Insuring a collection

[Rev]

Originally Posted by anemis

that was just an example he was saying.. he might have said a vase or a neckless or any other thing that,s worth something.... his analogy is correct... trust me with the collection he has, he probably already checked for that

They don't equate. When you insure a vase you aren't factoring hospital bills and liability in case that vase collides with another vase. A huge portion of your insurance cost is related to medical and legal care. That is why safety factors play a large roll in the cost of your insurance. My house is worth many times what my truck is worth, but is less per month to insure. Mostly because I rarely drive my house anywhere these days.

[Buhawi]

Factor in that 4 million year war that's still going on.

then add in the Combiner wars when it hits the shelves...

Seriously though

trust me with the collection he has, he probably already checked for that

pretty sure I'd go with what Protoman said.

Originally Posted by Protoman

Get a dog, don't live near water, don't put your collection in flood easy basements, don't buy houses with slope garages, lock your doors/get an alarm and you should be fine

Personal advice.

and this.

edit: minus the dog. mine ate that cheetos looking club from animated snarl.

[Window]

Ah the good ol insurance myth of "car insurance = all other insurance".

Rev has it spot on.

Insuring a collection is actually less risky for an insurance company because the collector will keep it safe and not put it at risk. I'm not taking my collection for walks, to the park or for a leisurely sunday drive am I?

In reality a dog is a far larger liability than a collection is - a dog can bite another person, defecate on another person's lawn etc so far more liability issues arise from owning a dog than owning a collection.

[Omegatron]

Our house insurance has a clause where there is a replacement amount per item or a total contents replacement cost, whichever is lower. The replacement per item amount is a maximum of $1000, that would cover most items in my collection. I do have a couple of non-transformer antiques in the house which are worth more and are separately insured. To do that I had to prove what they are worth. Insurance companies can walk you through what they need to prove value but usually its just objective evidence that something is worth a certain amount (this can be a licensed appraiser, they do exist) or proof that similar items have sold for similar amounts in the recent past. In the case of my collection its simply not necessary.

The other question is how important to you is your collection? Before you instinctively answer "very", assume your house burnt down. At what point would you get around to replacing everything in your collection? In my case I'd replace the appliances, my children's things, the electronics, beds and furniture and then get around to my collection. At that point I'd probably still have some of the lump payment left to replace some of it anyway.

Just my two cents worth. If you learn anything that conclusively proves me wrong let us know, I'm working on 10 year old information here.

Oh and if anyone is interested in pursuing the appraisal route, I'd be curious as to your experiences. I deal with appraisers a bit at work (for taxes not insurance). A good resource is as follows.

http://www.isa-appraisers.ca/

[Evan]

Protoman made a good comparison, but I wonder if a Ferrari would cost more because the insurance company may expect you to drive it as fast as possible and potentially cause damage to you and someone else. A collection generally would sit in the same place, and be less dangerous, and hopefully cost less money.

It's always been my understanding that generally collections of any sort are covered under your regular house insurance up to X amount of dollars. So if your collection is worth $2000, you're probably fine, but if it's $20,000 (or more like a Ferrari), you may want additional coverage. That said, I imagine almost every policy is different and full of different loop holes, so you'd probably be safest to talk to your agent and see what they suggest.

[Window]

Originally Posted by Omegatron

Our house insurance has a clause where there is a replacement amount per item or a total contents replacement cost, whichever is lower. The replacement per item amount is a maximum of $1000, that would cover most items in my collection. I do have a couple of non-transformer antiques in the house which are worth more and are separately insured. To do that I had to prove what they are worth. Insurance companies can walk you through what they need to prove value but usually its just objective evidence that something is worth a certain amount (this can be a licensed appraiser, they do exist) or proof that similar items have sold for similar amounts in the recent past. In the case of my collection its simply not necessary.

The other question is how important to you is your collection? Before you instinctively answer "very", assume your house burnt down. At what point would you get around to replacing everything in your collection? In my case I'd replace the appliances, my children's things, the electronics, beds and furniture and then get around to my collection. At that point I'd probably still have some of the lump payment left to replace some of it anyway.

Just my two cents worth. If you learn anything that conclusively proves me wrong let us know, I'm working on 10 year old information here.

Oh and if anyone is interested in pursuing the appraisal route, I'd be curious as to your experiences. I deal with appraisers a bit at work (for taxes not insurance). A good resource is as follows.

http://www.isa-appraisers.ca/

I would read that clause carefully as it may exclude certain items such as jewelery, collectibles, etc and also may exclude certain perils from coverage.