• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Collectible Insurance Services review
5 5

163 posts in this topic

16 minutes ago, Mr.Mcknowitall said:

Except the coverage should and must be consistent and not subject to another reasonable interpretation as a method of denial of a claim. In the clause highlighted, it is not a reasonable interpretation to limit what "...or others working on your behalf..." means, when at the same time hotel damage or damage by FedEx ...both examples of working on behalf of.....is covered. The clause can reasonably be interpreted as dealing with unqualified persons working on behalf of and without the knowledge of.

You'd know the legalities better than myself but I agree that it should be clearly defined.

To me, Mr. Casual Joe Public, having someone handle your product (ie a grading company or a framing company) it would seem reasonable to me that the company handling the item should be responsible for loss and damage.

Fed Ex coverage is clearly outlined as covered as long as the item is shipped a specific way. This is one of the main reasons dealers purchase the coverage.

I can't comment on hotels as I don't' know enough about the policy.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, VintageComics said:

You'd know the legalities better than myself but I agree that it should be clearly defined.

To me, Mr. Casual Joe Public, having someone handle your product (ie a grading company or a framing company) it would seem reasonable to me that the company handling the item should be responsible for loss and damage.

Fed Ex coverage is clearly outlined as covered as long as the item is shipped a specific way. This is one of the main reasons dealers purchase the coverage.

I can't comment on hotels as I don't' know enough about the policy.

 

Yes, it is reasonable and they should be, but there is also the subrogation issue, which is what the policy holder can reasonably expect their insurance company to activate, not withstanding any clause to the contrary that clearly shifts the responsibility and coverage. Then there is the other aspect, that the insured can't go for the unjust enrichment ploy, and claiming both coverages. He would be the new Jesus in the insurance world, because he would be nailed to the Cross.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this happened to me, I'd be raising hell about the framers. Outing him for any and all to see, calling the BBB and seeing if it were part of a larger company. I'd also contact their landlord. He has a vested interest in seeing his tenants are properly insured.

At worst, filing a case in small claims court. 

What excuse did they give that renders them blameless?

Edited by shadroch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, newshane said:

I will look into adding a rider to my home insurance. State Farm has been fantastic over the years.

I've been rolling with CIS for the last few years because it seemed like a cheaper, legit option. Everyone here has always backed them up...until now. 

Disconcerting to say the least. 

My only advice is: READ AND UNDERSTAND YOUR POLICIES! 

 

You definitely should. State Farm is who I have been using over the years. Again, they have been fantastic. And most people haven't had losses so thier input regarding insurance companies is really limited. Its the people that have had losses that can really can give you insight into just how good an insurance company is. Whether they will put up a fight on claims amongst other things and try and weasel their way our of paying a loss due to vague coverages on the policy. 

My mother ran her own insurance company for over 30+ years (homeowners, contents & liability) and at one point was one of the largest private agents in the Metro Detroit Area. I worked for her on and off for a few years previous to my entering art school and off and on while I was going to school and I learned a lot about insurance during those years. I actually had to get my license and still have it to this day. I have to take a test and complete a couple home courses every couple years to keep it valid. Anyways, I have seen a LOT of horror stories over the years, many of them dealing with collector specific insurance. My mother was the one who ultimately got me to go the rider route as again, one of the benefits to riders is they are tailored specifically for what your collection contains. They are a bit more expensive, but again at least for me the piece of mind is worth the extra cost, especially given what I have been through. Its traumatic enough when you have a legitimate loss. The last thing people need is insurance companies screwing them over and believe me, its a lot more common than people think. 

Edited by OrangeCrush
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, OrangeCrush said:

They are a bit more expensive, but again at least for me the piece of mind is worth the extra cost, especially given what I have been through.

I don't want anyone taking pieces of my mind. :sumo: Especially insurance salesmen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, sd2416 said:

Didnt work for me.  Farmers insurance wanted to give me pennies on the dollar.  

One of the keys is getting replacement cost over actual cash value. If you get an actual cash value policy the insurance company will depreciate your items over time. if you get replacement cost, they can't give you pennies on the dollar. If they agree that the item is covered, they have to give you the amount it would cost to replace it with something equal in value n today's market, thus your guaranteed to get the full value of the items insured. Denying your claim is one thing, but again if they agree the item is covered, they have to give you full value. You could literally sue them if they tried giving you pennies on the dollar for an item that was insured with replacement cost. 

7 hours ago, VintageComics said:

Isn't understanding your policy just as important as having a policy? If their rules are outlined a head of time the policy owner needs to bear some responsibility.

The main reason CIS doens't operate in Canada is because insurance regulations vary from province to province.

Why would an insurer for the art owner be responsible for the negligence of someone who is framing your art? Wouldn't that be the responsibility of the person / company handling the art (in this case the framing company)?

While I understand how everyone feels about insurance (it's great until you're NOT covered) and insurance policy is not a 'catch all' for everything that could possibly go wrong. They have a service they offer (which is generally clearly outlined) but they also have a responsibility to remain profitable.

Insurance companies can't remain profitable by just covering 'everything'.

This a 1000 times over. While I was working with my mother, it absolutely blew my mind how many people didn't know jack about thier policy. I would get these people trying to claim $10,000 in jewelry was stolen when it says right on their policy that there is a $500 limit on jewelry. And that is just one example of hundreds I came across over the years. It is absolutely the responsibility of the insured to understand their policy and if you run across something you don't understand on your policy, that is what your insurance agent is for. He or she will be able to explain any part of the policy you don't understand. Honestly, I don't know how some people sleep at night not knowing if they are fully insured or not. Maybe its because I have worked in the industry and have seen first hand just how screwed a lot of people can get with losses or because I have had a fire and know what its like to lose everything that I am more paranoid than most and just can't handle not being properly insured. One way or the other, in the end its ultimately the insured's responsibility to understand their policy and to make sure they have proper coverage. 

Edited by OrangeCrush
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recommend jettisoning the insurance and spending the premiums on more comics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, lizards2 said:

I recommend jettisoning the insurance and spending the premiums on more comics.

No thanks! I will definitely continue on with my insurance premiums. The money I would have lost with our house fire, just on contents alone, is more than enough to make me realize the importance of insurance. But by all means, you go on living uninsured. Hope that works out for you in the long run. 

Edited by OrangeCrush
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 13/03/2018 at 4:13 PM, VintageComics said:

Isn't understanding your policy just as important as having a policy? If their rules are outlined a head of time the policy owner needs to bear some responsibility.

The main reason CIS doens't operate in Canada is because insurance regulations vary from province to province.

I'm not going to debate the point about province by province regulations. What I will say is the way CIS is marketed, particularly their claims of covering "collectibles" in a way that understands collectors, would catch some unwanted attention, and it wouldn't necessarily have to be by someone with an axe to grind for a denied claim. A simple review of a small subset of exclusions (as I haven't even reviewed them all) would be reviewable by at least two government oversight agencies I can think off the top of my head, at both the federal and provincial level.

Edited by comicwiz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 13/03/2018 at 11:23 PM, OrangeCrush said:

One of the keys is getting replacement cost over actual cash value. If you get an actual cash value policy the insurance company will depreciate your items over time. if you get replacement cost, they can't give you pennies on the dollar. If they agree that the item is covered, they have to give you the amount it would cost to replace it with something equal in value n today's market, thus your guaranteed to get the full value of the items insured. Denying your claim is one thing, but again if they agree the item is covered, they have to give you full value. You could literally sue them if they tried giving you pennies on the dollar for an item that was insured with replacement cost. 

This a 1000 times over. While I was working with my mother, it absolutely blew my mind how many people didn't know jack about thier policy. I would get these people trying to claim $10,000 in jewelry was stolen when it says right on their policy that there is a $500 limit on jewelry. And that is just one example of hundreds I came across over the years. It is absolutely the responsibility of the insured to understand their policy and if you run across something you don't understand on your policy, that is what your insurance agent is for. He or she will be able to explain any part of the policy you don't understand. Honestly, I don't know how some people sleep at night not knowing if they are fully insured or not. Maybe its because I have worked in the industry and have seen first hand just how screwed a lot of people can get with losses or because I have had a fire and know what its like to lose everything that I am more paranoid than most and just can't handle not being properly insured. One way or the other, in the end its ultimately the insured's responsibility to understand their policy and to make sure they have proper coverage. 

You certainly may have an experience that would suggest most people are unaware of how underprotected they are, and I might agree to some extent.

However, there is a responsibility to market products that don't create a false perception of coverages that somehow position you as the gold standard, but actually turn out to be deficient in critical areas where you would otherwise expect safeguards that even standard coverages would provide.

As a company that markets itself as understanding collectors and their collectibles, reading the subset of exclusions to me would be akin to an auto policy that covers you as long as you don't drive, or ever get involved in an accident.

Knowing your policy isn't even the real issue - it's knowing your rights as a consumer and what protections are in place that matters far more in situations like this.

Edited by comicwiz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a pretty fascinating thread with lots of great info.  My bottom line take away is know your policy and due your due diligence.     Not comic related, but I have had to make a few claims over the years with various insurers.   The experience between companies was vastly different, even with similar policies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/16/2018 at 3:15 PM, comicwiz said:

You certainly may have an experience that would suggest most people are unaware of how underprotected they are, and I might agree to some extent.

However, there is a responsibility to market products that don't create a false perception of coverages that somehow position you as the gold standard, but actually turn out to be deficient in critical areas where you would otherwise expect safeguards that even standard coverages would provide.

As a company that markets itself as understanding collectors and their collectibles, reading the subset of exclusions to me would be akin to an auto policy that covers you as long as you don't drive, or ever get involved in an accident.

Knowing your policy isn't even the real issue - it's knowing your rights as a consumer and what protections are in place that matters far more in situations like this.

I disagree 100%. Knowing your policy is without question one of the single biggest problems people face when they wind up having a loss, at least that has been the case in 99% of the losses I have seen first hand where the insured wound up being dissatisfied with the amount of coverage they wound up getting because when it comes to insurance, the rights and protections your talking about are spelled right out in the actual policy itself. Out of the literally hundreds and hundreds of claims I have seen in my days working in the business that didn't work out as well as the policy holder would have liked...well, 99% of them were due to the policy holder not understanding their policy and what the limits were on that policy. The people that actually take the time to understand their policy and make sure they have a proper amount of coverage, for both the house and the contents as well, wind up faring FAR FAR better in the end. It really doesn't even matter if someone knowns their rights as a consumer or not. If someone buys a policy that doesn't give them a proper amount of coverage, those people are going to lose if they ever have a loss. No amount of knowledge on consumers rights is going to get someone past the fact that they had inadequate coverage. Again, those people will lose each and every time, regardless of their knowledge on consumers rights. In fact, if someone really is highly educated on consumers rights, then they should know first hand that they literally don't have any rights when it come to a loss that wasn't adequately covered/insured. 

As for the number of people that don't fully understand their policy, if I had to make an educated guess based on my years working in the business, I would estimate at least 80% of policy owners do not fully understand their policies and the limits on those policies. 

Edited by OrangeCrush
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, OrangeCrush said:

No amount of knowledge on consumers rights is going to get someone past the fact that they had inadequate coverage.

Not true. I've helped people not only get more out of their claim from adjusters who conveniently cherry-pick comparables that are not only dissimilar, but are so blatantly out of context that the only reasonable explanation was to pay out as little as possible. You talk about them being some kind of money fairy provided you have the right policy and that's simply not true.  I've also advised people in situations where they were told they weren't covered, and later when the proper oversight made some inquiries and were about to launch an investigation, they were notified that they somehow were magically covered and a claim would be paid out.

Insurance companies plays these games. They hire people on a contract basis and reward them to pay out as little as possible. Don't tell me the policy is the be all end all, because the truth is insurers will make certain exclusions purposely vague to find a way to wiggle out of paying. As a consumer you need to understand when these games are being played, what your rights are, and what resources and oversight are available to you.

Edited by comicwiz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, comicwiz said:

Not true. I've helped people not only get more out of their claim from adjusters who conveniently cherry-pick comparables that are not only dissimilar, but are so blatantly out of context that the only reasonable explanation was to pay out as little as possible. You talk about them being some kind of money fairy provided you have the right policy and that's simply not true.  I've also advised people in situations where they were told they weren't covered, and later when the proper oversight made some inquiries and were about to launch an investigation, they were notified that they somehow were magically covered and a claim would be paid out.

Insurance companies plays these games. They hire people on a contract basis and reward them to pay out as little as possible. Don't tell me the policy is the be all end all, because the truth is insurers will make certain exclusions purposely vague to find a way to wiggle out of paying. As a consumer you need to understand when these games are being played, what your rights are, and what resources and oversight are available to you.

Yes, it is true. The reason why many insurance companies try and screw people over is because those insurance companies are only all too well aware of the fact that most people are utterly clueless when it comes to their policy and insurance companies are no different than any other major corporation these days. If they think they can pay you less and get away with it, many of them will try and do just that. I even made a comment previously in this thread that stated just how often you see this sort of thing. The people that actually understand their policy and make sure they have proper coverage have absolutely nothing to worry about. So all of this really just goes right back to the point of just how VITAL it is to actually understand your policy and the various coverages you have on that policy. You will NEVER get more for a claim than is actually stated in your policy. NEVER! It doesn't matter if your the most knowledgeable person in the world in regards to consumer rights. If you have X amount of coverage for a particular category of belongings, you will never get more than that amount, period. Here are just a few examples from State Farm's basic homeowners policy in regards to contents coverages:

$200 on money, coins and medals, including any of these that are a part of a collection, bank notes, bullion, gold other than goldware, silver other than silverware, and platinum;

$10,000 on electronic data processing system equipment used or intended for use in a business, including but not limited to computers, tablets, mobile personal communication equipment, global positioning systems, mobile personal electronic devices used for the reproduction of sound, and standard media or non-media equipment for use with the above devices;

$1,500 on property used or intended for use in a business, including merchandise held as samples or for sale or for delivery after sale, while on the residence premises. This coverage is limited to $500 on such property away from the residence premises.

Electronic data processing system equipment or the recording or storage media used with that equipment is not included under this coverage, and is addressed in item b. above;

$1,500 on securities, checks, cashier’s checks, traveler’s checks, money orders, gift certificates, gift cards, rechargeable debit cards, phone cards and other negotiable instruments, accounts, deeds, evidences of debt, letters of credit, notes other than bank notes, manuscripts, passports and tickets;

$1,500 on watercraft of all types and outboard motors, including their trailers, furnishings and equipment;

$1,500 on trailers not used with watercraft;

$250 on any one item and $2,500 in the aggregate on stamps, trading cards and comic books, including any of these items that are a part of a collection;

$2,500 for loss by theft of firearms;

$2,500 for loss by theft of silverware and goldware;

$5,000 on any one article and $10,000 in the aggregate for loss by theft of any rug, carpet (ex- cept wall-to-wall carpet), tapestry, wall-hanging or other similar article;

$1,000 for loss by theft of jewelry, watches, fur garments and garments trimmed with fur, precious and semi-precious stones; and

$5,000 for loss by theft of tools.

So if someone has a set of tools tht is worth $10,000 and they have those tools stolen or they are destroyed in a fire, your only getting $5,000, period. Again, it doesnt matter what your knowledge is in regards to personal rights. The only rights you need to understand when it comes to insurance policies is just what your coverage limits are including your contents. One's knowledge on consumer rights is pretty much irrelevant. As for the protections you mentioned, those are the actual coverages on the items your insuring. 

If you actually helped someone get more out of their claim...well, that only means that the insurance company in question was trying to pull a fast one over on the insured and that the insured actually had higher amounts of coverage than the insurance company was letting on and this isn't uncommon at all. And he didn't need you for this at all. If he had actually taken the time to fully understand his policy and coverages, he would have been able to take care of this situation all on his own. 

Edited by OrangeCrush
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't ask you to devise a poicy summary of restrictions and limits. This is a collectibles-based community. People in the wider community include numismatics, original comic art, and CG is mostly comprised of comic book collectors, although there are people here who do cross-collect in areas such as collectible toys that are superhero or publisher related (i.e. Marvel/DC action figures, etc.).

For the most part, anything that appreciates in value should be undwritten using replacement cost coverages. In the examples I've explained earlier, one was a client who I'd written an appraisal for, who had been offered a claim payout amount, and he happened to run that number by me just to make sure he wasn't getting screwed. 

Contrary to your opinion that he didn't need to because he should have known himself, he did so because his replacement cost coverage was for $26K. However, his item had appreciated in value since the appraisal was written.

The adjuster chose the most disimilar comparable you could imagine - so different in fact, I was confused if he actually knew what the hell he was doing. They offered him less than $18K. It had been over 2 years since I did his appraisal and I knew immediately he had been given a purposely out of context, lowball amount. So I did some comparables research, spent about 30 minutes writing-up an email explaining exactly what he needed to say, and which comparables to use. The item had increased in value since the appraisal was written, and the amount he ended-up getting was $32K. When he explained what I had coached him to say, there was no pushback or resistance from the adjuster - he agreed, and paid out the amount.

The other example was for a neighbour of mine. An elderly woman who I unfortunately learned recently had passed away over the winter. Same deal, she had been lowballed on a personal property claim, and after providing a list of comparables that should have been used instead, the adjuster wrote a cheque in the amount she deserved.

The most egregious of course was a couple who were at a local kids hospital for live saving treatment for their infant son. They were far from home, and used the Ronald McDonald house for a little over half a year. The husband did fly out several times back home, and during one of the visits, noticed their basement had flooded. When he contacted the insurance company, trying to explain they needed to get things returned to a state where it would be safe to have their immune-compromised child back at home, the insurer instead started to find ways to get out of paying, and in a roundabout way told him he wasn't covered. When he told me what was happening, I advised he contacted the Office of the Insurance Ombudsman immediately. A single inquiry from their office resulted in the family being notified by phone, email and every which way possible to not only pay out the claim, but to restore the home in a manner that was safe when their child returned home from treatment.

I won't debate this point further with you because your opinion and experiences seem to be predicated on an insurance industry that is cold and calculated. While this may be true, there is a responsibility to treat people in a dignified and humane manner, and insurers are neither beyond reproach, nor should they ever think they won't be held accountable for their misdeeds.

Edited by comicwiz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, comicwiz said:

I didn't ask you to devise a poicy summary of restrictions and limits. This is a collectibles-based community. People in the wider community include numismatics, original comic art, and CG is mostly comprised of comic book collectors, although there are people here who do cross-collect in areas such as collectible toys that are superhero or publisher related (i.e. Marvel/DC action figures, etc.).

It doesn't matter what the content being insured is. Its all the same regardless. So the fact that most people in here collect comics and I used an example of tools is completely irrelevant. The point I was making is equally relevant regardless of exactly what it is your insuring. 

Quote

For the most part, anything that appreciates in value should be undwritten using replacement cost coverages. In the examples I've explained earlier, one was a client who I'd written an appraisal for, who had been offered a claim payout amount, and he happened to run that number by me just to make sure he wasn't getting screwed. 

People should get replacement cost period, not just for collectibles that appreciate in value. Anyone who gets an actual cash value policy is going to get raped if they ever have a loss and the more time that goes by, the more their going to get raped. Honestly, I don't even understand why people even bother with actual cash value policies given just how much insurances companies depreciate value as the years go by. I have seen people with over $100,000 in losses on contents that wound up with only like $10-12k after the insurance company depreciated their items. Wether an item will appreciate in value should have absolutely no bearing on wether one gets replacement cost over ACV. If your going to get insurance, get replacement cost. That is the single best advice I can give to anyone looking to buy insurance. 

Quote

Contrary to your opinion that he didn't need to because he should have known himself, he did so because his replacement cost coverage was for $26K. However, his item had appreciated in value since the item the appraisal was written.

It doesnt matter if the value of the item in question increased in value. If he didn't increase the appraisal of the item on his insurance policy, he is not going to get full value. For example, if he insured that item at $26,000 and he had its value listed at $26,000 on his insurance policy and he wound up having a loss a few years later and the value of the item was now at $35,000, he will still only get $26,000 unless he updated his insurance policy in regards to the value of that item. Here is a quote taken from Adjusters International:

Quote

The insured must remember, however, that simply endorsing the policy for replacement cost coverage is not sufficient to keep it in line with actual replacement costs; the limits must be increased as well.

As this clearly states, you have to keep the value of the items your insuring updated if you actually want to get replacement cost on items that appreciate in value. If the insured doesn't keep the limits of his policy updated and the value of the individual items being insured updated, then they will only get replacement cost at the value it was initally insured at. 

Quote

The adjuster chose the most disimilar comparable you could imagine - so different in fact, I was confused if he actually knew what the hell he was doing. They offered him less than $18K. It had been over 2 years since I did his appraisal and I knew immediately he had been given a purposely out of context, lowball amount. So I did some comparables research, spent about 30 minutes writing-up an email explaining exactly what he needed to say, and which comparables to use. The item had increased in value since the appraisal was written, and the amount he ended-up getting was $32K. When he explained what I had coached him to say, there was no pushback or resistance from the adjuster - he agreed, and paid out the amount.

Well, that adjuster clearly has absolutely no clue what he is doing and I would be really surprised if he was still working in the field today. First off, if your friend had a replacement cost policy he would have been GUARANTEED the original $26,000 that the item was initially insured for. Insurance companies cannot depreciate items with replacement cost coverage. If they try and do so, you can literally sue them and for a lot more money than the said item is worth. On top of that, he is not supposed to give the insured a larger amount than the item was initially insured for. It is the insured's responsibility to let the insurance company know of any increases of value on the items your insuring. These are exactly the kinds of loop holes insurance companies look for when they don't feel like paying a claim and 99 times out of a 100, they will win in situations like this. Again, it is the insured's responsibility to keep the value of the items being insured updated. I update my policy 2-3 times a year in regards to the value of the items I am insuring as I know this game all too well and I am not giving an insurance company any ammo to use against me.

Quote

The other example was for a neighbour of mine. An elderly woman who I unfortunately learned recently had passed away over the winter. Same deal, she had been lowballed on a personal property claim, and after providing a list of comparables that should have been used instead, the adjuster wrote a cheque in the amount she deserved.

Once again, I openly admitted this happens all the time but as long as you keep all of you receipts, you have proof of ownership (I recommend receipts, taking pictures and keeping any manuals that come with the item), and you have a replacement cost policy with accurate figures in regards to what the items are worth, you will win at the end of the day and if the insurance company puts up a big fight, you can sue them for damages on top of the original claim. Most people don't take the proper steps to prove ownership, which is why insurance companies try and pull this as much as they do, but if you show them that not only do you have all the receipts, but you also have pictures and instruction manuals....well, trust me the check will be in the mail faster than you can say "Holy s*it". 

Quote

The most egregious of course was a couple who were at a local kids hospital for live saving treatment for their infant son. They were far from home, and used the Ronald McDonald house for a little over half a year. The husband did fly out several times back home, and during one of the visits, noticed their basement had flooded. When he contacted the insurance company, trying to explain they needed to get things returned to a state where it would be safe to have their immune-compromised child back at home, the insurer instead started to find ways to get out of paying, and in a roundabout way told him he wasn't covered. When he told me what was happening, I advised he contacted the Office of the Insurance Ombudsman immediately. A single inquiry from their office resulted in the family being notified by phone, email and every which way possible to not only pay out the claim, but to restore the home in a manner that was safe when their child returned home from treatment.

Well, this is a whole different ballgame as flooding is not covered under a lot of homeowners policies especially if its considered an "act of god". So without knowing exactly what policy he had and exactly what caused the flooding, its impossible to assess this situation any further. Most people have to buy separate flood insurance. 

Quote

I won't debate this point further with you because your opinion and experiences seem to be predicated on an insurance industry that is cold and calculated. While this may be true, there is a responsibility to treat people in dignified and humane manner, and insurers are neither beyond reproach, nor should they ever think they won't be held accountable for their misdeeds.

I never said insurers are beyond reproach. What I have been stressing is that you take the proper steps to make sure your properly insured, so the insurance companies CAN'T come back and screw you and believe me, its a LOT easier than some people may think. All you have to do is properly schedule your items, have proof that you owned the items (reciepts, pictures, manuals, and even affidavits from people who knew you owned a particular items) because EVERY insurance company out there will look for a way to weasle out of paying a claim if you didn't follow the proper guidelines and it is VERY EASY to follow those proper guidelines. Most people are just plain lazy in this regard as most just don't think that these kinds of losses will ever happen to them. It barely takes me any time at all because as soon as I get a new Item I immediately take pictures of it, update it on my home inventory system, which I keep multiple copies off site, and I update my policy 2-3 times a year. As long as you do it as you go along, its a piece of cake. If you wait until its just one MASSIVE job that most people would dread even thinking about...well, that just makes it that much less likely those people will do what is necessary and again, the insurance companies are well aware of all of these things. Play the game properly and you have absolutely nothing to worry about. 

Edited by OrangeCrush
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/13/2018 at 4:15 PM, AnkurJ said:

So sorry this happened! Has the frame company accepted any fault or offer to pay for what was damaged?

They did not - they are blaming me saying I took the art back and am trying to run a scam! I've been framing with them for over 10 years. It's a shame.

On 3/13/2018 at 4:33 PM, Mr.Mcknowitall said:

Could you possibly post the voluntary surrender of items to a third party clause in your policy? Also, the accidental breakage clause, if you can.

Any language that states it would not be covered in the framing shop itself would also be of help.

The point being, the policy is read as a whole, not a pick and choose. 

I'll post a copy of the denial letter. I'll scan it. It quotes the policy provisions.

On 3/13/2018 at 5:40 PM, shadroch said:

If this happened to me, I'd be raising hell about the framers. Outing him for any and all to see, calling the BBB and seeing if it were part of a larger company. I'd also contact their landlord. He has a vested interest in seeing his tenants are properly insured.

At worst, filing a case in small claims court. 

What excuse did they give that renders them blameless?

They offered no excuse, and have shifted the blame to me. I've started a lawsuit.

On 3/13/2018 at 6:41 PM, OrangeCrush said:

My mother was the one who ultimately got me to go the rider route

Interesting. I will call my homeowners about this.

On 3/17/2018 at 12:27 PM, BlowUpTheMoon said:

Can you post the video?

I don't have it. A worker at the shop reviewed it. I will request it through court though.

21 minutes ago, Alf Pogs said:

Sorry to hear this. Commissions? Personal art? Silver Age covers?

I am keeping the details private because the case is now in court.

 

Thank you to everyone for all the thoughtful comments. This is an absolute mess and has made me reconsider even wanting to collect anymore. It is sucking the joy right out of it and I am really unhappy over all the additional work/stress this is all causing. That said, it's a necessary evil - insurance - so I will continue to look for a good, fair, honest policy so I can get the stuff I own covered. I'll keep people posted.

Edited by JS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
5 5