Collectible Insurance Services review 5 5

[AnkurJ]

After reading this I asked my framer if he’s insured should anything happens to my art. I was told they’re fully insured in case of catastrophic damage.

[skypinkblu]

On 3/12/2018 at 3:28 PM, shadroch said:

Suppose you consigned these, instead.  You ship them and CIS covers the books or the art in shipping. They arrive and two days later the persons dogs rip them to shreds. Are they covered?

By the way, your collectors policy covers your books, but if you sell extensively on ebay, they may not fully cover your shipping.  The person I spoke to told me there is no exact number that changes a collector into a dealer, but if you are a power seller selling mostly comics, you need a dealers policy . Not a collectors.

I'm not 100% thrilled with CIS. They are giving me problems on a few items from my flood, but overall they have been pretty damn good.

I was told if you sell more than 10% of the amount you list on your policy, you need dealer's insurance. If you are a power seller on eBay you only need to sell $1,000 and 100 items. The items can be 99 at $1 and 1 at $999.00.  So I suppose if you have a $10k policy this would be true, but I think most people have a bit more.

[OrangeCrush]

4 hours ago, JS said:

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.

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

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

Interesting. I will call my homeowners about this.

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

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.

I understand exactly how you feel as that's exactly how I felt after we had our house fire back in 2008 and literally lost everything. After that, I swore I would never collect ever again. And while I did eventually pick collecting back up again, it wasn't until roughly 3 years later and it was buying just a single J. Scott Campbell print on eBay that opened up the flood gate .again. I was just browsing eBay for the fun of it and came across one of Campbell's Aspen prints that I absolutely loved. I figured one print wouldn't hurt so I decided to buy it. Boy was I wrong on that one. As soon as I had that one print in hand....well, it reawakened that crazy collector side in me and I proceeded to spend a LOT of money in the next 12-16 months rebuying many of the collectibles I lost. 

But again, I understand all too well how bad experiences like this can sour your overall opinion on collecting in general. 

Edited March 19, 2018 by OrangeCrush

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

6 hours ago, AnkurJ said:

After reading this I asked my framer if he’s insured should anything happens to my art. I was told they’re fully insured in case of catastrophic damage.

I think you may not be covered.

[OrangeCrush]

56 minutes ago, Mr.Mcknowitall said:

I think you may not be covered.

He should absolutely be covered under the framers insurance. I can pretty much guarantee that the reason they are refusing to accept responsibility is because they don't want to have to claim anything on their insurance as that usually leads to an increase in insurance rates. This is without question the one side of the insurance business that is so blatantly screwed up. People pay for insurance in the hopes that if they have a loss they will be covered, yet if you do actually make a claim you usually wind up having higher insurance premiums. Your basically damned if you do and damned if you don't. 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

8 minutes ago, OrangeCrush said:

He should absolutely be covered under the framers insurance. I can pretty much guarantee that the reason they are refusing to accept responsibility is because they don't want to have to claim anything on their insurance as that usually leads to an increase in insurance rates. This is without question the one side of the insurance business that is so blatantly screwed up. People pay for insurance in the hopes that if they have a loss they will be covered, yet if you do actually make a claim you usually wind up having higher insurance premiums. Your basically damned if you do and damned if you don't. 

OK. Except I don't think you are reading the comment of Ankurj incorrectly. He was simply told they are fully covered in case of catastrophic damage.

I suspect you are replying to the loss under discussion, not the Ankurj post. As a seasoned insurance specialist, I am sure you are aware that the coverage that Ankurj was told means nothing as an answer, and the question arises if the framer he referred to understands what catastrophic means and what an umbrella means and what it covers, or even understood what Ankurj was asking.

But, I am easy. I will go with you being correct.

[comicwiz]

Beyond @Mr.Mcknowitall's point, putting in a claim for damage while in the possession of a third-party requires that third-party to agree they caused the damage.  As in the example I used where CGC destroyed my comic, it was a non-starter because they didn't believe they caused the damage.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

48 minutes ago, comicwiz said:

Beyond @Mr.Mcknowitall's point, putting in a claim for damage while in the possession of a third-party requires that third-party to agree they caused the damage.  As in the example I used where CGC destroyed my comic, it was a non-starter because they didn't believe they caused the damage.

Concur, and the thing about claims is, file and file and file and do it quickly and file with anybody/any entity that has anything to do with or about anything in the chain of possession /or interest in the loss.

The dog ate the homework does not count in the insurance world.

[OrangeCrush]

5 hours ago, Mr.Mcknowitall said:

OK. Except I don't think you are reading the comment of Ankurj incorrectly. He was simply told they are fully covered in case of catastrophic damage.

I suspect you are replying to the loss under discussion, not the Ankurj post. As a seasoned insurance specialist, I am sure you are aware that the coverage that Ankurj was told means nothing as an answer, and the question arises if the framer he referred to understands what catastrophic means and what an umbrella means and what it covers, or even understood what Ankurj was asking.

But, I am easy. I will go with you being correct.

Correct. I was not referring to Ankurj's post.

[justafan]

the insurance business is a legal scheme where there is an inherent conflict of interest I never really understood. You see them being all friendly and talking about being there for you with great customer service when you are signing up. everyone pays in happy to pay the premiums for coverage and hoping to never need it (including the company and shareholders) but should anything ever happen, the customer has piece of mind that they will be covered. then something happens and the insurer either makes it a PITA becoming the antagonist (what happened to being there for you) or they fully pay out the claim and promptly drop you as a customer.  that 1 and done is fine if you plan on never collecting comics again or whatever thing you were insuring but being penalized for using the service that they offered just doesn't seem right.  I get that they are a business trying to make money but therein lies the conflict of interest.

I might as well just pay what I would normally pay in premiums into a CD or stable value fund and withdraw my money when a loss occurs. at least I'll get my premiums back with some interest. 

[lizards2]

5 minutes ago, justafan said:

the insurance business is a legal scheme where there is an inherent conflict of interest I never really understood. You see them being all friendly and talking about being there for you with great customer service when you are signing up. everyone pays in happy to pay the premiums for coverage and hoping to never need it (including the company and shareholders) but should anything ever happen, the customer has piece of mind that they will be covered. then something happens and the insurer either makes it a PITA becoming the antagonist (what happened to being there for you) or they fully pay out the claim and promptly drop you as a customer.  that 1 and done is fine if you plan on never collecting comics again or whatever thing you were insuring but being penalized for using the service that they offered just doesn't seem right.  I get that they are a business trying to make money but therein lies the conflict of interest.

I might as well just pay what I would normally pay in premiums into a CD or stable value fund and withdraw my money when a loss occurs. at least I'll get my premiums back with some interest. 

That has been my experience as well.  The sole exception was USAA insurance.  I'm not sure if they cover collectibles, though.  I'm talking from the homeowner's / car owner's perspective.  If you can qualify for USAA insurance, I would highly recommend them.

[OrangeCrush]

8 hours ago, justafan said:

the insurance business is a legal scheme where there is an inherent conflict of interest I never really understood. You see them being all friendly and talking about being there for you with great customer service when you are signing up. everyone pays in happy to pay the premiums for coverage and hoping to never need it (including the company and shareholders) but should anything ever happen, the customer has piece of mind that they will be covered. then something happens and the insurer either makes it a PITA becoming the antagonist (what happened to being there for you) or they fully pay out the claim and promptly drop you as a customer.  that 1 and done is fine if you plan on never collecting comics again or whatever thing you were insuring but being penalized for using the service that they offered just doesn't seem right.  I get that they are a business trying to make money but therein lies the conflict of interest.

I might as well just pay what I would normally pay in premiums into a CD or stable value fund and withdraw my money when a loss occurs. at least I'll get my premiums back with some interest. 

This was exactly the point I was making a couple posts back. Your damned if you do make a claim and damned if you don't as you will lose money on the items stolen or destroyed. This is without question the most screwed up aspect of the entire insurance industry. To penalize people (raising their insurance premiums) because they had a legitimate loss/claim should be illegal. I saw people that had paid for insurance for 15-20 years without having a single loss/claim and even those people wind up seeing an increase in premiums when they finally do make a claim. Its absurdity at a level that is hard to properly describe in words. The main reason why this has become so prevalent the late 20+ years is because insurance companies have slowly moved from being business's whole main goal was protecting people against losses to being corporate bodies whose main goals is making as much money as possible while still protecting thier customers. That has caused significant increases in insurance premiums the last 20 or so years and IMO is a huge conflict of interest. 

All that being said, taking the route your suggesting, that being putting the money you would have normally paid for insurance premiums and putting that money into CD's or some other kind of stable investment fund should really only be considered a viable option if you just don't deem your collectibles worthy of insuring. For example, people that have very large or small collections that just aren't really valuable or even people that have just a few misc collectibles that are somewhat valuable. Had I taken this kind of approach back in the day, I would have lost over $350,000 in contents alone during the fire we back in 2008. Not to mention the 2 photography losses I had in Rome and Costa Rica, which came out to be $40,000 to $50,000 in those 2 loses  So again, it really depends just how much your insuring and the value of the items your insuring. If I only owned  a couple thousand dollars in various collectibles....well, I would definitely have ben FAR more open to not having insurance at all. Of course, that just isn't the case and I would be a complete wreck every time I left my house if I wasn't properly insure. Again, I sleep like a baby these days knowing full well I am 100% insured with all of my various collectibles. If others feel differently or feel its worth the risk not getting insurance...well, that is entirely up to each individual. And while I personally don't recommend going that route, its not my decision to make. This is a topic that each collector has to decide on their own.

Edited March 20, 2018 by OrangeCrush

[Mayor006]

Not suggesting this for individuals, but a lot of companies self insure up to a certain amount and then get coverage for incidents over that.  So if you have an extra million laying around you can set that aside and then get a policy at a reduced rate for anything above that.

[OrangeCrush]

On 3/20/2018 at 1:37 PM, Mayor006 said:

Not suggesting this for individuals, but a lot of companies self insure up to a certain amount and then get coverage for incidents over that.  So if you have an extra million laying around you can set that aside and then get a policy at a reduced rate for anything above that.

Thats basically what riders are. Most homeowners policies cover up to a certain amount with certain contents like jewerly. Depending on the company, it can be anywhere from $500 to a couple thousand depending on your policy. At that point you get riders to insure specific items above and beyond your standard policy. One of the nice things about riders is you can insure only the items you want to insure. If you don't want to insure something in your house, you don't have too. This allows you to pick and choose just what is and isn't covered and can ultimately help you save some money on your insurance premiums. 

Edited March 21, 2018 by OrangeCrush

[skypinkblu]

2 hours ago, OrangeCrush said:

Thats basically what riders are. Most homeowners policies cover up to a certain amount with certain contents like jewerly. Depending on the company, it can be anywhere from $500 to a couple thousand depending on your policy. At that point you get riders to insure specific items above and beyond your standard policy. One of the nice things about riders is you can insure only the items you want to insure. If you don't want to insure something in your house, you don't have too. This allows you to pick and choose just what is and isn't covered and can ultimately help you save some money on your insurance premiums. 

The problem with a rider is, you most likely will need to get appraisals before you get the insurance or you won't collect if something happened. I had a jewelry rider and I almost got stuck because 1 thing was stolen (in about 15 years of paying premiums) and the person who did the original appraisal was no longer in business.

I called our carriers before I bought collectible insurance. They said I'd need appraisals.  If my books were all cgc maybe they'd take GPA, but mine are not all cgc and GPA changes all the time.

I called a few other places and they all needed professional appraisals, too.  CIA did not, they just want a list (pictures of course if you have them) and a separate list of anything over $5k.

[shadroch]

I've had CIA for years. This is my first claim and so far everything seems okay. All State covered my non-collectible damage and aside from one hiccup, everything went smooth. 

All State wanted crazy money for a rider for my comics. I did have a rider with them  for an original Peter Max thing I own, but I dropped it when I got CIA.

[shadroch]

On ‎3‎/‎18‎/‎2018 at 9:27 PM, AnkurJ said:

After reading this I asked my framer if he’s insured should anything happens to my art. I was told they’re fully insured in case of catastrophic damage.

That's a horrible, non-answer.  Sounds like you are covered if the place burns down. That's good, but what happens if your art is damaged by negligence?

[AnkurJ]

2 hours ago, shadroch said:

That's a horrible, non-answer.  Sounds like you are covered if the place burns down. That's good, but what happens if your art is damaged by negligence?

I don’t believe any insurance policy will cover negligence. I’ve had over 50 pieces framed by them with no issues. For expensive pieces I drop off in the morning and pick up by days end.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

9 hours ago, AnkurJ said:

I don’t believe any insurance policy will cover negligence. I’ve had over 50 pieces framed by them with no issues. For expensive pieces I drop off in the morning and pick up by days end.

As I said earlier, I doubt you are covered. I think it may be helpful for you to discuss with your insurance rep what is meant by negligence in the insurance world, and what is meant by umbrella coverage, and what is meant by catastrophic coverage, and what is menat by liability coverage, and, BTW what is meant by transport coverage (auto) and what is or is not covered when there is a blip in the road and your expensive pieces don't quite get to the drop off point, coming or going.

When you drop off something and when you pick it up does not have anything to do with the issue. It is what happens before and in between and after that counts, and who is on the hook when bad stuff happens.

[lizards2]

1 hour ago, Mr.Mcknowitall said:

10 hours ago, AnkurJ said:

I don’t believe any insurance policy will cover negligence. I’ve had over 50 pieces framed by them with no issues. For expensive pieces I drop off in the morning and pick up by days end.

As I said earlier, I doubt you are covered. I think it may be helpful for you to discuss with your insurance rep what is meant by negligence in the insurance world, and what is meant by umbrella coverage, and what is meant by catastrophic coverage, and what is menat by liability coverage, and, BTW what is meant by transport coverage (auto) and what is or is not covered when there is a blip in the road and your expensive pieces don't quite get to the drop off point, coming or going.

When you drop off something and when you pick it up does not have anything to do with the issue. It is what happens before and in between and after that counts, and who is on the hook when bad stuff happens.

greens fees > coverage