protection for water damage because I still have a small amount of 50+ year old galvanized pipe in the house (I'm going to swap it out, I promise). But after looking around, it looks like almost nobody covers leaks from corroded pipes these days because it's a maintenance issue. I have a separate insurance question. I have a collection that exceeds the covered premiums on most standard home owners insurance policies. Do I need to find a boutique insurer that will insure larger amounts of personal property? The rates the insurers I listed above were pretty high for a collection. I forget the numbers, but it was like 400 bucks a year for a 25,000 dollar collection. When you could get a renters personal property policy for 100 bucks a year that covers at least that much, it seemed disproportionately expensive.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 05:20
|
|
|
Jimmy James posted:A company that's going to make money off of me on the front end with the annual fees and due diligence, and not with jailhouse lawyering and stretched headcounts on the claims end of things. I want stability in my costs. I don't want to have to shop my insurance around every couple of years due to fee hikes (like I've had to do with car insurance a few times). Well all three of the companies you listed are pretty solid financially and have been around for a long while. Fee hikes happen with everyone, the difference is how often they tell you (if they tell you why), and how they are willing to work with you to lower costs. You mentioned tropical weather. Where exactly in Texas are you? This is important, just the city or area around a city is fine. Galvanized pipes man...galvanized pipes...thats an accident waiting to happen. You're making yourself harder to insure when you disclose that:D You'd probably be OK if its a small amount, just be aware, that is a maintenance issue if they leak, not a loss for most policies. I'd probably be writing you an HO5, so you'd likely be OK depending on some minor factors, but that may not be the case with all companies. If its due to corrosion and its just not maintained then you would likely be out either way. Your question: It really depends on the collection. If its a collection of something like guns it shouldn't be that much because guns like that are usually in a safe and are relatively hard to have a total loss on. If its a collection of Ming Dynasty painted Warhammer 40K figurines then yeah, it may get a bit pricier. I insured at $25K ring for $309 a year just the other day on an inland marine policy and thats not really that bad for a brand new ring that isn't locked up. The reason your renters property policy (and homeowners too) is so low for large amounts of stuff is because they aren't specific. Its different to insure a living room set than the aforementioned Warhammer figurines because the figurines are more valuable and harder to replace than the 46" TV you picked up last black friday. When you add specificity it gets more expensive no matter what you do. Having said that, most major insurers should be able to bundle something like that in with your homeowners and a lot of companies require it, so wherever you're going to end up for home insurance, I'd just bundle it up with it. Unless your collectables are super super specific and you DO need a boutique type outfit. What is it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 16:50
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:You mentioned tropical weather. Where exactly in Texas are you? I live in Houston. I don't live in one of the mandatory evacuation zones, but I am south of the city center. And State Farm actually refuses to insure any zip codes south of highway 59 due to tropical storm risks. My house isn't an actual flood risk, so I don't plan on getting flood insurance. The house is 75 years old and has never flooded. It is a few feet higher in elevation than any houses that ever have as well. I collect European coins from WWI all the way back to the 1600s or so. 75%+ of their value is collectible value and not precious metals value. My coins are rare enough that it would take months and years to replace it, if I even tried. If it got lost, it probably wouldn't be worth trying. I would just want to get fair market value for it and try to get on with my life. I would think that, if stolen, collections that unusual have a high recovery rate since most of the objects are easily identifiable. Edit: What's the difference between damage caused by deterioration and damage due to lack of maintenance? Most stuff needs to be maintained due to deterioration. Jimmy James fucked around with this message at 19:10 on Dec 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 15:53 |
|
|
Jimmy James posted:I live in Houston. I don't live in one of the mandatory evacuation zones, but I am south of the city center. And State Farm actually refuses to insure any zip codes south of highway 59 due to tropical storm risks. My house isn't an actual flood risk, so I don't plan on getting flood insurance. The house is 75 years old and has never flooded. It is a few feet higher in elevation than any houses that ever have as well. Yeah if you're in the Southern part of Houston Nationwide is going to have similar restrictions and you'll want to go to a local guy. Remember, flood doesn't mean it'd avoid you just because you're higher. You're less likely to have standing water like you see in the news clips, but if you have a downpour and the ground can't take it or becomes water logged, you're just as liable as the next guy to get a flood. Not saying you HAVE to get flood, but don't think you're immune because you're higher. Dang for a set like that, yeah $400 isn't unreasonable. And if you had a loss on that and someone knew what they were doing to pawn them, its unlikely you'd recover those, man. That is if they are stolen. If they are lost or destroyed, you'd just want the market value. Get em appraised and get em on an inland marine policy or attached to your homeowners as a scheduled item. Your edit: Well nothing really. If you have a roof and you refuse to reshingle it and you ignore the sagging parts, its not covered. You had a loss due to neglect of maintenance and it deteriorated, not covered. Just like the pipes. You know there are leaks, you did not fix the leaks, and then you had a Big Leak. Not covered. Wear and tear is warranty stuff, event based losses are insurance things. Now it gets blurry when you have poorly maintained stuff that suffers an event loss because it wasn't maintained. That is where your company may fight you on it if they determine that the loss would have been avoided if you had properly maintained it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 20:12
|
|