Rig Insurance

[Bob McGraw - K4TAX]

Having had a recent loss of radio equipment along with other items, I
would comment,  the insurance company strongly and aggressively pushed
for a settlement under the loss definition of "power surge".   In this
case they would only pay depreciated value for the equipment less the
deductible  which was $1000.

While my loss was clearly due to a lightning strike, and I had service
reports from 3 different servicing companies all stating "lightning
damage" as the cause of loss or damage.   In this case the insurance
company is required to pay replacement cost, less the deductible.

The insurance company kept trying to change the description of loss from
"lightning damage" to "power surge" to lessen their liability.    I held
my ground, provided them multiple times the copies of service reports
stating in all cases "lightning damage". Final settlement was a bit over
$12,000.

Yes equipment insurance is most valuable and worthwhile in all aspects.  
It is also very important to have available a list of model numbers,
serial numbers, date of acquisition and price paid. Without this the
insurance company will challenge ever item and every number.  Our job is
to "prove it" while there job is to "deny it".  My EXCEL spreadsheet
proved to be most valuable along with digital photographs.

73 Bob, K4TAX


On 8/8/2015 2:00 PM, Dauer, Edward wrote:

> The ARRL premium is relatively steep.  But that's probably because it has a $50 deductible and, according to some of the experiences posted on this thread, covers losses that may not qualify as covered "occurrences" under some homeowners' policies.  I just checked my own "scheduled personal property" endorsement.  The cost is on average $0.53 per hundred per year, way less than half of the ARRL premium, varying with the type of property insured.  And because it's an endorsement to a combined home and auto policy, it will cover losses no matter where they happen.   But the deductible is $500 per occurrence and I can't say that the endorsement would cover losses attributable to operator errors (e.g. frying a rig with a reversed polarity power connection.)   Since classically insurance is a way of covering large losses rather than small ones, for me the difference in deductible isn't worth a double or triple premium; but that's an individual preference.
>
> Ted, KN1CBR
>
> Edward A. Dauer
> Dean Emeritus and Professor Emeritus of Law
> University of Denver
>
>
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 21:04:57 -0700
> From: "Richard W. Solomon" <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>>
> To: "'Elecraft List'" <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>>
> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Rig Insurance
> Message-ID: <000f01d0d18f$64e2ad50$2ea807f0$@net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> All I found was the rates, $1.40 per $100. Seems a tad steep to me.
>
> 73, Dick, W1KSZ
>
>
>
> Edward A. Dauer
> Dean Emeritus and Professor Emeritus of Law
> University of Denver
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to [hidden email]
>
>
>

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

[Eric Swartz - WA6HHQ]

Let's let the insurance threads rest for noe as we've certainly exceeded the OT posting limit :-)

73,

Eric
List moderator
elecraft.com
_..._

> On Aug 8, 2015, at 12:57 AM, Ian White <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> G4GNX wrote:
>>
>> Although I'm in the UK and slightly different rules may apply
> [...]
>> You really do need specialist insurance as most ordinary residential
>> insurance companies just don't understand our "special needs" and will
>> attempt to wriggle out of a payout on very flimsy grounds.
>
> There's a story about a UK ham who claimed on his homeowner's insurance
> for the loss of his amateur microwave equipment. They sent him a voucher
> for a kitchen appliances store.
>
>
> 73 from Ian GM3SEK
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to [hidden email]
>

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

[w7aqk]

Hi All,

Ted, KN1CBR, makes some very good points about the complexities of coverage.
I don't know about the rest of you, but my head spins when I try to decipher
what my homeowner's policy will cover vs. what it will not cover!  The lower
deductible with ARRL insurance is definitely an attractive feature.
However, you probably need to evaluate just what "risks" are really
relevant, and compare that to the added cost.

Rightly or wrongly, I've always tended to view the ARRL insurance program as
protection that is best suited against total loss, such as fire or theft,
and then considered just how much risk I actually have of that occurring.
Then you have to correlate that to whatever protection you might have from
your own homeowner's policy.  Insuring simply against damage may, or may
not, actually make a lot of sense since the repair bill might not actually
exceed your deductible plus the premium payments you have made over time.
It's a crap shoot!

Then you have to consider what all you are actually going to include in your
coverage--you probably don't want to insure everything--just significant
items.  In so doing, however, you now are paying a premium on multiple items
while the risk of loss may well be only for one item (but you don't
necessarily know which one!), and so you are paying not just $1.50/hundred,
but a multiple of that--in effect!  Maybe that doesn't make a lot of sense,
but it sort of does to me.  Stated differently, assume you are insuring five
$1,000 items and paying a premium accordingly.  Are all 5 items equally at
risk simultaneously?  Maybe yes, but probably not.  Still, you are paying a
premium for 5 items when, at any point in time, maybe only one of those
items may be truly at risk--whatever that might be.  This may seem like an
over-complication, but I certainly think that is, at least in part, how your
insurance company views things when they set the premiums!  Their objective
is to absolutely make money on covering you.  Unfortunately, the only way
you may know for sure that your arrangement has been a "good deal" for you
is if they cancel you because they aren't making money!  I had a claim,
about 20 years ago, on a satellite receiver that got "toasted" by a
lightning strike.  My insurance company didn't cancel me afterwards, but
they did force me to "up" my deductible!  If they don't get you coming, they
will get you going!

Insurance is a "must have", particularly for the significant risks we are
all exposed to, but I'm still somewhat cynical about the way insurance
companies run their business.  You pay a premium supposedly based on a "pool
of risks", but if you become a claimant, the thrust of the backlash will
most probably be more against you rather than the "pool".  Never mind that
your loss may simply have been a case of the law of averages!

Clearly we all should evaluate our homeowner's policies to see what coverage
we have, or don't have.  If the coverage isn't very good, then the ARRL
insurance probably makes a lot of sense.  It would be nice if we had some
insurance "gurus" who could maybe enlighten all of us about this aspect!
I'm not exactly sure about my own coverage, but this thread has started me
thinking about looking into that--if I can just get my agent to stand still
for a few minutes to explain it to me!  Hi.  I do know this--whenever I've
been moved to get some sort of explanation about coverage, I often am
disappointed in the response!!!!  There always seems to be more in the way
of exceptions, limitations, and exclusions than there is in actual coverage.

Self insuring isn't a bad alternative, although it probably wouldn't be
sufficient against major risks.  If we had the discipline to put that
premium money away in a savings account, we very well might be better off as
to any of the more common risks.  The problem is, most of us don't have that
sort of discipline, and want the peace of mind of protection against a
sudden significant cost outlay.  For example, I'm "guilty" of this with
respect to one of these home warranty plans.  For many years I've been a
slot machine for the insurance company, and I pay a fairly high deductible
for any repair visits--probably enough to cover most of the service call!  I
even got a new refrigerator out of it some years back, but the premiums I
have paid cover that cost many times over.  Still, I keep doing it, mainly
out of concern that one of my A/C units might blow up!  It's hard to argue
against the peace of mind thing, so you pay your money and take your choice!

Dave W7AQK


______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]