Insurance??

[daz]

So, having spent a minor fortune on your kit - do you have it insured separately, if so who with, and is it worth it?

Its something I've been considering but wondered if the standard H&C was sufficient, with perhaps a tweak with taking the stuff to star parties and the like?

Opinions and recommendations .....

[Grant]

I'm also interested in this! We have about a million locks and alarms on everything but insurance would also be good!

[James]

Ditto... I asked our contents insurance provider about my astro kit and they claimed that it was covered in my back garden (still within the curtilage of the property) but not covered anywhere else. I don't actually believe what the person said and am investigating further hence I won't name any names.

I'd love to hear if anyone is covered...

James

[centroid]

If like me, your gear is installed in an obsy, then adequate insurance cover is a big problem.

Because, like a garage or garden shed, its classed as an outbuilding, insurance companies impose a limit on how much insurance cover they will provide.

My previous insurers, set a maximum of £1500, whereas with my current insurers it £2000. Still nowhere near enough, but better than nothing.

Although the obsy, is about a secure as I can make it (good quality locks, alarm system and video surveillance), I never leave cameras, eyepieces and other easily carried items in the obsy. When indoors, these items are fully covered by insurance.

My photographic gear is also insured under my household contents insurance, as 'all risks' whether at home or away from home.

[beamish]

ditto ditto

Karlo

Is it possible that a "preferred" insurer might become a sponsor ? My wife keeps asking me if it's covered by H&C but then I'd have to come clean re amount of cash I've spent. :whip2:

[Greg]

My stuff is covered by Churchill on the house contents insurance..

When I clarified this with them they asked me to specify if any single item was over £3000, as no single item is I still made them specify this on the policy that I have all this kit on my policy..

It may change when the observatory is up and running.

[Whippy]

Actually this is something I'm going to investigate with our current home insurers (Churchill) as I've given a posh refractor a cosy home, I want to make sure it stays here.

Tony..

[GazOC]

I'm glad this has been asked. I've often thought would my insurance company believe me if I claimed for £3000 of astro gear when my shed got broken into!!

[Naz]

I dropped a laptop on the drive to my house, still on my property. Insurance Co. wouldn't cover it, said ok in the house, in the car, off the property, but as it wasn't specified as a "garden furniture or equipment" not covered

went to another company who covered it everywhere.

naz

[FLO]

Perhaps I am odd but I don't believe in contents insurance. Better I think to invest whatever you would pay into a monthly savings account then use it to replace whatever needs replacing if/when. I've done that for years and it works for me.

[GazOC]

I'm just afraid of that one 'big hit', plus the fact I havn't got the discipline to put the money away each month....

[Albireo380]

You might want to try www.gloverhowe.co.uk/

Glover & Howe Insurance cover amateurs and professionals on photographic and astronomy equipment. One of my friends all his kit (£4K)insured through them, and I am seriously considering doing the same. He has never made a claim yet - but he does seem relaxed about using his kit at public events - which I am not (the thought of a Kid's sticky finger poked down the barrel of my Nagler gives me nightmares).

Tom

[Stardust]

the thought of a Kid's sticky finger poked down the barrel of my Nagler gives me nightmares).

Tom

I have this picture in my head of a very enthusiastic child complete with candyfloss and a toffee apple running towards your scope. Best you wake up before he gets there!

Dave

[Greg]

I have this picture in my head of a very enthusiastic child complete with candyfloss and a toffee apple running towards your scope. Best you wake up before he gets there!

Dave,

You should of been at the South West Astro Fair last month..Whilst Steve was "Networking" In the tent I put up the SN10 on a HEQ5 Pro for an evening demo of the night sky..

Problem was it was a public open evening at the observatory and there was a local folk festival going on near by..All I can say is that I was very nervous of the little urchins running around with bags of food and torches flashing everywhere...

And lots of "Hello Mr. What can you see with that" And "What does this bit do???"

All I can say is that it all had a very good clean the following day...

Steve does a very good body guard impression when the good stuff comes out...Not quite Jason Bourne but good enough

Greg

[Stormwatch]

Steve/FLO's idea is a pretty good one, although it will take a while to accumulate enough to cover any theft.

I have a few expensive items in my house, other than scopes, I wouldn't want nicked (guitars mainly) and my insurance company covers them within the normal home insurance as long as any one item isn't too expensive (like a grand or so).

I hope that's enough.

I suppose taking a regular inventory, and passing it onto the insurers should suffice....?

[mike bacanin]

I always checked my policy for the maximum cover on a single item. if my scope was valued new at more, or i also needed cover away from home , i simply specified the item as an all risks item. obviously it loads the premium but you get the peace of mind.

i did this for example BEFORE i collected a new TMB 130 from telescope house 18 months ago, so if it got damaged on the way home it was fully covered!

[daz]

Thanks everyone for your input.

I have sent a message to the people that Tom suggested and await their reply. I did mention the fact that we have a large membership that might also be interested

Will keep you posted

[Whippy]

Nice one Daz . Keep us informed sire.

Tony..

[iapa]

On 03/09/2007 at 10:40, daz said:

Thanks everyone for your input.

I have sent a message to the people that Tom suggested and await their reply. I did mention the fact that we have a large membership that might also be interested

Will keep you posted

Old thread - but, it seems to have died, with potential for being very useful.

Did anything come of it?

FWIW My home insurance covered cost of repair/replacement to mount, 'scope, DSLR and other other kit following an incident - away from home.

[ollypenrice]

On 01/09/2007 at 19:56, Stardust said:

the thought of a Kid's sticky finger poked down the barrel of my Nagler gives me nightmares).

Tom

I have this picture in my head of a very enthusiastic child complete with candyfloss and a toffee apple running towards your scope. Best you wake up before he gets there!

Dave

You are worrying about nothing. The EP would clean up perfectly. If a kid poked a nail down it... but would they??

On 01/09/2007 at 01:25, FLO said:

Perhaps I am odd but I don't believe in contents insurance. Better I think to invest whatever you would pay into a monthly savings account then use it to replace whatever needs replacing if/when. I've done that for years and it works for me.

Good thinking. The insurance company not only needs to make a profit out of you but also has the right to wriggle out of what you might think it owes you. Living in rural France I have all my insurance (three cars, a house, a caravan) with one firm and, quite honestly, what I am paying is insane. Where the risks involve the unlikely but possible vast claim (I disable a brain surgeon, my house falls down) it makes sense but for smaller claims why not' insure yourself?'

Olly

[noah4x4]

I am a retired "Chartered Insurer" (ACII), so I am qualified to offer the broad (UK) answer that "it depends on your type of household contents policy". Sorry if that isn't too helpful, but it is just our base point. The same guidance might typically apply to expensive jewellery; musical instruments, camera equipment; fishing tackle and other hobby items used beyond the boundary of the property etc.

The cheapest policies typically cover only 'fire and special perils' (e.g. like 'earthquake, storm, flood') plus malicious damage and theft whilst the equipment is located INDOORS in the secure main building.  If you simply drop your OTA or favoured Ethos EP then no cover. Some limited cover (such as fire only) might embrace the contents of any insecure outbuildings (such as an observatory), but theft might be excluded. Beyond the boundary of the property then strictly no cover. I suggest such policies are unwise unless others are unaffordable. But what did you expect if you buy the cheapest household contents insurance deals?

Some better, but inevitably more expensive policies cover "accidental damage" to contents and personal effects. But that too might again be limited to the confines of the property boundary when it is occupied, which might therefore exclude an insecure outbuilding when unoccupied. There might also be an 'excess' that will exclude trivial claims. This level of cover might be suitable for those that never travel to dark sky sites, observe only from home, and keep their kit securely indoors. But it should cover you if your dog crashed into your telescope on the premises and wrote off its OTA, mount and tripod. 

What is ideally required is "All Risks" cover to include personal effects that embraces accidental damage and/or theft incurred on or OFF the premises. Inevitably, such cover is THE most expensive (but is usually less than buying specialist optical instrument cover). Here, UNSPECIFIED amateur astronomical equipment might typically be covered subject to an 'any one item' limit, albeit possibly subject to an 'excess'.  Hence with this type of household contents policy, you should NOT need a specialist optical instruments policy unless your equipment is particularly expensive. 

I do stress as the former Head of Marketing of a major Insurer that  product providers don't "wriggle out of legitimate claims". The publicity is too damaging and the Ombudsman tends to rule heavily in favour of the customer. The biggest problem is arguably that customers often don't properly read and understand what product options they have purchased, notably regarding Internet purchases, despite award winning descriptions in "plain English". So take your time,  seek proper advice, get the right level of cover.

I am unable to recommend any specific Insurer due the current regulatory restrictions and authorisation requirements. But most of the big brand home  insurers generally offer these three tiers. But some now refuse to offer any other than the "All Risks" product despite it being the most expensive. The reason being that it does, at least guarantee customer satisfaction. But I suspect that a majority of SGL members have this . Your best bet in case of doubt is consult an authorised Insurance Broker. Do beware of buying the cheapest covers over the Internet.

[RichM63]

I've checked Olly's reply above to ensure that I am not adding to a long dead thread.

I too have similar insurance to him and it drives me 'nuts' that I can't persuade the insurance company that despite my many talents "I can't drive all my cars at the same time".

The 'driver' has the accident not the 'car'! I know why insurance companies don't listen to my arguments and can understand how a one owner group car policy could be abused, but why should I be compelled to pay for criminals?

 

[iapa]

1 hour ago, noah4x4 said:

I am a retired "Chartered Insurer" (ACII), so I am qualified to offer the broad (UK) answer that "it depends on your type of household contents policy". Sorry if that isn't too helpful, but it is just our base point. The same guidance might typically apply to expensive jewellery; musical instruments, camera equipment; fishing tackle and other hobby items used beyond the boundary of the property etc.

The cheapest policies typically cover only 'fire and special perils' (e.g. like 'earthquake, storm, flood') plus malicious damage and theft whilst the equipment is located INDOORS in the secure main building.  If you simply drop your OTA or favoured Ethos EP then no cover. Some limited cover (such as fire only) might embrace the contents of any insecure outbuildings (such as an observatory), but theft might be excluded. Beyond the boundary of the property then strictly no cover. I suggest such policies are unwise unless others are unaffordable. But what did you expect if you buy the cheapest household contents insurance deals?

Some better, but inevitably more expensive policies cover "accidental damage" to contents and personal effects. But that too might again be limited to the confines of the property boundary when it is occupied, which might therefore exclude an insecure outbuilding when unoccupied. There might also be an 'excess' that will exclude trivial claims. This level of cover might be suitable for those that never travel to dark sky sites, observe only from home, and keep their kit securely indoors. But it should cover you if your dog crashed into your telescope on the premises and wrote off its OTA, mount and tripod. 

What is ideally required is "All Risks" cover to include personal effects that embraces accidental damage and/or theft incurred on or OFF the premises. Inevitably, such cover is THE most expensive (but is usually less than buying specialist optical instrument cover). Here, UNSPECIFIED amateur astronomical equipment might typically be covered subject to an 'any one item' limit, albeit possibly subject to an 'excess'.  Hence with this type of household contents policy, you should NOT need a specialist optical instruments policy unless your equipment is particularly expensive. 

I do stress as the former Head of Marketing of a major Insurer that  product providers don't "wriggle out of legitimate claims". The publicity is too damaging and the Ombudsman tends to rule heavily in favour of the customer. The biggest problem is arguably that customers often don't properly read and understand what product options they have purchased, notably regarding Internet purchases, despite award winning descriptions in "plain English". So take your time,  seek proper advice, get the right level of cover.

I am unable to recommend any specific Insurer due the current regulatory restrictions and authorisation requirements. But most of the big brand home  insurers generally offer these three tiers. But some now refuse to offer any other than the "All Risks" product despite it being the most expensive. The reason being that it does, at least guarantee customer satisfaction. But I suspect that a majority of SGL members have this . Your best bet in case of doubt is consult an authorised Insurance Broker. Do beware of buying the cheapest covers over the Internet.

I am looking forward to the time that your retirement has been for the requisite time that you are able to offer us the benefit of your in depth knowledge of insurance products.

but, the way legislation around insurance change annually I am not holding my breath

????

 

[noah4x4]

41 minutes ago, RichM63 said:

I've checked Olly's reply above to ensure that I am not adding to a long dead thread.

I too have similar insurance to him and it drives me 'nuts' that I can't persuade the insurance company that despite my many talents "I can't drive all my cars at the same time".

The 'driver' has the accident not the 'car'! I know why insurance companies don't listen to my arguments and can understand how a one owner group car policy could be abused, but why should I be compelled to pay for criminals?

 

I can see your argument that you can only ever drive one car at once. But have you considered that there are here two types of risk,  'road risk' and 'parked risk'. Admittedly the former is typically the more serious and the prospect of third party damage or an expensive injury claim is far more likely. But one of the last incidents that I dealt with before my retirement was where an arsonist (never caught) had torched a whole fleet of family cars and there was personal injury when the owners tried to extinguish this fire . In another, a building collapse had crushed three family cars when two of the main driver/owners were not even in the country, hence the vehicle (not they) needed to be the focus of the insurance. So even if you car is not being driven, it is exposed to some risks.

To some extent, insurers have recently developed " multi-car" discounts to accomodate  where there are a number of vehicles in the same household and the premium rating for these policies do recognise that not all will be on the road at the same time. But other than professional drivers ( that pay more for business covers) few cars actually spend much time on the road being driven. They are more likely to be parked, and if in a secure  garage that too may attract a discount. Some insurers offer discounts for low mileage. Some offer tachograph type tracking and discounts for low and careful driving.  I don't think it fair to suggest that insurers are not conscious of these situations or severe price competition. 

But what insurers will never offer to the general public is the sort of motor traders "we drive any car" type policy that you propose with the insurance relating to the driver and unspecified vehicles. At one time,  they offered 'open certificates' without stated registration numbers.  The levels of fraud that resulted which then inevitably cost ordinary policyholders more was astonishing. 

[noah4x4]

3 minutes ago, iapa said:

I am looking forward to the time that your retirement has been for the requisite time that you are able to offer us the benefit of your in depth knowledge of insurance products.

but, the way legislation around insurance change annually I am not holding my breath

????

 

It will NEVER happen. I can informally offer generic information about (say) the  types of cover that MIGHT be available via a forum such as this, but I am strictly prohibited by law from  providing specific advice;  such as recommending any specific insurance policy or any specific Insurer to anybody where my past qualifications might lead them to make an informed purchase decision. I would need to again get formally registered and authorised under the prevailing regulatory regime to do so. It's very sensible really, as at least you are assured  that anybody you actually buy a policy from must be authorised and regulated and governed by the proper customer disclosure of terms and conditions etc. But if the public then don't read what they download from the Internet......