|
At what point does it make sense to purchase an umbrella policy? My husband and I are in our 30s, no kids and no plans for kids. We don't have what I consider a high net worth, but we're building up our assets and we both got substantial raises this year. My parents and our financial advisor have both said it'd be a good policy to have. At some point I know it'll make sense, my parents have about $450k in a living trust for me, so on top of our other assets that would push us over our liability limits. Neither of us are really in high risk careers. Our liability limits for auto are 300/500/300 and we have 500 for homeowners. I tried to get a quote with USAA, we do everything else through them, but they said they can't underwrite an umbrella because we have a Rottweiler. I can start shopping around but is this going to be an issue for most companies? Would it make more sense just to max our our limits on the existing policies and skip the umbrella?
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 21:22 |
|
|
Tbh this is my bias, but I'd say if you want the best rates drop the rottweiler. But that likely isn't an option since you love your pets. Most companies won't even underwrite a rottweiler on a homeowner, so I'd be careful there too. You can get the AKC good citizen certificate that would green light you through most companies. As for the umbrella, it sounds like you DO have a lot of assets, and an umbrella would be a good way to protect you in an inexpensive manner. Your underlying limits are high enough for most companies as it is. I'd say get one if you can shouldn't be more than $250 a year.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 02:56
|
|
|
Yeah, getting rid of the dog to acquire an umbrella won't be an option for us. If we can't find a company that will underwrite us we'll just go ahead and up the limits on our existing policies. Is there a reason why it would be better to have say a $1 million umbrella rather than $1 million limits on our other policies? I know the umbrella will provide personal injury protection but that's not an exposure I'm very concerned about. For the homeowners, luckily we're ok with the Rottie. The only concern they had about our pets was whether they've bitten/attacked anyone before.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 14:31
|
|
|
Tojai posted:At what point does it make sense to purchase an umbrella policy? It makes sense to get an Umbrella the minute you start paying for your own insurance. It may be more premium, but in my state if you cause an accident they can come after any liquid assets you have currently and up to 25% of future incomes in the form of garnishments. Umbrellas are almost never a bad idea... If you want just a stand alone Umbrella check with Progressive in your area. Depending on the state they may still do them without the auto or home. If Progressive won't call a local independent agent and tell them you want a stand alone Umbrella and you have a Rott. They can go to an outside broker and just write the Umbrella. That will be a slightly more expensive policy, but that is what happens when you have a Rott. -------------------------------- Also, I am going to leave this here for any agents that visit this thread and for the guy asking about collectibles. Collectibles Insurance (Inland Marine)
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 15:23
|
|
|
Tojai posted:Yeah, getting rid of the dog to acquire an umbrella won't be an option for us. If we can't find a company that will underwrite us we'll just go ahead and up the limits on our existing policies. Is there a reason why it would be better to have say a $1 million umbrella rather than $1 million limits on our other policies? I know the umbrella will provide personal injury protection but that's not an exposure I'm very concerned about. Well an umbrella covers everything personal. And also most home and auto insurance policies won't go to $1m, so if you want that magic number you're going to have to get an umbrella. It's also likely cheaper dollar for dollar than to try to jack up the liability on an auto policy. As Ossians said, it's a good move to have one, even if you need to go the outside company route due to the dog.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
Awesome, I'll be giving Progressive a call. One more question, we have a really big live oak in our yard. Today when I came home from work there were some kids from the neighborhood climbing in it. When I told them not to play in it, they made some comment about how they love the tree and it makes me suspicious that they're climbing in a lot when I'm not home. I hate telling kids they can't climb a tree but it feels like a liability claim just waiting to happen. Is there anything I can do (besides removing the tree, which I'm not willing to do) to limit my exposure here or is that just something that comes with having an awesome tree? Maybe I'm worrying too much over this?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 04:22
|
|
|
Tojai posted:Awesome, I'll be giving Progressive a call. Totally a liability. I mean you can fence the yard and put up a sign. But kids gonna kid. You can take reasonable steps like that, but they obviously cost money. Otherwise talking to their parents is an option. Just remember the moment a kid falls it'll turn from "mean ole Tojai said not to play" to "he carelessly let these children play on the tree" when they see a medical bill. I'd probably talk to the parents.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 04:36
|
|
|
Tojai posted:Awesome, I'll be giving Progressive a call. Yea...if you have a Rott and kids playing in the tree in your yard you definitely need an Umbrella. If you can fence in the yard I'd do it. If the kids jump the fence in order to get to your dog or the tree (if it is in the fence) then you have more wiggle room because you took the steps to keep them away from the hazardous situation. Even simple signs that warn of the dog and to keep off the property will surprisingly help a case in court in the event something happens. You could also just be a true goon and spray the tree with tree sap...no kid likes climbing on the sticky tree and it won't hurt the tree. You may seem strange talking to the parents, but in today's day and age you could easily go talk to them and inform them your are recording the conversation...then save it and all done. It beats making them sign a waiver...
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 14:40
|
|
|
When I was a kid, we had a German Shepard, Mastiff, and lots of trees. The shotgun kept neighbors off of our property, and the same the other way around. Trespassing is very simple to deal with. Heck, the Rott should be an effective groundskeeper, our Mastiff and Shepard sure were. Get you a fence, shotgun and umbrella!
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 17:42
|
|
|
Jastiger posted: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. Just to follow-up. I ended up going with Amica since they were the cheapest (kind of) over Liberty Mutual and Nationwide. Amica was the lowest of the 3 for Homeowners and 2nd for Auto. Liberty Mutual was 2nd in Homeowners and 1st in Auto. Nationwide was 3rd in both. Since Nationwide gave almost identical coverages to Amica, I ruled them out first. Liberty Mutual offered more comprehensive coverage, but also overestimated the replacement cost of the house. That's probably the main reason they were more expensive, and they weren't receptive to adjusting the coverage levels. They tried to upsell hard, and that type of stuff really gets to me. I opted with Amica since they had a more realistic replacement cost (about 25% lower), and I wasn't interested in the additional coverage Liberty Mutual offered. Since I decided to go with more a catastrophic strategy (~5,000 dollar deductible), all of the extra coverage Liberty Mutual offered seemed to apply to claims that would be 7500 and lower in dollar value. And those effectively had no value to me since I am saying I only plan on making claims greater than 7,500-10,000 dollars or so.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 15:55
|
|
|
Jimmy James posted:Just to follow-up. I ended up going with Amica since they were the cheapest (kind of) over Liberty Mutual and Nationwide. Amica was the lowest of the 3 for Homeowners and 2nd for Auto. Liberty Mutual was 2nd in Homeowners and 1st in Auto. Nationwide was 3rd in both. Since Nationwide gave almost identical coverages to Amica, I ruled them out first. Liberty Mutual offered more comprehensive coverage, but also overestimated the replacement cost of the house. That's probably the main reason they were more expensive, and they weren't receptive to adjusting the coverage levels. They tried to upsell hard, and that type of stuff really gets to me. I opted with Amica since they had a more realistic replacement cost (about 25% lower), and I wasn't interested in the additional coverage Liberty Mutual offered. Since I decided to go with more a catastrophic strategy (~5,000 dollar deductible), all of the extra coverage Liberty Mutual offered seemed to apply to claims that would be 7500 and lower in dollar value. And those effectively had no value to me since I am saying I only plan on making claims greater than 7,500-10,000 dollars or so. Replacement costs are a sensitive area for a lot of people, but as an agent it is a VERY important thing to us. I sell for 9 different companies and every single one of them will return a different Replacement Cost number. All you can do is make sure to thoroughly go over all the details of the home so it is as accurate as possible. The reason we don't like decreasing that coverage is 99% of people actually have no idea what it would cost to replace their home if it were to blow up tomorrow. If we decrease that coverage and something happens where your home is gone and it can't be replaced with the policy coverages then they will look to see if any changes were made to the tool used to estimate Replacement Cost. If it comes out that the numbers were played with or not 100% honest then we have an E&O (Errors & Omissions) Exposure where you'd have grounds to sue if we don't have evidence that you provided that info to us for the lower replacement figure. Most of the time when people call they don't realize what Replacement Cost entails...there is a lot more in that figure than how the house sits. The line of Actual Cash Value, Market Value and Replacement Cost is very blurry to people that don't do this day in and day out. So in short, we aren't trying to cheat you...we are covering our own asses and your rear end to be safe. It is a lot easier to get more money in the event of a claim when you have too much coverage, but the last thing you need is to lose your home and then find out you can't rebuild for the amount you have coverage for...
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
OssiansFolly posted:Replacement costs are a sensitive area for a lot of people, but as an agent it is a VERY important thing to us. I sell for 9 different companies and every single one of them will return a different Replacement Cost number. All you can do is make sure to thoroughly go over all the details of the home so it is as accurate as possible. The reason we don't like decreasing that coverage is 99% of people actually have no idea what it would cost to replace their home if it were to blow up tomorrow. If we decrease that coverage and something happens where your home is gone and it can't be replaced with the policy coverages then they will look to see if any changes were made to the tool used to estimate Replacement Cost. If it comes out that the numbers were played with or not 100% honest then we have an E&O (Errors & Omissions) Exposure where you'd have grounds to sue if we don't have evidence that you provided that info to us for the lower replacement figure. This is super important. Replacement Cost is generally non-negotiable for just this reason and most people undershoot the value of their house to save a few bucks. While I am personally offended you didn't buy Nationwide  it doesn't surprise me that we're higher. That is an area we generally don't want to write in, and a $5000 deductible on a nice house like yours is enough to give someone pause. If you didn't, I'd have them rerun your quotes at $1000 or $2500. It can put you in a different tier when you push your deductible up so high. Congrats on doing a lot of good shopping around though, thats smart!
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:This is super important. Replacement Cost is generally non-negotiable for just this reason and most people undershoot the value of their house to save a few bucks. In this part of Texas (maybe all Texas?) deductibles are done in percentages of insured value. It is usually 1,2, or 3%. I think there may have been an option to pay more to get your deductible down to lower numbers, but that seemed to be atypical. So 1% on the house is between 2500-3000 depending on the calculated replacement cost. 1-2% is typical (2500-5000 dollars) and some people will use 3%. I opted to go with 2%.The annual cost difference between those deductible levels are between 250-300 dollars. So I suppose you need a claim less than once every 10 years to justify the change. The information I was not easily able to find was the cost distribution for a typical home owners insurance claim. I'm guessing most claims are <10,000 dollars, and by going with a high deductible I am ruling how claiming 90% (made-up number) of issues people claim. However, the 10% (also made-up) I am covered for are the most expensive. I would have still expected it to be cheaper than it is to go high deductible. My comparison being that catastrophic health insurance coverage (when it was given as an option for me) was considerably cheaper than a typical PPO plan. That thought process also brings up another question: How much can you expect your rates to go up after making a claim? I imagine you end up paying for on top of your regular dues anyway with the increases in premiums that follow on lower value claims Does making a claim just put you in a different actuarial category that changes your rates by virtue that you just made a claim, or are the rate increases more specific to your situation?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 18:28
|
|
|
Jimmy James posted:In this part of Texas (maybe all Texas?) deductibles are done in percentages of insured value. It is usually 1,2, or 3%. I think there may have been an option to pay more to get your deductible down to lower numbers, but that seemed to be atypical. So 1% on the house is between 2500-3000 depending on the calculated replacement cost. 1-2% is typical (2500-5000 dollars) and some people will use 3%. I opted to go with 2%.The annual cost difference between those deductible levels are between 250-300 dollars. So I suppose you need a claim less than once every 10 years to justify the change. I write a lot of homes in Texas. It depends on what kinds of policy you get. If you get an HO5 it may be worth while to go the percentage route. By default though, for my company at least, we express it in a dollar amount rather than a percentage, though the option is always there. I'd say the most common one I see in Texas is a roof claim and theft claims. If its a roof it can be anywhere from 6-12K depending on the size of the house. But of course every place is different. As for the claim impacting rates, again, that is all on the company. Some companies may outright drop you as soon as you make a claim. Others will have a surcharge. I know for mine, you lose a Claims Free discount, so your rate looks a lot different after taking into consideration the claim. It also depends on the KIND of claim. Fire and Water claims are much worse on a record than a water or even theft claim. For example I can't even do a fire claim if it was in the last 5 years. You're just ineligible. So yeah, its actuarial more than likely.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:I write a lot of homes in Texas. It depends on what kinds of policy you get. If you get an HO5 it may be worth while to go the percentage route. By default though, for my company at least, we express it in a dollar amount rather than a percentage, though the option is always there. I think the age of my house (80 years) makes it hard to get an HO5 policy. One of the differences I've seen between normal policies (HO-3) and better policies is whether personal property is valued as Actual Cash Value or Replacement Cost. How does it factor in when most of your furniture is over 40 years old? I have a custom made black walnut dining room table from the 50s or 60s that would be several thousand dollars to replace, and would have full depreciated decades ago. Or if I have a restored radio from the 1940s that would be really hard to find, but still cost 60 bucks to replace. How would something like that get treated in the different scenarios? Actual Cash Value and Replacement Cost should be the same in that case, since it only exists on the 2nd hand market.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
Jimmy James posted:I think the age of my house (80 years) makes it hard to get an HO5 policy. My experience comes from OH so laws may vary, but personal property replacement cost is generally done on a "Limited Replacement Cost". Meaning they will initially give you depreciated value on EVERYTHING, and as you replace things you would turn in receipts and they release the remaining funds to allow you to continue to replace your stuff. This is done to keep people from pocketing money on things they have no intention of replacing. Now, this may be different in TX.... So, in the example of your table they would give you a chunk of money for everything lost including the table. The problem you are going to run into is antiques and older stuff is tough to REPLACE. You can get something similar, but what is to say that it is actually a replacement and not an upgrade. Most agents will tell you in these situations to schedule the higher priced antiques as such so that if something happens you get the full value of the item without dealing in the hassle of Replacement Cost.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
That's right. If you have one-off hand made antiques you're going to want to list them separately, or have an appraisal done so that if you DO have a loss you can say "My table was worth X" and they can use that as a base line. It also depends on the quality of the company. If its a good one (Like the ones you mentioned) it shouldn't really be an issue. If its a cheapo one then yeah, they are going to give you what they have to and nothing more. Remember, an HO-5 is OPEN PERILS and generally has nothing to do with the age of the house. A good way to look at the ACV vs RC is that every policy is ACV by default. Replacement Cost is a special term. BUT, its a term that should be added to any property policy worth a drat. So HO 3 or 5 or whatever, you're always going to want RC. So for you, I'd get it appraised or keep a bill of sale on hand if you think its something you can replace. Otherwise antique it up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:That's right. If you have one-off hand made antiques you're going to want to list them separately, or have an appraisal done so that if you DO have a loss you can say "My table was worth X" and they can use that as a base line. It also depends on the quality of the company. If its a good one (Like the ones you mentioned) it shouldn't really be an issue. If its a cheapo one then yeah, they are going to give you what they have to and nothing more. Minimally you will need an appraisal either way to put it on as an antique, right? If a customer asked me to put that on in OH and wanted to cover it for $2000 every carrier would want an appraisal first.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
OssiansFolly posted:Minimally you will need an appraisal either way to put it on as an antique, right? If a customer asked me to put that on in OH and wanted to cover it for $2000 every carrier would want an appraisal first. Yeah if you're going to schedule anything, any company is going to require an appraisal of some sort or a bill of sale. Maybe I wasn't clear. Yeah I wasn't clear when I said "list them separate". Basically you're going to want to have some kind of documentation verifying the value of the table.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/01/08/google-wants-to-sell-you-auto-insurance/ So, I guess Google is going to sell insurance?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
canyoneer posted:http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/01/08/google-wants-to-sell-you-auto-insurance/ Dang. It likely wouldn't displace the higher teir folks, but for your GEICO or GENERAL or low end user, this will be a cash cow for them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Dang. It likely wouldn't displace the higher teir folks, but for your GEICO or GENERAL or low end user, this will be a cash cow for them. Great...just what the industry needs another source where people can make terrible insurance decisions and think they know what they are talking about. There are some things I don't mind letting consumers purchase and do on their own...insurance still isn't one of them. When I can go a full year without someone saying "I hit this person and they want to get their car fixed. How much is my deductible?", I may change my tune. At this time I don't have hope for that EVER happening.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
OssiansFolly posted:Great...just what the industry needs another source where people can make terrible insurance decisions and think they know what they are talking about. Agreed. So like I said, cash cow for them because they can churn that all day long since the lower tier customers change companies like we change pants (once a month bwahahhaha). But seriously, its definitely the 80/20 rule when it comes to insurance. The bottom 20% of your customers are going to be 80% of your headache. Its true in my position now so my anecdote totally carries over to the entire industry. Having easy access to it on a Google can be useful to the informed person, and great for Google, but a headache for agents.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
OssiansFolly posted:Great...just what the industry needs another source where people can make terrible insurance decisions and think they know what they are talking about. Are you in insurance sales? If someone needs help they can go to an agent, if not they use Google. I don't see the downside for anyone other than insurance agents.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 05:27
|
|
|
OssiansFolly posted:When I can go a full year without someone saying "I hit this person and they want to get their car fixed. How much is my deductible?", I may change my tune. At this time I don't have hope for that EVER happening. I have to explain this about every other day.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 05:50
|
|
|
app posted:Are you in insurance sales? If someone needs help they can go to an agent, if not they use Google. I don't see the downside for anyone other than insurance agents. The downside for non-agents is that people will tend to jump around companies more and be less insured. I'm an agent myself and while sure, I love that sweet commish, we do actually serve a role for getting proper insurance for people. Granted the kind of customer that would be assisted by an agent isn't the same that is going to hit Google for all their insurance needs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 06:01
|
|
|
app posted:Are you in insurance sales? If someone needs help they can go to an agent, if not they use Google. I don't see the downside for anyone other than insurance agents. Lack of education hurts EVERYONE. The average person doesn't understand insurance, limits, costs or even the basic "who is at fault and how do accidents work". Therefore, if person A purchases lovely insurance online and hits person B who is MY customer we may have problems. Letting people buy insurance without input of professionals is rarely a good thing. So in short...the downside are a bunch of people looking at PRICE and not COVERAGE driving around with less coverage than is needed to take care of major accidents and losses. Which is why my customers have proper coverage and know we insure LOTS of lawyers for when they are hit by someone that bought coverage online for $30/mo from Geico.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2015 22:15
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:When we get into business stuff it can be pretty complex. If you want me to give you specifics and you don't mind it on the forums, post it here. Otherwise you can email me here: XXXX Is this still the best email to contact you? tangy yet delightful fucked around with this message at 01:14 on Jan 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 03:01
|
|
|
Totally TWISTED posted:Is this still the best email to contact you? Not at all. I should remove that. Removed it. I just do property and casualty insurance in an inbound center fo the east coast. Jastiger fucked around with this message at 04:37 on Jan 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 04:35
|
|
|
Any recommendations for small business insurance companies since you're now out of that gig yourself?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 06:58
|
|
|
Totally TWISTED posted:Any recommendations for small business insurance companies since you're now out of that gig yourself? What state/region are you in? And what kind of small business? Those are two fairly important questions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 14:55
|
|
|
I have these people who want to schedule 100k in musical equipment. The thing is none of it is rare... the husband was a professional musician before he was partially disabled in a car accident a few years ago, so he has a lot of gear and basically a recording studio in his home. Right now they are with Chubb, but their home isn't Chubb material (300k replacement) and the price is awful. I think the current agent used Chubb simply because that's the only place he could do a 100k musical schedule. They sent me an itemized list - single highest item is an $11,000 recorder/mixer thing. And there's lots of little stuff they are itemizing (<$1000). Since it's all personal use wouldn't it all be covered under regular personal property? I'm going to bounce it off some underwriters tomorrow but was curious to get some opinions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 23:01
|
|
|
OssiansFolly posted:What state/region are you in? And what kind of small business? Those are two fairly important questions. TN. Photography. I think that we mainly need to insure the equipment/props against theft/damage/loss with a low deductible. Possibly pick up a small liability policy of some sort incase anyone sues? I haven't tallied it up but currently sub-10K in assets, being able to grow the coverage amount without shifting companies would be nice though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 01:01
|
|
|
dMastri posted:I have these people who want to schedule 100k in musical equipment. The thing is none of it is rare... the husband was a professional musician before he was partially disabled in a car accident a few years ago, so he has a lot of gear and basically a recording studio in his home. Right now they are with Chubb, but their home isn't Chubb material (300k replacement) and the price is awful. I think the current agent used Chubb simply because that's the only place he could do a 100k musical schedule. They sent me an itemized list - single highest item is an $11,000 recorder/mixer thing. And there's lots of little stuff they are itemizing (<$1000). I've had that too if the customer absolutely demands it be scheduled and are willing to provide appraisals and pay the premium....then it's a go for us. Sentimental items are important to people. Now realistically, yeah most Woukd be under personal property since it's not for a business and a lot of it won't be mega high value. But if they want a new x with the same comparable model number then they are going to schedule it. But yeah they don't NEED to schedule it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 04:24
|
|
|
Totally TWISTED posted:TN. Photography. I think that we mainly need to insure the equipment/props against theft/damage/loss with a low deductible. Possibly pick up a small liability policy of some sort incase anyone sues? I haven't tallied it up but currently sub-10K in assets, being able to grow the coverage amount without shifting companies would be nice though. My company Nationwide is generally competitive with that stuff. You can also hit an independent and see about an allied policy too. Just make sure it has good liability limits and replacement cost for the camera. If you use a specific vehicle or have employees make sure you're on top of that too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 04:26
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:I've had that too if the customer absolutely demands it be scheduled and are willing to provide appraisals and pay the premium....then it's a go for us. Sentimental items are important to people. So is accounting for personal property that isn't scheduled on the honor system? You could say that you had X pairs of Jordans, and Y copies of Game of Thrones and you get reimbursed for it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 05:13
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:My company Nationwide is generally competitive with that stuff. You can also hit an independent and see about an allied policy too. Just make sure it has good liability limits and replacement cost for the camera. If you use a specific vehicle or have employees make sure you're on top of that too. Of course it's another Nationwide person running a thread like this.  Are you direct or exclusive, Jastiger?e: and to the above, basically yes. When it comes to personal property, we generally prefer to cut a check and let you sort it out. It's better to get fudged on the honor system than to have someone screaming at the heavens that you screwed them when they couldn't produce receipts for a claim follow up. NeurosisHead fucked around with this message at 06:27 on Jan 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 06:24
|
|
|
Totally TWISTED posted:TN. Photography. I think that we mainly need to insure the equipment/props against theft/damage/loss with a low deductible. Possibly pick up a small liability policy of some sort incase anyone sues? I haven't tallied it up but currently sub-10K in assets, being able to grow the coverage amount without shifting companies would be nice though. What's the dollar value on your cameras and equipment, and is your business incorporated?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 06:29
|
|
|
NeurosisHead posted:It's better to get fudged on the honor system than to have someone screaming at the heavens that you screwed them when they couldn't produce receipts for a claim follow up. Huh, that's interesting. A buddy of mine got broken into and had jewelry and guns stolen. He only had a few pictures of the jewelry but almost none of the guns. He had all the serial numbers for them though. His renters policy only covered the items that he had pictures of, so I feel like what you're saying is incongruent with my friends' experience.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 06:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 21:22 |
|
|
Depends entirely on the company and how much time of your life you are willing to spend discussing with the claim rep
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 13:49
|
|
